Jump to content

Talk:Lex Luthor/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Superfriends

how come there is no reference to Luthor's character from Superfriends in the Animated DC Universe section? I don't know anything about it or I would add it, but that version and his Legion of Doom is pretty noteworthy.

Uncategotized comment

Regarding the 'minor subplots' described under Luthor's 'current' character history: When compared to the lengthy history of this character, who has existed since the 1940s, then such things as 'losing a hand to cancer' are just minor incidents in the character's history. They don't make any permanent changes to the character, and the character of Luthor is essentially the same. After all, Superman has lost his powers and regained them a number of times; he's changed costumes then returned to normal; he split up from Lois, then came back to her. None of these are "permanent" changes to his character, the way his marriage was. In the fictional world of DC comics, things like Luthor's "cloning a new body" are just ongoing subplots and they don't make any major changes to Lex Luthor's character: an evil man who tries to kill Superman again and again. Thus, I feel that they are essentially a waste of space in the Wikipedia description.

It could be argued that this instance of Luthor returning from death is more significant because "Lex Luthor II", in story context, functioned as an essentially new character for the purpose of interaction with other characters. Even when readers were let in on the secret that Lex Luthor II was actually Lex in a cloned body (after being teased with the possibility that Lex II was a genuine heir), most of the principle characters in the Superman supporting cast believed Lex II to be a different character and treated him as such until the truth was revealed to all, and Lex II was one of the supporting characters who rose to greater story prominence in Superman's absence during the "Funeral for a Friend"/"World Without a Superman" stories. Also, this was part of a long chain of significant changes to the post-Crisis Luthor:
  • loss of a hand leading to bodywide cancer
  • apparent death after his criminal activities were revealed
  • secret return as Lex II
  • vegetative state due to clone disease
  • restoration of body and reputation
  • President Lex
  • etc., etc.
And finally, Lex's cancer from Kryptonite is also notable for the change in Kryptonite's effects post-Crisis, whereas pre-Crisis, green K would only effect Kryptonians. This change continues to be referenced today (see a recent Nightwing issue where Nightwing's revelation to the current Ravager that her Kryptonite eye was radioactive and carcinogenic led to Ravager breaking ties with her father, Deathstroke the Terminator), and is significant enough to warrant mention for that reason. -- Pennyforth 00:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia has lots of space. :) I can't say much about the relative importance of the two deaths mentioned in the article, but I do know that the loss of his hand is not insignificant; in an episode of Smallville there was recently a pregognitive vision of Lex's future, and one of his hands was covered by a black glove in it. I, myself, knew about the lost hand due to kryptonite even though I don't think I've read an actual Superman comic in a decade or more. I think it's best to leave the information in if it's not actively incorrect or misleading. Bryan Derksen
The more detail the better. My 2 cents. --KQ

More emphasis on the historical aspect of the character than merely the current incarnation seen in today's comics is good, since it is still a relatively recent "retcon". kaijan

Alot of people don't know this, but the post-Crisis Luthor was one of the inspirations for the Cigarette Smoking Man from The X-Files. The XF producers have stated (in TVGUIDE, among other publications) that the CSM biography ep (Musings of a Cigarette Smoking Man) was inspired by the graphic novel "Lex Luthor: The Unauthorized Biography." So I'm thinking someone should work that info in somewhere, as a previous stater said, there is a lot of space. Simon Beavis


I'm just adding my comment in this other guys commentary because I don't know how to do this: "Perhaps one of the smartest men living, Luthor is nonetheless regarded as Superman's archenemy" should be changed to "Perhaps one of the smartest men living, Luthor is regarded as Superman's archenemy" because both being intelligent and superman's archnemesis are indicators of greatness/importance. Nonetheless is only used when the conclusion runs contrary to assumptions made by the premise. Another possible reworking would be, "Although he posseses no metahuman abilities, Lex Luthor's genius level intellect gives him the power necessary to hold the position of Superman's archnemesis." I just made that up so it sucks but you get the idea.

............................................................................... "In the 1990s television series Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman, Luthor was shown as an evil businessman for the first time in other media"

Wrong. The late 1980's Superman cartoon (considered by some as among the best pre-BTAS adaptations) featured the white collar crime version of Luthor before that show came out.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0213370/

Michael Bell voiced Luthor.

Should we divide "modern luthor"?

It seems there are various subplots that need to be split such as the brain transplant and President Lex. I also think that Bryne's orgin should no longer be in this category after the Birthright retcon.

I suggest holding off on dividing the "Modern Luthor" section until we know more about the changes coming out of Infinite Crisis. Right now we've got two Luthors running around in the DCU, one of whom is acting like the Byrne/Wolfman Luthor (but is apparently not native to the the current mainline universe), and one who is acting like the Earth-1 Luthor (complete with battlesuit), but who apparently is the Luthor from the main universe. It seems likely that there will be a new status quo after Infinite Crisis is over, which may also clarify the various changes Luthor's undergone since Crisis on Infinite Earths. Once that's been revealed, we can straighten out the tangled history in this article. Sound good? —Josiah Rowe 18:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

This page reconciles Birthright and Lex Luthor: Man of Steel with the rest of Modern Luthor's history.[1] —Simon Beavis 11 December 2005

Isn't Birthright mostly out of continuity now? Like for instance Ma and Pa Kent are old timers again even when Clark is a child and it lists Kandor as having been shrunk by Coluan technology and it being held by Tolos till Superman stole it back. Besides fact is Luthor is heading back to the mad scientist roots after Infinite Crisis?


In the opening paragraph "having served" should be changed to "serving." So far about 50 percent of the sentences have gramatical errors. Cleanup?

Modern Luthor

Should this be changed? "By the late 1990s he had become a power-broker in the mold of the Cigarette Smoking Man, although this was not what Byrne or Wolfman had intended." I don't know anything about X-Files, so how should I know what this means? Shouldn't it be more descriptive instead of making the reader do more research on the subject? AriGold 21:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The post-Crisis Lex IS that type of character, so there SHOULD be a Cigarette Smoking Man reference Note my earlier comment about Lex Luthor: The Unauthorized Biography inspiring the Cigarette Smoking Man biography episode. Simon Beavis 8 December 2005

Ari's point is that he didn't know anything about CSM, so the comparison wasn't helpful or meaningful to him. I've tried to flesh it out a bit. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Exactly, Josiah. My point wasn't that the description wasn't accurate, it's that it is not helpful to anyone who doesn't know anything about the X-Files, which is a lot of people. It seems like a very useless comparison to me, for that very reason. I think it should be removed. AriGold 14:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
CSM is every bit of a pop culture icon as Darth Vader or Mr. Spock. Blue Öyster Cult call their keyboardist "the Cigarette Smoking Man of the band". It IS a viable comparison, if it works for BOC, then it works for this page. It was on there for months with nobody else having a problem with it. And in any case, the entire modern Luthor section needs to be changed, to better fit with the biographical data provided in DC's Secret Files website. Simon Beavis 17:58, 13 December 2005
If a majority of the people in the world know who the CSM is in 2025 (approximately 30 years after he first became known), then I might concede that he is "every bit of a pop culture icon as Darth Vader or Mr. Spock". Those two characters are a little out of CSM's league, imho. If I was to ask most people in their 20-30s who CSM was, they'd probably know. If I went to the 40-50 year olds, it's less likely but some would certainly still know. If I start asking grandparents, I think I'd get a lot of blank stares. But everyone knows who Darth Vader is (the character named the third greatest villian in movie history by the AFI behind only Hannibal Lector and Norman Bates). Anyway, this is not an attack on the popularity on CSM or Xfiles, which I am guessing you are a big fan of. My point is that when you draw a comparison between Luthor and someone/something, it should be something much more universal than a character on a cult tv show. It may have been on there for months, but that doesn't make it appropriate. New users join wikipedia every day with different insight and many articles don't get read for a long time. I agree that it needs to be changed like you said. AriGold 14:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Blue-eyed Luthor/Green-eyed Luthor

Upon closer inspection, the Luthor seen in Birthright and Lex Luthor: Man of Steel has blue eyes. Simon Beavis 10 December 2005

Alexander Luthor's motives

I've edited the sentences about Alex Luthor, Jr. attempting to bring back Earth-Three and/or the multiverse, because his exact purpose isn't clear yet. It clearly has something to do with undoing the events of Crisis on Infinite Earths, but he could be trying to bring back the entire multiverse or any one of its constituent Earths, or even restarting the Earth again on lines of his own choosing. We'll know more when future issues come out. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I changed the listing in Afiliations from "Secret Society" to "None" as it turns out it was not "our" Luthor who was in it. Also i think the purpose of the machine shown at the end of Infinite Crisis # 3 is to (Cue dramatic music,) RESURECT THE ANTI-MONITOR!!! Seriously, i do. Alex Luthor is just telling Earth Two Superman what he wants to hear. Alex might also have had a hand in orchestrating the actions of Maxwell Lord, but that's for another time.

Alexander's goal is to find the perfect Earth. Chris Griswold 01:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Lena Luthor

The info box says Lena (the current, infant daughter version) is "deceased". Is this right? Daibhid C 13:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I was wonder about that, too. Seems odd and i couldn't find anything mentioning her death in the article. Ace Class Shadow 02:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed this:

Interestingly enough, Luthor is depicted in [the animated Supermn series of the 1990s and 2000s] as vaguely African-American, when his character had been unmistakenly Caucasian in all previous incarnations.

Big lips does not equal African-American. Luthor is voiced by a white man. If they really wanted to make him black, they'd have gone all the way. It's someone's opinion that he looks black, being stated as fact. Where have the shows' creators stated that Luthor was black (or even partially so?)--FuriousFreddy 17:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

What the creators actually meant for luthor to look greek. the problem is that some people have for some reason felt that this is misinterpted by some people.-user 23

The commentary on the first season DVD said he was based on Tele Savalas. --Talison 05:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Juniper Lee

My impression of the Juniper Lee episode was that she just called him "Lex Luthor" as a joke. I believe that was the only time the name was mentioned during the episode, and there was no indication of how she might have learned the man's name.

Ah. That makes sense. Ace Class Shadow 02:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Infobox picture

Okay. Now Lexie-boy really looks black! And kind of elfish. Could we maybe just get a simple full body image of him in one of his business suits? The Anti-Gnome 03:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

If you mean the gold-colored Luthor picture (which I moved down the page), well, would agree not an ideal shot of Lex... thus, moved the picture I uploaded a few days ago back. I could try scanning in a full-body shot of Lex from somewhere (soon as I find a suitable one)... Anthony Dean 12:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Instead of putting up a new picture (didn't find a suitable full-body business-suit image), I switched pictures instead---agree the infobox picture shouldn't be something gold-and-black colored as previously shown. Also feel that there's room on the page for comic cover/panel images from *besides* just one person (almost all the comic panel/cover images are from DrBat, with said images of DrBat's exclusively taken from other web pages and some of them not given proper copyright tagging), especially if they own or have access to a scanner and can scan in comic panels/covers (thus providing some image diversity)... Anthony Dean 00:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
What's the point of having the image of him w/the Contessa in the SHB box? And yes, I did upload most of the images; the article had little to no images before I added them. Furthermore, there's nothing wrong with adding images from other sites as long as it's sourced and it's not a copyvio. The VU image is also better for the main SHB pic than one of him with the Contessa, which is better suited for the Love and Marriage section. --DrBat 00:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you did upload most ofthe images, but you also deleted completely from the page the image I put up, instead of just moving mine down the page into the One Year Later-related info or something, and also gave rather dubious reasons given for doing so (think both your images and mine are of OK quality/not overly "sketchy"). For the record, this is something I've also seen you engage in in a few other comic character pages (especially if it's put in the infobox) on Wikipedia. While I still prefer a full-color solo picture of Lex in the infobox (vs. the VU one or even the one w/the Contessa), will leave it alone for now/let others comment... Anthony Dean 00:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Sketchy, as in grainy. The image is very grainy. And I did move your image to the OYL section. --DrBat 00:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Big white box

Can't we crop out that huge white box in the corner of the pic Exvicious 20:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Minor Smallville edits.

I changed Lex being caught up in the explosion that brought Kal-El (Clark) to earth, to focus more on the meteor shower. It's an important distingision. The explosion officially happened on Krpyton (of both the rocket and planet). If he was hit by the ship it would be the "impact", not explosion. However it's very clearly not, as if it was Lionel would easily be able to follow it and find the Kent's truck and the ship but it appears they are no where near the official crash site. Instead in "Smallville" it's a meteor strike that hits, while he's also standing near the current "scarecrow" of the school who comes back during the first season with "powers".--Kinglink 04:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Notable Relatives

Clarification is needed on what makes a relative "notable." Some anonIP is pointing to a section of a Comics Project talk page where 2 people say notable means that the relative has to have their own article. I'm looking at the parameters set out on that same talk page which says a regular character is notable. At the very least, these three (Elizabeth Perske (wife, divorced), Contessa Erica Alexandra del Portenza (wife, presumed deceased), Perry J. "Jerry" White Jr. (son, deceased)) have been regulars in the DC Universe and I feel should be included even if they don't have their own articles yet. Can we get another opinion? CovenantD 17:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

All three of those are notable. Perske was a supporting character to Supergirl. --Chris Griswold 18:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


Trivia

Luthor was one of only three comic book villains to appear in a serial (the others including the Mask in Spy Smasher and Leska/Laska from Blackhawk#31 in Blackhawk).

Luthor is also one of the few comic book villains to be a title character in a film, since he was the Atom Man in the serial. The others are the Joker in Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker, and somewhat afield, Golgo 13, Diabolik, and Dracula (in the Japanese cartoon based on Tomb of Dracula).

Luthor, along with the Joker and ironically the now largely forgotten Duke of Deception, was also one of the few villains to appear continously from the 1940's to the 1960's.

Enda80 23:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)Enda80

52

Can someone add some info from 52 (ie, him using Alex's body to clear himself of his crimes?) --DrBat 00:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. I kept is short so there's room for more as it unfolds. CovenantD 01:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how come it's not reasonable to add that for about 2 weeks Luthor had super-powers. Isn't it reasonable to add he formerly had most of Superman's powers even if it wasn't permenant people probably want to know that. February 17

Page Format needed

Overall this is a great article, but something happened during the formating and it needs repaired. I don't know enough about wiki-formating, but someone that does really needs to fix this page Tovias 19:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)Tovias

GA status

Im sorry, but this article simply doesn't meet the criteria for a GA right now; no references are listed at the bottom, and I think I only saw one or two hyperlinks, which I doubt cover the entire article. Yes, the pictures are nice, and sure, most of the information sounds plausible, but that just isn't enough im afraid. Furthermore, I recognize that Luthor certainly deserves a thorough explanation, but not this thorough, surely there must be some paragraphs of detail which can be shortened and information maybe referenced from the Crisis on Infinite Earths article, you could probably get away with heavily shortening the smallville section, and really, im sure there's more that could be done, but it might take me hours to figure it all out :/. I'll give you this, the page history does appear to be heavy in vandalism, it's possible that anons have been adding in all this extraneous information over some period of time. Maybe try to look up a revision that's not so....detailed? Homestarmy 05:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Luthor is still just like Hackman and Stuff

i'm going to change some stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.58.37 (talk) at 19:25, July 21, 2006

No offense, but I'd rather you not. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 23:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Avatar?

He's been added to the category. Avatar of what? Is the editor referring to Smallville, and Zod? ~ZytheTalk to me! 15:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Move Smallville section?

Not to butt in, but if length is a problem, has anyone thought of moving the section on Smallville Lex to a seperate artice? It would be much less clunky. I'd do it myself, but I figured I'd discuss it first. ---User:Johnnyfog

I think both the DCAU and the Smallville sections would make excellent articles on their own. In bot contexts Luthor is one of the most developed characters and could easyly take more paragraphs to cover. Go for it!--The Judge 11:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I have finished a beta page of sorts and moved it all. Hopefully it will evolve into a better article, but for now I must admit the change feels awkward! ---User:Johnnyfog Sept 10 2006

I've place a merge to merge it back in. It's lengthy because there is a lot of fanboy information in there, and a lot of "in-universe" writing, that shouldn't be there. There are ways to write about a fictional character. This was an issue on the Brainiac page, where the James Marsters version had a larger section than some of the comic book versions, which is odd since they've been around for longer than this version. Batman doesn't have multiple character pages, and he's appeared in various mediums. There's a main article, and then a page of "Batman in other media", but not separate pages for each different incarnation. Bignole 02:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
The Lex Smallville article i modeled after the Buffy character pages. I don't agree that there is any fanboy information in it, and the article is not even that long. You might as well call for the deletion of the Smallville article, since it won't fit in this one. You should leave it alone and forget about it. Johnnyfog 06:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Read it again, please. The entire article is written in a pure "in-universe" format. There is almost (and I didn't read everything word for word) no "out-of-universe" information. The articles goes into personality qualites, as if the author knew him personally. That's fanboy speculation. There's no source backing it up, it's being based on an interpretation of what the author saw for themself. Bignole 11:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The Double-L Characters

I just went to the Lex Luthor page, and it lists most of the double-L (LL) characters. ie: Lona Lang, Lois Lane, etc.. It's not really Superman comics, but in the Smallville show Lex's dad is called Lionel Luthor; I thought he could be added here (with a note that stating 'all though it is not Superman comics, Lex's father on Smallville is named Lionel, and also fits in this category'), but don't feel confident enough to change this myself. jimmyThePipe 5:25, 6 October 2006

Superfriends Luthor

Luthor was the head of the legion of doom on Super Friends right? Shouldn't that be included in an entry? User:Johnnyfog

Superboy

Someone feel free to correct me, but Superman, Wonder Woman, and Batman never informed Luthor of Superboy's death, nor did he go berzerk. In JLA #0, while viewing multiple "possible timelines" (apparently), there is a scene with Luthor screaming at them about his son, if I recall correctly, but that is not in continuity and is merely a possible future. I haven't removed it from the article because I guess it's possible it happened in some issue I missed yet, but if someone knows for sure either way, that'd be good. User:KyleLitke

Survey

On merging and straw polls:

  • There are times when the distinction between a DC Comics character and one of their Pre-Crisis counterparts is definitive and long-lasting (e.g.: Superman and Superman (Kal-L), warranting the need for more than one article. However, in most cases, the difference is blurry to the point when it's up to each reader or creator to forge their specific interpretation about the validity of the story when talking about a specific version of the character. "Lex Luthor (Earth-One)", "Robin (Earth-Two) and "Wonder Woman (Earth-Two)" are many among the latter cases. Inevitably, this leads to several bad things for the quality of the articles, including but not limited to: 1 - There is an extreme redundancy when one takes into the account the existance of a "Pre-Crisis" or "Earth-Two" section in the original article. 2 - Most splinter articles, unlike their "parents", are written - against Wikipedia policy - in mostly in-universe style, with barely a mention of the fictional context. 3 - Finally, the splinter articles are often created and then immediately orphaned for a long time, left with information which applies only to the original article from which most of the information was copied from (and when the appropiate information is included, it's basically three sentences which already were in the parent article). Nothing against you personally, User:Netkinetic, but I believe you're taking a suggestion that was made pertaining to a few specific characters to the extreme. There is an enourmous in-universe bias in your work (though I do not deny your good faith). Sometimes the "they're different people!" argument doesn't apply, specially when they WEREN'T different people for years, and when the divergences can be counted with one hand. --Ace ETP 03:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The argument for establishing articles for separate and distinct characters, as set for in an in-universe perspective by stories published, and as set for in an out-of-universe perspective by editorial decree of the publisher of said characters, seems to be clear. If comic professionals felt the need to partition one character into two or several, than this should be the final authority as to if said character has merit. Some entries will seem unworthy of their own entry due to impact, and some believe said entries had profound impact. Who is to judge which is and which isn't impactful? Since we are each coming from a different point of view, this can cause divergent opinions on the validity of this character or that, leading to endless debates on (potentially) thousands of current and future entries. Should what the publisher has said editorially and has written in their publications be the deciding factor, to break the impasse. When did we as Wikipedians decide that WE know more than the creators of the contents we are simply summarizing?NetK 01:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I think that Lex Luthor (Earth One) should be merged back into the main article. We're not talking Kal-L here; I don't think the Earth One-Luthor is significant enough to warrant his own article.--DrBat 02:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the article as a whole better depicts the evolution of the character. --Semidelicious 02:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
The article is too sparse, and most of the information exists already in succint paragraphs on the orginial article. His evolution is already covered in summerized detail, and any evolution would include modern Luthor. A seperate article makes no sense. --User:Johnnyfog 10:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, what i meant to say is "I think the original article depicts the evolution." I totally agree with you. I think mad scientist to tycoon is important because since then, he has been depicted of evolving that way from Superman the animated series, Lois & Clark (Superman isn't asian! damn you Dean Cain), and Superman Returns.--Semidelicious 20:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Well ok. Why didn't you just say that? That's TWO votes against then! Johnnyfog 19:23, 18 January (UTC)
So can someone make a decision already? I'm tired of seeing that merge pop-up. Johnnyfog 22:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
There's no need to keep the discussion going. Though the Earth-Two character articles were reverted back to their previous iterations as sections in the main character article, the opinions of the side which favored the split had some merit. The Earth-Two guys could be considered different characters if one took an exclusively in-universe approach (even if the divergences could be summed up in three or four sentences). However, "Lex Luthor (Earth-One)" not being covered in the same article as the mainstream "Lex Luthor" makes absolutely no sense, as they are the SAME INDIVIDUAL. When the Post-Crisis Batman and Luthor meet in Crisis on Infinite Earths #11, they talk like they've known each other for years, not as if they were "blank slates" without any recollection of their Earth-One adventures. Luthor's involvement with the Silver Age Society of Super-Villains and the Injustice League/Gang also remained intact Post-Crisis. The only notable Post-Crisis difference was that he was probably wearing a brown three-piece suit instead of a purple jumpsuit in those supervillain meetings. That's not enough of a difference to warrant separate articles, specially since the first appearance of "Evil LexCorp CEO Luthor" was in Elliot Maggin's late Pre-Crisis comics (not, as is commonly thought, during the Byrne run), and Lex's Smallville past is now back in continuity. If we allow a separate "Lex Luthor (Earth-One)" article on account of a goddamn business suit, then we'll soon have separate articles for each minor retcon done to Luthor's history. What's next? "Lex Luthor (Birthright)"? "Lex Luthor (First Batman Confidential story arc)"? I'm redirecting "Lex Luthor (Earth-One)" to "Lex Luthor". --Ace ETP 21:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Lana Lang

I don't think there is any mention in the article that the Smallville version of Lex is shown as having a thing for Lana Lang (In other manifestations, I think Lex had a girlfriend in Smallville). - Matthew238 05:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

reaction to death of Superboy?

What issue was it where Luthor reacted angrily to the trio telling him Superboy was killed? --DrBat 02:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure there has been one persay - although, in Justice League of America #0, one of the 'future' segments has Luthor taking on the Big Three whilst shouting "He. Was. MY. SON!!", which might be what you're thinking of. It's worth noting that this isn't necessarily Conner he refers to, though.--Joseph Q Publique 02:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, I'm pretty sure they weren't the ones to break the news to Lex. He knew about it in 52. Superman, Wonder Woman, and Batman all disappear before they could tell him. --Exvicious (talk • contribs) @ 10:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Made a minor change in super man returns lex section.

It was written that lex was interested in real estate just like in the richard donner film, but he was also interested in realestate in Superman 2. So I changed it to read that he is interested in real estate just like in the first two films.--Iamstillhiro1112 12:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Supergirl tormenting Superman

I was wondering if that information is correct: 1st line of the 3rd paragraph of section Cancer and cloning. Personally, I don't recall Supergirl tormenting Superman, though I don't have the previous issues necessary to confirm that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 150.164.24.214 (talk) 16:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

Sorry. The wording was unclear, but Lex II seduces Supergirl so he can torment Supergirl. --User:Johnnyfog, 10:08 January 17 (UTC)
Do you mean that Lex II seduces Supergirl so he can torment Superman?--BigBang616 20:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Red Son Luthor

Shouldn't there be at least a mention of the incarnation of Luthor in Superman: Red Son ? Although I've not read much Superman, this seems to me a pretty interesting version: it goes back partly to the mad scientist version of his character, and he also gains political power: and he's technically the good guy!

Nah, because there's an alternate Luthor in every Superman Elseworld story. For instance, the old Luthor in Kingdom come. We can't include them all because the article is too large to begin with. Also, the Red Son would be a better place to showcase Good Luthor. But that's my opinion. Johnnyfog 1.22.07, 16:23 (UTC)

Fair enough. WikiReaderer 22:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Why not create Alternate versions of Lex Luthor a la Alternate versions of Superman, Alternate versions of Robin, Alternate versions of Batman, Alternate versions of Spider-Man etc.?~ZytheTalk to me! 18:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I wouldn't know where to start with that, though. You need a truckload of citations or it will get deleted eventually. Johnnyfog 10:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Gene Hackman in Superman II image

I uploaded a new image in which that character appears bald, to replace the one in which he is wearing a wig. That way, the character is shown as he really was in the movie, and as he generally appears. Esteban "Lex" Saborío 16:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

He was "generally" not bald. It misrepresents the character from those films. Couldn't you at least have fiddled with the contrast on photoshop? It look awful. Johnnyfog 15:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

He WAS bald, and the image I uploaded captures the character at its purest. Esteban "Lex" Saborío 06:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You haven't addressed the quality issues. CovenantD 06:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Leaving aside questions of 'purity', surely the fact that Hackman's Lex, as opposed to most of the others, spent most of his time wearing a wig (certainly, I seem to recollect him wearing a wig more than not in the films) is something worth showing? Even if this isn't the case, the new 'bald' image isn't that high quality - perhaps an alternate, better quality image could be found.--Joseph Q Publique 07:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
The one with the wig might be notable for that very fact, but it should be mentioned in the article. I'm hesitant to get into "he wore the wig more, no he didn't" debate because the only way to "prove" it is with a copy of the movie and a stopwatch. Not only is that Original Research, it's beside the point. CovenantD 07:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The bald image should be left, just as the "Lois & Clark" Lex has an image portraying him bald, even though he had hair most of the time. Esteban "Lex" Saborío 06:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

You're going to have to come up with a better argument than "He WAS bald" and "the bald image should be left." Neither is persuasive, especially given the quality of the image you insist on using. CovenantD 08:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
The old image translates the whimsical nature of the movie character, anyway. It's bad image quality, it has no source info (important, since it's not a screenshot), and I know if you're editing wikipedia you must have heard of photoshop. Johnnyfog 10:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I have now provided the source info. Esteban "Lex" Saborío 21:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

No one wishes more that Lex would be portrayed as a cooler (or at least relevant) villain than me--it's like DC is going out of its way to look prehistoric--but I already lost the bald John Shea pic to (assumedly) support your arguement. The Donner Luthor is a jerk and a shyster and wears wigs almost exclusively. I always liked the old image because it is unintrusive and pretty much spells out the nature of the character. He's meant to be funny. He was the comic relief. If you have a problem with that, sorry. Don't post the pic anymore. Make yourself useful and do something else. Johnnyfog 14:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Who died and made you God? Esteban "Lex" Saborío 03:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, it's a big encyclopedia. Have fun somewhere else. Go out and buy photoshop. Don't clutter up the page history! Johnnyfog 10:59 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not "having fun". I'm working to make Wikipedia better. Esteban "Lex" Saborío 06:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Erm, no, that's what I'm doing, you are waging the lamest edit war I've ever seen. Johnnyfog 9:11 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Erm, no, that's what I'm doing, you are waging the lamest edit war I've ever seen. Esteban "Lex" Saborío 04:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Be nice, Johnny. CovenantD 18:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

33.1

Under the Smallville section it says that lex began project 33.1 at the beginning of the 6th season. but in episode 7 "jinx" of the 4th season, lex is shown taking Mxyzptlk to a well developed version of 33.1. so its been around long before the 6th season. there have been other references to it as well, but i dont remember what episodes, but they were definitely before the 6th season. so it would be good to change that section, im just not sure how to work it in there, so if somebody more knowledgeable could do it, that would be great. --rabiddog2420 23:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I've handled it. --Johnnyfog 11:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

First appearance

There is a discussion on the Comics Project talk page about the appropriateness of "Historical" and "Modern" in the superherobox. CovenantD 00:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Have fun with that. I think it's pointless to include a modern date seeing as he just got ret-conned again. The writers are always at war over continutiy, so why should they get appeased just because their continuity sucks? I got rid of the date. Johnnyfog 21:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

more comments

there should be a mention to th ehacker from the legion of doom since there is a link under timeline of hackers

the section appearances in other media shol be organised with sub-categories: put the films together, the TV features together, the animated features together. For instance the Luthor is Superman returns is supposed to be the same charcater as in Superman I and II but the sections are remote —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.103.101.72 (talk) 07:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

Oedipus Complex

I'm not sure if it's true for all the continuums of Lex Luthor, but in Smallville Lex Luthor has an extreme case of Oedipus Complex. Does this carry over to the comics as well? If so it should probably be documented in the article.

No, if you actually read the article, it plainly says comic Lex hates his parents and sabotaged their car. In that case, he had a thing for his step-sister. Anyway, an Oedipus complex implies that the son resents his father because he wants to monopolize his mother's affection. A lot of people model their ideal mates off of their parents, anyway, so that doesn't translate into the strict definition of Oedipal . SV Lex wants to correct the past, so he seeks women who remind him of his mother to vicariously 'save' his mother. But because his mom was also crazy, he tends to gravitate to total nutbars. Anyway, it's very subtle and not worthy of being included in any part of the article.
BTW, sign your comments on the talk page by typing "~" 4 times in a row. Johnnyfog 15:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean Lex hates his parents and Lex sabotaged their car? Lex hates his father and respects his mother. His mother died following a decline in health brought on by the death of Julian. These differences seem extremely from the comic book version and the Smallville version. If I wanted to read up on the comic book version, I would, but I wanted to read up on the Smallville version. I was merely asking a question out of curiousity because there is no information at all regarding Lex's love interests.
Though you and I just proved a flaw in this article because it's extremely bias toward the comic book version even though there is a dedicated Smallville section. Cadwal 03:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Dude, you asked if it carried into the comic version, and I pointed out that you could have just read the article to see that it doesn't. It's not bias. Johnnyfog 04:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

lobotomy?

didnt lex get a lobotomy in justice league?

Nah, that was the Joker/Two Face/Poison Ivy. Superman lobotomized them with his heat vision. As for Luthor, he just barbequed him (in the Oval Office, no less).Johnnyfog 00:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Lex and Clark

In Superman #224, Lex remembered being at summer camp with Clark Kent. Is that still a viable pastpoint, or was it erased by New Earth's formation?Bluecatcinema 09:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


GA Review

After reviewing this article, I believe that it merits good article status. It is well written , detailed , neutral and is well-referenced. It uses good images , and is of a good length. The one improvement that could be made is the lead section, which has no inline citations. Otherwise, I believe this article truly befits the good article griteria. Any question should be directed to my talk page. Cheers! GA pass -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Lionel Luthor

I'm undoing the addition because Lionel Luthor is a character from the TV show Smallville and not from the comics (which is the source material). The charcter is unknow to those who know only the comic version. The purpose of the example is not to quote all the superman characters with the initials LL as there are more but to mention the most known. --Leocomix 01:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Good call. But it's still there, and anyway this isn't really a topic for the talk page. Johnnyfog 01:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


Just how smart is he?

I'm looking for some information on just how smart he is. I'd like to know if there's a comic book somewhere that gives us an IQ for him (or a range of IQ points) or perhaps some reference to the level of intellect he has (such as the same way Brainiac 5 from the Legion of Super-Heroes is listed as having a 12th Level Intellect).--BigBang616 20:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge time

I have looked around, and the only example I have seen of "other media" appearances being separated into another article is Joker (comics). Keep in mind that particular article has always been loaded with bullets and original research, which contributes to its excessive length. I think its premature for Lex Luthor in other media to exist as a separate article. Johnnyfog 17:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, wikipedia lists several fictional character having independent articles showcasing their media adaptations.

and the list goes on. As with other featured and GA articles on fictional characters, the article's main purpose is about the fictional character in its original media (in this case comic books) and its real world context/impact. Alternate versions and Media adaptations are encouraged to be removed and/or summarized in the main article and go into deeper detail in a independent article.

This article should not merge and in fact, the bulk of the other media section should be moved to Lex Luthor in other media. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 05:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Point taken. I guess I wasn't aware that the original media was the sole focus of fictional character articles. Oh well, this is how you learn. I'm updating the other media article like you suggested.Johnnyfog (talk) 05:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Nicely done. If you (or any editor) wish to see this article advanced to Featured article status. I would suggest using Captain Marvel, Batman, Barbara Gordon and Batwoman as a guide. This article currently lacks a publication history and is too focused on the fictional stories in which the character appears. The publication history should have the primary focus of the entire article (why was this character created? How did DC comic attempt to popularize the character? Why? What real world examples (LA times, New York Times, CNN) are there of how this character has impacted pop culture?). If you use the Captain Marvel article as a guide, it doesnt even give a Fictional Character Biography section, but focuses solely on the publication (real world) history of the character.
Alternate version should be under a "See also" section with a single link to another separate article. The Silver, Bronze and Morden age sections of the Fictional character biography should be reduced to very basic plot summaries that to not go into unnecessary detail. As with Barbara Gordon, the article could very easily come close to losing its GA status if experienced editors decide to review it. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 06:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Original Research (regarding Luthor's current origin)

There has been a recent attempt in this article to introduce original research into Luthor's current origin. The original research tries to imply that Luthor's origin has been rolled back to MOS, which as anyone who reads the comics knows, is untrue. Once citations were provided against these claims, whoever is doing this tried to downplay these aspects and play up the ones they liked. The current origin seems to be a mix of MANY different interpretation of Lex, and we still don't know his complete history yet. Or that of Superman. We should be on the lookout for anyone who would try to alter these related sections without citations.

I've also noticed this happened in other Superman articles, such as "The Origin of Superman" article. NotSuper (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Lex and Conner Kent

In the "Infinite Crisis" section, the article says that Luthor has shown atypical compassion for Conner Kent (the Superboy who died in that miniseries). It neglects to say that Conner, originally thought to be some kind of clone of Superman, had been revealed (in the first story arc of the current Teen Titans comic) to have some of Luthor's DNA as well. Pogofan (talk) 18:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Non-free image overuse tag

Editors enforcing Non-free content policies work in different ways, but I use this tag. It's not a "delete stuff now!" tag, but a "does everything here conform with our non-free policy?" tag. I have been tagging all articles with 10 or more non-free images (or in some case just deleting the images if they're obviously in violation). However before the question of number of images, there's NFCC#8 to consider - "Non-free content is used only if ... its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." - so how many of the images here pass that section? Black Kite 00:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think some of them can be justfied. I think the ones in the Origin, Relationships, One Year Later and Countdown could all be removed though. I don't think they depict anything much different than the infox image.--Rockfang (talk) 02:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

archiving

Would anyone mind if I set up archiving for this talk page? I'm thinking 90 days would be a good timeframe for moving of old discussions.--Rockfang (talk) 02:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and did it for you. Johnnyfog 17:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
In the future, you may want to wait for people to share their opinions on archiving before actually doing it.--Rockfang (talk) 19:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Archiving is not usually a controversial move. However, for the sake of keeping roughly to the 90 days you specified I've de-archived some of the moved material. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with your comment about it being non controversial, but typically a consensus should be reached before archiving the talk page of an article.--Rockfang (talk) 19:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Lex - Removal From Office

This sentence is really clunky and confusing: "A cadre of superheroes eventually break ranks from the Justice League and Batman, who forbid any attempt to unseat Luthor from office by force, and storm the White House." I propose instead that it be broken up and read: "A cadre of superheroes eventually break ranks from the Justice League to oppose Luthor. Batman, who had previously forbid any attempt to unseat Luthor from office by force, led the storming of the White House." Of course, I'm making an assumption on the details of the event since I'm not familiar with the comics run, but either way, that sentence needs revised. -- RS (talk) 06:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I made the change since no one voiced an opposing view. If the information is incorrect, feel free to fix it, just try to make it grammatically correct.  :) -- RS (talk) 11:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

New Earth Lex

Can we get some editorial sources or something for that section? It's the most awkward part of the article and I'm not sure where to look. Johnnyfog (talk) 12:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

phew

OK, I'm only posting this because I've been making a lot of edits and I'm expected to discuss them here. The traffic is generally slow here so I hope no one minds.

My aim is to phase out the fictional biography stuff so that it takes up less than half (perhaps reduce it to a third) of the article. Once enough secondary sources are in place it shouldn't be hard to cement a good rating (the GA rating is, I now realize, totally unwarranted and unfair given the state of similar articles). Johnnyfog (talk) 02:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Classic persona from the 1970s?

This is in the lead section but it's not stated what is meant by it. What does it mean? A gx7 (talk) 09:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Cakes?

Luthor enjoys eating cakes? Where did this come from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.16.35 (talk) 09:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Superman's Archenemy???

One thing I'd like to get cleared up here. It says that Luthor is Superman's archenemy, but wasn't that position filled by Darksied??? I mean, he's the dictator of the planet Apokolips, whereas Luthor's just a businessman. Also, Darkseid was the final villain of Superman: The Animated Series AND Justice League Unlimited, and in the second, Luthor gave his life to stop Darkseid for good. Wouldn't that make Darkseid Superman's archenemy instead of Luthor?? Jienum (talk) 15:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

No.129.139.1.68 (talk) 21:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Lex Luthor... Italian-American???

I'm not a huge comic book fan, but I don't have any clue what movie or comic that came from. Luthor isn't an Italian name, and there aren't many Italians in Kansas. I don't see why he would belong in the Fictional Italian-Americans category. Sadistik (talk) 00:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

52

the paragraph/section "52" jumps right into talking about Alex... yet not explaining who this Alex is. 4.242.174.200 (talk) 11:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The article states that Luthor was first depicted as bald due to an artist's mistake. Which issue is this in reference to? --RedKnight (talk) 21:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

IGN rank at all pages?

"IGN's list of the Top 100 Comic Book Villains of All Time" (that means a arbitrary subjective rank of villains) is being cited in every single villain article to shamelessly promote their site. Lex Luthor os #4, gallactus #6, whatever that means. I deleted it equally shameless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.27.232.44 (talk) 17:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Why repeats information that already cover in Lex Luthor in other media? My suggesting is merge this section to the subpage.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 23:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Ideally the section should be thinned down to a lead-like paragraph sans images. If everything is already there, then nothing needs to be merged. On the other hand... if the massive plot dumping were thinned in the rest of this article, and from the IOM on, the two could be merged back together. - J Greb (talk) 02:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
How about just provide the list of actors and which medium they've in or something?--NeoBatfreak (talk) 03:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Article is way too long

I admit that I will not stick around here to make the necessary edits. But, for those of you interested in Lex Luthor, I recommend someone should do some heavy editing. A lot of this stuff is just trivia and plot lines and so forth. The article probably rivals Barack Obama or George W. Bush in length. Good luck! Taquito1 (talk) 03:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I just took a swipe at the "...in other media" section. The paragraph on Lois & Clark was practically a scene-by-scene breakdown covering the events of two seasons in excessive detail. The Smallville paragraph took a good pruning too, and some minor tweaks to the Hackman and Spacey paragraphs. Over 3300 characters lighter, I expect one of the fancruft mongers to revert the whole thing. Problem is, I've only scratched the surface of what should be done. 12.233.146.130 (talk) 00:45, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The Picture

Hey, here's something new: I'm not suggesting anything be removed from the article!

No, my suggestion is that we get a better picture for the top of the article. The current picture isn't bad (considering it was pencilled by Leinil Francis Yu, it's "fantastic"!) but it's not great or iconic or even definitive. He's half in shadow! Which is all very cool and all, but definitive? Shouldn't we get a better look at him?

I would suggest something from the Azzarello/Bermejo book (originally Lex Luthor: Man of Steel, now stupidly renamed Luthor). There are many great pictures of Lex in there, and he doesn't necessarily look "menacing" in each one. Which is good. He shouldn't. Part of what makes Luthor such a threat to Superman is his ambiguity -- that he's got a point! (Superman IS an alien; he's godlike in comparison to humans; if he decided to take over we couldn't stop him; all we have is his word that he won't, etc., etc.) So I would definitely suggest something a little less cheesy and more mature.

I don't have a scanner; if I did, I'd do it myself right now.

(And I really can't stand Yu. If I recall correctly, he embarassed himself years ago with Marvel's Secret Invasion, when he was barely able to draw recognizable versions of the most famous celebrity faces of that year. Sorry for the digression, but, well, y'know ....)

--Ben Culture (talk) 20:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Lex receives Presidential Pardon

It should be made more clear why Lex receives a pardon for destroying a planet under the "Last Stand of New Krypton and War of the Supermen" heading. I was not familiar with the story line and the way it is presented makes no sense at all.

Destroy a planet, receive a pardon? Details are needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.165.237 (talk) 20:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Lex Luthor is a master of multiple fields of science and this pages categories do not reflect that

Lex Luthor being the earths leading authority in almost every field of science is whatdefines him and makes him extremely dangerous; more so than his philanthropy smoke screen, being the president briefly, or running several business since the 80s. Those are the newer more superfluous elements; at the core Lex Luthor is fictions most dangerous mad scientist, and fictions smartest human being. Quoting the section on his abilities. "He has mastered seemingly every known form of science, including space travel, extra-dimensional travel, biochemistry, robotics, computers, synthetic polymers, communications, mutations, transportation, holography, energy generation, spectral analysis, and more (including time travel in many Pre-Crisis stories). With the exception of the extraterrestrial entity known as Brainiac, he does not view any other being as an intellectual peer." The categories should reflect Luthors extreme competence in multiple fields of super science. Ask a child what Lex Luthor can do scientifically and they will say what ever he wants; ask a fan from the golden age and they will say the same thing. Lex Luthor is the definition of a polymath mad scientist, more so than Doctor Frankenstein or the time traveler from The Time Machine. He was and still is a chemist, roboticist, engineer, and physicist, before being the president or even a business executive. He hasn't cured cancer from a jail cell enough times to count as a doctor, though he did as part of a plot that successfully killed Superman. I also don't think he's as good at making robots as Professor Ivo, or Toyman. Nor can he preform surgeries like cross species brain transplants such as Ultra-Humanite; but he is better at physics than several fictional physicists; the same way Black Jack is undeniably a better surgeon than any fictional licensed surgeons. CensoredScribe (talk) 16:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Lex Luthor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The image of Lex Luthor.

I didn't revert Starrytales1's edit since I wanna avoid edit wars as much as I can, but I have a feeling someone else might.

Anyway I don't think this image is appropriate for the article for one major reason. Lex Luthor was originally a comic-book character. And because of that I think it's appropriate to have an image of him from the comics as the main image.

There are images of him in the movies further down the article, and I think the image of Jesse as Lex belong there, not as the main image.

@Starrytales1: I'm tagging you since you should by all means be part of this discussion. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 19:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

You have hit the nail right on the head. The picture can go lower down in the article for sure, but not in the infobox. It's common sense. If Starrytales1 continues to put it in the infobox and does not participate here or leave edit summaries, I will revert as an unconstructive edit. I'll probably move it to the appropriate section myself if that's the case. Again, the picture being in the article is absolutely fine, just not in the infobox. —DangerousJXD (talk) 20:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
I think it's appropriate to leave warning templates at his user talk page if he continues to ignore the edit summaries. In fact I will do just that if he keeps this up. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 20:57, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
I have moved the picture to the appropriate section myself to try not to escalate anything. However, now I question whether it belongs in the article at all. It looks like the kind of image that would have copyright issues and get deleted. It even has a watermark, a common element of pictures that get deleted. I'm not an expert on pictures though so I don't know for sure; the picture page itself doesn't have any flags on it. Also something I question is the picture itself. All other pictures in the section are from the films themselves. This picture is a promotional image isn't it? I think it'd be best to wait until the film is released and then get a picture; from the film itself, in the same way as the other pictures. —DangerousJXD (talk) 21:27, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
I have no idea either, but I suggest you try asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Images and Media, you could get some help there. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 23:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lex Luthor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

"Fictional" is redundant

I think the word "fictional" is redundant with " supervillain appearing in American comic books " and I would like to remove it from the lead sentence. Lois Lane vs Mary Jane (talk) 14:59, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually, if written formally, it should read "is a fictional character, a supervillain, appearing in". DonQuixote (talk) 16:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
I have gone over this before but countless articles use the word "fictional" and removing it at one particular article is stupid. Try to establish a consensus somewhere that the word should be abolished from all articles before attempting to eradicate it yourself. Also, the wording, "is a fictional character, a supervillain, appearing in", is discouraged per a previously established consensus. —DangerousJXD (talk) 21:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
If it's redundant in one article, why is it stupid to remove it in that particular article? Lois Lane vs Mary Jane (talk) 22:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
You have not explained how it is redundant, but that's not the point. The word "fictional" is used in countless articles here. Why seek to have it removed at one particular article? If you believe the word is redundant and you want it abolished, establish a community consensus for it's removal. Randomly removing it at whatever articles you come across is stupid. I don't understand why a 'new' user would start their editing here by trying to change how things are conventionally done, minor things at that. —DangerousJXD (talk) 01:05, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
I was planning to remove it at any article I came across when it was redundant. You seem to be saying that it should be kept even when it is redundant. Lois Lane vs Mary Jane (talk) 02:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
I shall again refer you to WP:IDHT. You have no support for your proposed changes because you have not seeked any support and you have not provided anything to back your claims or even provided proper reasoning as to how exactly the word "fictional" is redundant and worthy of removal in the countless articles it is used in. Your comment does nothing to further discussion and this comment is just me repeating myself. —DangerousJXD (talk) 03:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
You said "You have not explained how it is redundant, but that's not the point" so I didn't bother. Basically I think it's self-evident that a "supervillain appearing in comics" is fictional. Are there any real ones? Lois Lane vs Mary Jane (talk) 03:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
That argument has been made before you know. A common counterargument is that "fictional" is necessary to establish that the character is fictional because people are idiots (not necessarily my argument). I once encountered a user who made the same exact argument and didn't actually take it further. I will say it again, establish a community consensus for your preferred wording on comics-related articles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics. Removing the word "fictional" at one random article and not every article is nonsensical and so on. Are you going to actually take either of your proposed changes further or do you just want to continue with the pointless back and forth? —DangerousJXD (talk) 06:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
If it's redundant in any particular article, removing it from that article will be an improvement, so please stop reverting thanks. Lois Lane vs Mary Jane (talk) 11:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
It's important to mention that he's fictional before, or even instead of, being a supervillain. The defining characteristic of this subject is that he's a fictional character. DonQuixote (talk) 15:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Jesse Eisenberg is technically playing Lex Jr. in the Warner movies.

https://moviepilot.com/posts/3841634

http://www.mtv.com/news/2340099/jesse-eisenberg-lex-luthor-jr/

And also the DCEU wiki: http://dccomicsextendeduniverse.wikia.com/wiki/Alexander_Luthor,_Jr. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:547:A00:C480:5DE5:7CE2:F0E1:EF6B (talk) 18:12, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Very curious about why it links to the founder of Amazon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.40.120 (talk) 17:31, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Lead needs to be re-written

For some reason, the lead only seems to reflect the recent mainstream depiction of Lex Luthor, instead of being a general overview of the character like it should be. I even had to remove "with Mercy Graves as his personal assistant and bodyguard" from the lead, considering that character didn't even exist before the 1990s. This is especially odd considering that before the late-1980s/early-1990s, and for most of Lex Luthor's existence, his characterisation has been varied and largely inconsistent. Most modern Superman fans might prefer the current "corrupt, faux-legitimate intelligent businessman" version of Lex that the lead describes, but for several decades, his portrayals have ranged from full-on mad scientist, to costumed supervillain, to generic criminal mastermind, to all sorts of deviations (and this is just in the mainstream DC Comics Universe). The evil businessman, Clancy Brown-styled Lex is very recent in the character's overall history and is not representative of the overall character. Even as far as the movies are concerned, for four films from 1978-2006, he was depicted by Gene Hackman and Kevin Spacey as a scam artist mainly obsessed with "get rich quick" schemes. And in the current movies (specifically Batman v Superman and Justice League), he's an unhinged mass murderer who happens to own a company like the current comics Lex. The lead definitely needs a rewrite to also reflect most of the character's existence, and not just what's current and popular right now. At this point, I'm surprised the lead doesn't say "Lex Luthor is known for becoming president in the DC Universe", something that only happened in the mid-2000s. DarkKnight2149 02:06, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Update: I have to say, the current lead is a big improvement. It's still not perfect (it still adds a tad too much weight to the relatively WP:RECENT version, and there are more versions than mad scientist Luthor and business Luthor), but it's definitely adequate. It also addresses that the character has evolved, so that's good. DarkKnight2149 22:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Library of Congress vs. DC Comics

Two sources say that Superman #4 was before Action Comics #23. Grand Comics Database said it and Library of Congress says that the sale date was too. I never myself said that Action Comics #23 wasn’t the most commonly cited first appearance. I even put it as first appearance as source said. This new editor is putting words in my mouth and is not paying attention to the source whatsoever. Reliable or not. It says it. He says it doesn’t but that’s not true. It cites Library of Congress and it shows a screenshot of the source. He also assumed bad faith by thinking of putting a reliable source away. I didn’t see nothing in that note. If there was I apologize. I thought it was my note. That’s my two cents. Thank you for protecting it.Jhenderson 777 18:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Your Library of Congress Mention...

RE- Lex Luthor-

You are citing something that specifically states in the pop up that "publication dates are NOT release dates". Therefore your purported reference specifically does NOT say what you claim it says in your attempted edit. You are jumping to an unsupported conclusion that is literally indirect opposition to EVERY SINGLE COMIC BOOK REFERENCE GUIDE (Overstreet, CGC, etc), as well as going against what DC comics itself explicitly states on its official websites. Both here:


https://www.dccomics.com/characters/lex-luthor

And here:


https://www.dcuniverse.com/encyclopedia/lex-luthor/

These are definitive and authoritative sources. If you are attempting to make a Wikipedia edit that is literally NOT what the creator of the character states on its official websites, and is in direct opposition to all comic book authority, you're going to have to do a little better than "mike" with all of his disclaimers, that doesn't even say what you say it does anyway.

And Grand Comics Database is not a valid source either, that is a peer editable site just like Wikipedia, and again, like "mike" says on his website, publishing dates were NOT release dates back then. DC did not release that info back then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaydubp (talk • contribs) 19:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Regards, -Jaydubp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaydubp (talk • contribs) 19:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I am just going by newsstand date. Can you confirm that Superman #4 is before or after Action Comics #23? It would be helpful with this conflict if so. Jhenderson 777 19:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

That is not relevant and it is not able to be proven even if it was. Remember mikesamazingworld.com, the reference that you are attempting to use? Even he says DC did not officially report on sale newsstand dates to the Library of Congress until 1958, so NO ONE ACTUALLY KNOWS what they are, not even Mike, who can only "approximate" (in other words, "guess"), or the Library of Congress (for which you provided no direct link that supports what you are trying to say anyway). What we do know is what DC does say on their official websites, what Overstreet has reported for 50 years, CGC, CBCS, and pretty much everybody else but you for some reason.

Regards, -jaydubp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaydubp (talk • contribs) 20:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Hey reliable source know it all. Please use four tildes. Ok so one editor (you) feels strongly about the source. I personally thought it was an ok source. Since we use Toonapedia and all that. But since you don’t. I guess I will leave it as yours for now. But I am still curious if Mike is right about the claim. Jhenderson 777 00:08, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Jaydubp (talk) 00:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC)Sorry I am new to Wikipedia and am not particularly tech savvy. But I do know comics and I write about comics. And I also believe that a person attempting to make such a drastic, fundamental edit to a page as you were, the burden of proof is on them to back up what they are saying with something concrete. Remember, your edit would have put the information on Wikipedia, literally at direct odds with THE MOST tried and true and trusted names in the comic book industry, as well as the publisher itself. That's not a small thing, and if anything (at least in my opinion) raised the bar even higher for you. Your one and only citation was mikesamazingworld.com, which, when clicked through to the pop up, did not support your claims either. Mike says in multiple disclaimers that DC did not report on sale dates to the Library of Congress prior to 1958. This book came out in 1940. So that means that neither Mike's nor the Library of Congress is a valid citation for you to use, as the info simply does not exist. Mike also has a disclaimer stating that publication dates are NOT on sale dates. The entire point for your original edit was that Superman 4 was on sale a few days before Action 23- which is a claim that cannot be proven or disproven either way by anybody, because those records were not well kept during that early era of comics. Which leaves you with nothing but guesswork. And while that is bad on its own, it is made even worse by the fact that seriously every comic book authority as well as DC state one, and only one book as the first appearance. That book is Action Comics 23. You even acknowledge that Action 23 was the publisher's intended first appearance, and first story for Luthor as well. So I am a bit confused why you think Wikipedia should be edited to call a known second appearance a first appearance, irrespective of a few days unprovable difference in release schedules that may or may not even have happened. If you are ever able to produce something valid and concrete from a legitimate source that Action Comics 23 was somehow not the first appearance, I would love to hear about it, as that would be fairly groundbreaking info. But honestly, for as long as DC itself and comic authorities like Overstreet call Action Comics 23 the first appearance of Luthor, that is going to be a tough road for you to hoe. Regards- jaydubp

if you are going to say that source isn’t reliable. Stop bringing it up because he does comment what I said. You saying it didn’t claim it at all is not true. Also even if I did make a boo/boo don’t bite my head off. Editors make mistakes here and we don’t neeed someone to overreact like you do about it.Jhenderson 777 01:06, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
I've been off Wikipedia for awhile; if you look at my history for today, you can see the aggravation I've encountered that's made me stay away. However, my old colleague Jhenderson asked for my input, so I'll help if I can.

The Grand Comics Database, which is RS, says of Superman #4 at https://www.comics.org/issue/727/, "Luthor (villain, with red hair, 2nd appearance)", and says of Action Comics #23 at https://www.comics.org/issue/723/, "Luthor (villain, introduction, no first name given in this story, apparent death)". Hope this helps. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Reliable source. I thought so. The index note also says, "Superman #4 went on sale 2/15/40, which predates Action 23. However, careful examination of the two Luthor stories in Superman #4 and the Luthor story here, it becomes clear that this Luthor story in Action #23 comes first. One telltale clue is to see Superman asking someone "Who is Luthor?"". If the GCD said what the note said about a comic predating the latter I fail to see what is wrong with noting it on Wikipedia either. Jhenderson 777 00:44, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lex_Luthor/Archive_1&oldid=1074051094"