Jump to content

Talk:Superman/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Superman, Nova and Booster Gold

It's been revealed Nova is Booster Gold. The name Nova should be removed from that box


Superman first Superhero ever?

I mean, if it is, it should be mentioned in the opening paragraph. And if he isn't, are you sure? Robin Hood and Zorro (inspirations to his creation) were not superheroes, but Superman certainly is. Isn't he the first? He at least led to the creation of the genre which helms mainstream American comics. 12:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I think The Phantom was published before Superman. However, the Phantom was a normal human. I think Superman was the first character to combine super powers, a secret identity, and a costume. -- TomXP411[Talk] 15:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

"Superboy" aspect of history

The Superboy sub-section under Superman's Silver Age history is a little confusing in that, in Post-Crisis history, he never became Superboy. Does anybody else think this should get revised to reflect this? -cnjartist 5:33pm EST 31 May 2006

Archived Discussion

As of April 19, 2006, the old discussion is archived here. Quote or move any sections that are still relevant. —Matthew0028 08:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Keeping this page safe

Some people just keep on mucking this page up when nobody's looking as evidenced by this:

"born in 1988, from crypton, can fly and has a large penis superman aka christopher Byrne has saved the world millions of times. and hes amazin

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superman". Let's be on our toes guys. -GeoffB 10:00 4 May 2006

Infinite Crisis

The first Infinite Crisis section is hard to follow, and has some grammar issues. I'm not entirely certain what happened (as I've not read the comics and I'm having difficulty deciphering this section), so somebody should really fix this. —Matthew0028 07:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Talk Page Archival

The talk page is really long. Somebody should archive it. —Matthew0028 07:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

...which I took the liberty of doing myself. If there is any ongoing debate that I should have left on the main talk page, feel free to move it back.—Matthew0028 08:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Category:Superman storylines

I've created a Category for Superman storylines and made it a sub-category of both [[Category:DC Comics storylines]] and [[Category:Superman]]. Most of the Superman stuff wasn't showing up in any way on the DC storylines page and this corrects that oversight. I've taken the liberty of recategorizing many of the related articles appropriately. CovenantD 22:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Future

I've seen info of future Superman comics in DC Comics website. He will recover his powers. Leader Vladimir — Preceding undated comment added 15:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Really? I never would have guessed they would want to keep their trademark servicable and recognizable. --Chris Griswold 04:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I think he means we should mention it in the article. Still, it'd be a lot of work. What with the spoiler warning, the referencing, littled specifics to work with, and the thing with thing.... >.> Ace Class Shadow 04:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
True, plus, what if it never happens? What if DC decides to go with a new Clark Kent line of comics, leaving Superman to the Hollywood elite? --Chris Griswold 14:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Bah! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!~ That's a good one, Chris. Whoo.. Ace Class Shadow 18:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Do we have to show that Superman will recover his powers in the article? That issue hasn't been released yet. Leader Vladimir — Preceding undated comment added 18:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Do we show that at the moment? >.> This discussion was effectively over. We will not be mentioning some spoiler or sneak peak from the DC Comics site (at the moment).
So, to answer your question, no. We do not. The Anti-Gnome 22:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
"Yo, I've always wondered if Superman would be the one to create Utopia, in the future."

--Natldsbluedelta353 05:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)natldsbluedelta353

Relativity

Okay. First off, I'm mentioning this here so it'll get the most attention. Now, someone back me up on this, in comics, a character's alternate reality version, especially if they've interacted, should be listed on the "notible relatives" part of their SHB, right? If I'm wrong, no sweat. If I'm right, we've got an arrogant, incorrect little...user...to deal with at the moment. Ace Class Shadow 18:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Doomsday

Hey, I didn't know where to put this, but here's as good as any, and it involves the character. letting you know as of my post, doomsday has been vandalised. 66.214.82.168

Fictional speedsters

I added this category and the change was reverted. Superman is very fast, what's the problem? Tyciol 05:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed your having done this on Captain Marvel (DC Comics) as well. Speedsters are known for their speed. Superman and some of the other characters you have listed have speed as just one of their powers. --Chris Griswold 07:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
In the case of Captain Marvel or Supergirl—who share Superman's speed—I would agree, as super-speed was never really highlighted any more than their other powers. However, Superman's many races against The Flash to prove who was the "fastest man alive" are noteworthy enough to warrant Superman's inclusion in the Speedsters category. Kaijan 23:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Footnote numbering

Can someone better than me fix the footnote numbering? Thanks, Dyslexic agnostic 23:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Sections too large?

I have spent much of tonight editing this article, and it amazed me to see how long the "Clark Kent" and "Powers" sections are. I have condensed both, but the Clark Kent section could be shortened further, some of the concepts important enough to be moved higher in the article. Secondly, the Powers section is long enough to be an article - and guess what? It is. I can't imagine that this much disection is necesary in the main article, when it already provides a link to a full examination. Thoughts? --Chris Griswold 07:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Superman's super-speed

I have been long confused with how superman's super-speed is used. For example, can it be used in battles or just for transport ? Take for example superman vs hulk. Wouldnt superman defeat the hulk extremely easily since he could just use his super-speed and then smack the hulk with full strength a couple of times which would stop the hulk ? Does this mean superman cant be hit ?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.160.33.239 (talk • contribs)

Superman is FAST! --Chris Griswold 07:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Superman CAN use his Superspeed in physical combat- yet, he rarely does so. No explanation has been given for this that I know of (for him OR other superfast strongmen in the DCU). The real answer, of course, is that it makes him invincible when fighting slower opponents. Let's chalk it up to "Superman unconsciously restraining himself" again. Wilfredo Martinez 11:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Lets take wolverine fo example. In VS message boards, people have said that because of superman's super-speed wolvrine wouldnt be able to hit superman, which confuses me when much slower characters like batman have defeated superman. How often does superman use his superspeed to dodge or hit quickly oponents ?

Wolverine is a GREAT FIGHTER! --Chris Griswold 11:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I think a great explanation for this is found simply in the revised spoiler section dealing with One Year Later. Supermans powers are implemented as a function of his will; otherwise he would crush and destroy anything he touches. There was a quote in , I beleive, the Superman/ Spider- Man team up where, after Superman gets pounded pretty hard, he comes back and says something to the effect of, "You took me by surprise last time. But when I don't want to be moved, no force on Earth can move me." This would also explain why there are certain times where much less powerful charecter, like Batman, have been able to affect Superman physically. If you look at the, of all things, Worlds Finest episodes of the Superman animated series, Batman is able to perform a pretty gnarly shouldre throw on Superman simply becaue Big Blue had no idea exactly how fast or strong Bruce was. I really beleive that spoiler section hit it perfectly as a way to explain many aspects of how Superman applies his abilities. User:Violet Grey\Violet Grey 15:02, 8 June 2006

Damn! Clark Kent is Praetor! (See FF) Trekphiler 02:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Condensing the sharacter biography

Breaking with Wikiproject Comics tradition, I would like to thank WesleyDodds for actually editing down a section on this article I had previously edited and re-written. This user did a great job of cutting out unnecessary information from the Infinite Crisis and OYL sections of the biography, and it's good work. I copy edited the entire article the other night, and I realize now that not only could I have condensed that sections even more, they were fine just to cut. Good call, WesleyDodds. We need to remember that a lot of the detail we have in our articles is unnecessary, and trimming that fat can only improve an article.--Chris Griswold 21:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


Tense

I'm curious to know why this article is written mostly in the present tense, when it describes things that have clearly taken place in the past. DavidNYC 07:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

That is how you write about fiction. Fictional events are in present because they happen when you read them. For instance, if I read a copy of Superman #75, the death of Superman is in the present, not the past. See: Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Check your fiction. You will find that Batman is written the same way, as are Superboy (Kon-El), Jason Todd, Superboy-Prime, Spider-Man, and a number of other articles. We are actively trying to address this issue wherever it is found in the comic book articles.--Chris Griswold 08:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Capability of superman

Can kryptonite be found easily ? I mean batman has used it against him. I also am still confused with super-man's superbreath. When superman faced thor, i don't see why super-man was actually a match for thor. I mean i know thor is a god, but hey could'nt superman just use his superbreath to stop thor, or use his super-speed to dodge attacks from thor easily or use the super-speed to hit thor quickly without being hit back ? I think their should be a section for limits to super-man's powers because many people are eager to know whether

1. Superman can use his speed in combat - can he use it dodge ? - can he use it to attack quickly ?

2. What can puncture superman's skin ? - What has broken super-man's skin ? - Can marvel's universe alloy's such has carbodanium and adamantium lacerate superman ?

3. Super-intellect, but superman isnt quite smart ? - Batman having only genius iq, and lex luthor has outsmarted the suppodsedly incredibly smart superman

4. Super voice and breath ? - It states that superman cancelled out a nuclear blast with his voice ? Then couldnt he just stop anyone ? - Why couldn't superman freeze doomsday and blow batman away ?


I suggest that it state somewhere than superman can't or is never seen to use all his powers at the same time. Because if he could, then even all the superheroes to exist [ minus pisonics and magicians ] could not even come close to beating superman as his hits would be unaviodable due to his speed, too strong, as he can hurl mountains, and could just blow or freeze krytonite weaponry and his enemies. No one could outsmart him either. So no one is actually a match for superman, unless he is unable to use his powers all at the same time.

Doomsday, batman, lex luthor, thor and the hulk would be too slow to hit or avoid superman's blows and voice/breath, would be to stupid to outsmart superman and couldn't even come near superman because of his super voice/breath and heat vision. Don't you agree ?

This is not a forum, Okay? T-1000 17:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Superman CAN use all of his abilities at the same time, and certain issues show him doing this, (flying and using heat vision at the same time, etc.) He is not Ultra Boy of the Legion. The only reason why he might not use everything at once is that maybe he can't focus on more than two or three abilities at a time. For instance he probably doesn't like to use x-ray vision super-speed at the same time, lest he run into something. Maybe its like normal people being unable to walk and chew gum or rub the belly and tap their head at the same time. Who cares.--Wakefencer

Revised Origin

Whether or not people approve of the series, the factual information is that Superman: Birthright is his revised origin and should remain listed that way in the "First Appearance" bar. Parts of The Man of Steel remain canon, so that should still be listed as his "Modern" first appearance. Keep the "Revised" section with Brithright, because those are the facts.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.65.153 (talk • contribs)

OK, so the first appearance should be listed as Man of Steel and his current origin should be listed as Birthright?--Chris Griswold 06:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Wait, you listed it under "Debut", which is the exact opposite of what you just wrote. --Chris Griswold 06:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
All I know, is that's how it is always listed in Secret Files 161.38.222.14 00:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

-- Assuming that the Birthright Superman is partly a different character, like the Silver Age one was different from the Man of Steel one, I also think Birthright as his origin must stay in the infobox. DrTofu83 13:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Who is assuming that? It's the same character; it's just a retcon. It's a much smaller jump than the one Byrne made. Are we going to have to update this every time there is a new change? because what about Infinite Crisis #7? There are further changes from that point on. --Chris Griswold 02:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Chris. The key thing is that the box says 'first appearance', not 'origin story' - whilst 'Birthright' is a revised origin story, true enough, it doesn't seem to be the first appearance of a completely different era of Superman - just a slightly different beginning for the modern Superman. Technically, the debut of the modern era Superman was in 'Man of Steel', so that is his first appearance.--Joseph Q Publique 12:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Well...
  • Man of Steel Superman is a "Born on Earth" Superman, an embryo born in a Birthing Matrix hatched on Earth in the very moment the Kents found him, whereas Birthright Superman is a Kryptonian Baby, like the Silver Age one
  • Man of Steel Krypton is a cold and sterile planet, so Jor-El and Lara were "emotional throwbacks", whereas Clark has becoming on birthright the beloved son of loving and fully caring parents
  • After Birthright, with the "born on Earth" limitation gone, also other limitations were lifted. Whereas the Man of Steel knowledge of Krypton was fleeting and difficoult, the post-Birthright Superman is an expert on the whole Kryptonian science, from language to technical appliances, like the ancient Kryptonian science, the local philosophy, language, mental disciplines...
  • Birthright Clark was one of the best buddies of a young Lex, whereas in Man of Steel they never knew each other
  • There was the return of a "Mildmannered Clark", in fact, the phoney personality he has to use as a "farmboy in a big city", wereas Man of Steel Clark was sometimes as tough as Superman. After Birthright, the "true" Clark is only the loving husband and the caring son.
  • Birthright Superman is a vegetarian, 'cause he's able to sense the sum of all biological function of people and animals as a "living aura". Man of Steel never exibited such a concern.

So, I still think that Birthright Superman is, if not an utterly different Superman, at least a quite different character, as the Silver Age one was for the Modern Age. DrTofu83 14:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

You almost have me convinced. Almost. --Chris Griswold 19:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
The Superman that appears in DC Comics today is still the one that debuted with Byrne's Post-Crisis relaunch. Sure, they shoehorned a completely contradictory origin in Man of Steels place, but it's the same history. Anyways, Superman had constant revisions of his origin before Crisis. WesleyDodds 01:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
When Birthright was announced, the writer made the statement that it was a continuity-free story, just as It's Superman is also continuity free. If that's the case, then neither should affect canon. Also, there are really several official storylines that I know of, and it seems kind of futile to try to reconcile them: We have the most recent comic retcon, Lois and Clark, The Superman movie series, and the animated series. Smallville is continuity-free. All are similar, but not identical. For example, in the animated series, Lana Lang knows Superman as Clark the instant she sees him. This didn't happen in the movies.... but getting back to the main point. I don't see Birthright as fitting into canon at all. It's just an amusing side story. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TomXP411 (talk • contribs) 07:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC).
It doesn't matter what you yourself believe: DC Comics has repeatedly stated that Birthright is in fact canon. It is Superman's current origin story, like it or not. Worst case scenario, we can wait til the end of OYL and 52 to see everything in perspective. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.52.215.114 (talk) 23:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

"Kal-El"'s meaning

Under "Publication history": (Superman's Kryptonian name, "Kal-El," resembles the Hebrew words for "voice of God.")

Under "Cultural influences": It should also be known that Superman's kryptonian name Kal-El translates to the hebrew Kol el, which means "all that is god."

Which is it? --Chris Griswold 04:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


I much prefer the Hebrew translation, Kol el, the one that means all that God is...

Not that I'm religious, or a terribly good christian, I AM NEITHER OF THESE THINGS. I just like it, as it fits.

Michael 00:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

So, if that's what Kal-El means, what does Jor-El mean? 172.190.47.71 16:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

New Movie

The movie Superman Returns is out now and in theaters. 06:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Guess which article I am avoiding editing until I see the movie. --Chris Griswold 06:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

In-line citations

It's just been brought to my attention that this article make absolutely no use of in-line citations. This is a requirement of new featured articles and is probably something that should be done here. CovenantD 22:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The Superman Pic

i'm should pick the Micheal turner pic instead of the Jim Lee pic. SO IF EVERYONE thinks of turning it back to Jim Lee pic,I'm turning it back!!--user:Tgunn2

I reckon the Jim Lee picture's better, myself. Should we put it to the vote?--Joseph Q Publique 12:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
From the simple perspective of good taste, I have to say no to a Turner drawing of Supes. Dear God, the horror. Anyways, I think it's nice that the infobox picture matches with Batman's WesleyDodds 01:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think it should lead-in image should be replaced with one of Christopher Reeve's as Superman. That or Brandon Routh.--KrossTalk 03:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting idea.--Chris Griswold 08:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
How about we just post a picture of Jesus flying through the air? WesleyDodds 20:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Awesome!!!!!!!!You just flipped my lid!!!!--Chris Griswold 20:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm betting in 200 years there won't be much of a difference anyway, except for the suit colors and none of the apostles being as much of a jerk as Batman. WesleyDodds 20:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Wonder Woman will be known as a whore. --Chris Griswold 20:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The picture should be something more iconic than that Lee image. I suggest the cover to Superman #1.Rhindle The Red 19:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I think using a picture of how he currently looks is better. I also like the idea about using Reeve or Routh. Havok (T/C/c) 19:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

How about this image?--KrossTalk 18:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

As much as I loved the Christopher Reeve & Brandon Routh Superman movies, I do not think either is appropriate since this is the article about the comic book version of the character. Now, as to which artist's rendition should be used, how about somethink from Alex Ross? That would be money.--Cnjartist 20:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

No. There's enough Ross on Wikipedia to satisfy any fetishist. CovenantD 20:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Good point.--Cnjartist 21:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes. But, Alex Ross has been one of the few creators to really nail Superman's character in his paintings.DarthAlbin 02:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Besides, everyone knows Reeves was the one true Superman. Everyone else are just understudies. ;)--KrossTalk 21:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
DC's rewrite of Superman's origin with Man of Steel and Birthright make the Reeve portrayal a bit antiquated. In my opinion, WB should have started anew with the Superman movies as they did with Batman (Batman Begins). However, with Reeve dying recently, continuing with the antiquated Reeve portrayal became politically-correct.DarthAlbin 02:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure that it is an actual sequel. I remember a thing or two contradicting the previous movies, but I can't remember what. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 07:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
But that counts for the MOVIES only, not the COMIC BOOKS. How much more does it need to be spelled out. Last time I checked Reeves (both George & Christopher), Routh, Cain, and any other actors who portraied the Man of Steel are people and not drawings created by an artist and printed monthly in various comic books by DC. So please, for the love of Krypton, please stop with the "let's use a photo of [Enter actor's name here] for the main image of the article. Now, if you want to suggest an image of Superman that was created by a comic book artist then knock yourself out.--Cnjartist 21:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I was joking. Take a stick out.--KrossTalk 03:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I was listening to Lewis Black while I was typing that.--Cnjartist 04:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks fine right now. Matches Batman. Personally, I think some artists, including Ross, make Superman look ugly. Namely the one who made one of the more recent covers with Supes in orbit. ACS (Wikipedian) 23:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the Jim Lee art for the photo is great. But can we vote for a new one? --Hokgwai 04:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

superman documentery!

WB has a documentery on superman. [1]. Also due out on DVD june 20th. Bud0011 19:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

fixed vandalism

Someone changed the article to claim that Superman was a real person who was featured on the Real World. MasterGrazzt 02:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought that was true. Didn't he put his dirty finger in Pedro Zamorra's peanut butter? --Chris Griswold 13:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Probably a Robot Chicken fan (c.f., The Real World: Metropolis). Oh, and I think the peanut butter incident happened in the Judd Winick-penned Superman, Pedro, and Me crossover book. GentlemanGhost 08:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, while I admire some of the show's work, in many ways, I don't think it's very funny or well-executed. It's trying to be Family Guy in a lot of ways, but it's much clumsier. --Chris Griswold 21:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It happened again. It said superman was a real person and one of the worst superheroes. He was also created by George Bush. I was going to fix this but someone beat me to it. Thats good I suppose. --Redslap 00:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The Reign of the Super-man

Check it out at: http://superman.ws/seventy/reign/ Doberdog 08:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Doberdog

There are just too many links, Wikipedia is not a link repository. Havok (T/C/c) 07:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

So which ones should we eradicate? --Joe Sewell 16:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is the list now. The ones with a line trough I feel should be removed.

Feel free to argue why "X" should be kept and so forth. Havok (T/C/c) 19:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Two dumb questions

  • Did Superman / Clark Kent go to college? If he didn't, how'd he get that reporter job? I could see a cub reporter getting hired straight out of high school back in the 1930s but not nowadays..
1. World of Metropolis #3 shows Clark going to college... no idea if he did Pre-Crisis or not.
2. No idea Dlong 02:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
He went to college pre-Crisis. That's where he changed his identity from Superboy to Superman, and where he met Lori Lemaris. WesleyDodds 10:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Colors. Very probable. Recall, 4-color printing left very little leeway. Also, recall especially, comics were an extemely new medium in 1938, & color was a major novelty, so colorists wouldn't be nearly as sophisticated as even the '70s. Compare, for example, X-Men 108, with the ghostly portrait of Jean. That is subtle, subtle coloring. Trekphiler 02:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Character history

Under character history, the section begins: "As portrayed in Action Comics #1, Superman was born on the planet Krypton and rocketed to Earth as an infant by his scientist father moments before the planet's destruction."... however the scan I have of Action Comics #1 makes no mention of Superman even being an alien... this should be corrected. Dlong 02:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

In action comics #1 the Kents take him to the orphanage first, then adopt him the next day. The passing off baby Kal-El as their own was a silver age innovation.--Wakefencer


Im was wondering can we have a page on what happen to blue and red superman that would be nice --user:Supermike

Superdickery

I put a comment about Superman being a dick in the "personality" section. someone deleted it immediately. Why? This is a popular meme, see http://www.superdickery.com/galleries.html I think it is a valid inclusion. Should we keep it, people? Your opinion please. Harry Mudd 02:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

-Its a nice thing to have in external links, and its rather funny, but it shouldn't be in personality. Superman isn't actually a "dick," its just a silver age tendency to have strange covers in an attempt to make people buy the books to see what happens.--Wakefencer

You have my support for adding it to the links. But it doesn't belong in the article. (Actually...) 24.126.199.129 11:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Whether or not Superman is a "dick" is POV, but the tendency illustrated on that website is not merely the invention of disreputable Silver Age cover artists. It is a notable element of Superman's Silver Age personality. He had a tendency to toy with the emotions and endanger the lives of his friends and associates (e.g., faking his own death, falsely proposing marriage, framing people for non-existent crimes). Describing this as "dickery" has something to do with changing cultural norms and storytelling conventions. But that site is funny and should be linked IMHO... Clconway 15:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You shouldn't say he's a dick but the site is big enough to warrent being mentioned.

Truth, Justice and the American Way

I've noticed watching the animated Superman shorts (currently on Refrederator's vBlog 26-30 June 2006) that the introduction is "Truth and Justice" rather than "Truth, Justice and the American Way" It would be nice if the article addressed and explained this change. --Don Hosek

I thought the change was introduced in the early 50s (with the George Reeves TV show, don't know about radio) when fear of communism dominated the American culture. I'd like to see the real answer as well. HalJor 03:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale

The images lacks fair use rationales. This is a requirement for a featured article. Please fix this. --Maitch 11:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you please explain what you mean? --Chris Griswold 12:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
The images are old, that's why. However, it is obvious they are comic panels, so they fall within fairuse. T-1000 22:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Give me a day or so and I will sort this. Hiding Talk 22:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I've done three, there's four to go, but I can't see why Image:Action Comics 837 - Luthor and the Memorials.jpg is being used in the article. The rest of the images all illustrate issues or points discussed within the article, but I can't work out what this relates to. Can someone tell me what point it is illustrating, otherwise it'll have to be removed. Hiding Talk 23:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Daily Planet / Star

There have been some edits/reverts concerning the sentence:

Clark Kent, a reporter for The Daily Star (later changed to The Daily Planet)

Several people, including myself, have swapped it so that it reads:

Clark Kent, a reporter for The Daily Planet (originally called The Daily Star)

and it's been reverted. Now ChrisGriswold has placed a comment saying "<!--Leave in this order-->". So.. why? I'm no comic book guru, but on Wikipedia don't we report what is first, and then describe what was? I mean we don't say "Henry Johns is a senator (who later became the president)" - we say "Henry Johns is the president (who started out as a senator)". I vote we change it back to the latter (above), but obviously can't do it without a discussion first. —EatMyShortz 02:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

My reason for this is that we are describing the Golden Age Superman, not the Earth-Two one, but the actual character as published in the 1903s-`40s. Actually, if that part about rocketing to Earth is still attributed to Action Comics #1, that really ought to be re-attributed as well. --Chris Griswold 03:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Forget Earth-2, the original script had it Daily Star. Whether it got to print that way in Action #1, I can't say (I've never seen that ish...), but that's how Jerry wrote it. Trekphiler 02:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Smallville vs Comics

I'm not even sure this belongs here, but here goes: When comparing Lana and Lois to the comics movies, it's interesting to note that Smallville Lana looks like Lois in other portrayals, and Smallville Lois looks like Lana in other portrayals. Just needed to get that off my chest. Nariel 02:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

We're here for you. --Chris Griswold 03:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Is there a significance to that? Nariel 19:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, there is a BIG resemblance between the Smallville Martha Kent and the Superman III Lana Lang. DarthAlbin 02:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

If you squint, green apples look like unripened tomatoes. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any resemblance between Annette O'Toole & K Callan. And wasn't she still married in "L&C"...? (BTW, both are unhistoric. Clark was an orphan in Jerry's original script... Trekphiler 02:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Symbol of Imperialism

I was trying to add the fact that Superman is a symbol of imperialism in Cuba. I don't know where it would go. Does anyone have a suggestion? --C5mjohn 02:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

First, I feel I need to ask if you can cite a source for that tidbit.--Chris Griswold 08:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
On 60 Minutes - "Che Guevara was yesterday, Elian Gonzalez is today. And that’s precisely how Cuba is playing him. In what’s called the Museum of Ideas in Cardenas, he has already been cast in bronze as the revolutionary hero preparing to throw Superman — in Cuba a symbol of imperialism — onto the rubbish pile of history." [2]--RevWaldo 15:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks RevWaldo, I should have put it in my original comment. They actually showed the bronze statue with the Superman in his hand on the show. I was shocked when I heard it, but the video made it obvious. Here is another source with a picture. http://www.hellocuba.ca/itineraries/441Museum_of_ideas.html --C5mjohn 20:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
That is really cool. Good idea! --Chris Griswold 21:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


Loss of Powers

Everybody understands that Superman lost his powers and recovered them. But why he lost his powers in first place? It was because he was exposed to the Red Son of Krypton, or just because he just wanted to live a normal life?. Leader Vladimir — Preceding undated comment added 23:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

He lost them because of the red son, but they remained gone because he subconsciously wanted them to stay gone. --Chris Griswold 05:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Documentary

Thought this might interest you guys: http://www.aintitcoolnews.com/display.cgi?id=23529

plange 14:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I was surprised to find that a two-hour commercial costs $20 to own. --Chris Griswold 19:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
? It's a documentary on the whole Superman franchise....Goes through the radio stuff, etc...plange 19:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it's narrated by Kevin Spacey, and it leads to about 20 minutes of preview material for the new movie. I was surprised it wasn't a bargain bin item or a giveaway. I suspect that it will be, before long. --Chris Griswold 23:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Birthright in Debut box

Since DC has dubbed Birthright as the canon origin for Superman, I really think it should be placed under Modern debut (along with MoS) or be given it's own slate under a "Revised" section. As an encyclopedia, the information would not be out of place. CmdrClow 02:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

See the discussion above. DC has revised Superman's origin countless times, but only once have they started the character's history over from scratch. WesleyDodds 03:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Evil Origins

I remember reading before that originally Superman was a villian of sorts, but I cant find any refrences to it anymore.Was I mistaken, or was this possibly vandalism or someone making a confused post? 209.169.111.193 SomeGuyNamedSean

It's still there: Superman#Publication history. --Chris Griswold 05:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Double Checking

Hi, my name is Sam and I'm new to the editing process on Wikipedia. I added a picture of Superman by Darwyn Cook and just wanted to make sure I wasn't crossing any lines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SamwiseG (talk • contribs) at 07:03, July 29, 2006

Well, Samuel, signing your comments would be a good way to help. Use four Tildes. As for your image, it apparently has not source info. Also, it looks a lot more like Golden Age Supes. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 06:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


Superdickery

Should this site be mentioned at all? It might be relevant to a degree to talk about his public modern image and perception. Kentmann 06:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Please follow this link Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/templates/navboxes to join in on the discussion . --Basique 12:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Best Article?

Okay, I personally think this article needs some cleaning up. The majority of it is about previous sections and philosophical debates on his character. What's happening in superman's life today? Why isn't the fact the he brutally beat down on Batman and Wonder Woman mentioned at all? In fact the Infinite Crisis section hardly recounts his role in it at all. I actually think sections of this article could be deleted entirely. They just aren't pertinent to the character. And why does his secret Identity have its own section? This makes no sense, they are the same people and should be covered in the same article. Simply put, I think this article has a long way to go before it can be counted among the best written by the wiki community.Jupiterzguy 02:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Great! I am excited about your participation! This article is a Featured Article, which does mean it is considered one of the best-written articles on Wikipedia; however, if you feel it needs work, please do feel add the information you feel is missing. Thanks! --Chris Griswold 04:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Wow...I sounded really bitchy up there didn't I? I apologize for that, but I still think the article needs more emphasis on current events. It seems to be based more on how Superman is perceived and his legend than about the character himself. Jupiterzguy 02:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
That is the thought behind some of these articles, that they are to give an overview of the character and not to focus more on recent publications than on old ones, which they tend to do; however, that doesn't mean that you shouldn't add what you think belongs in the article. I'll work with you to make the improvements you think need to be made. I do think Superman's beating of Wonder Woman and Batman is important to note; it speaks to the changes in tone of the comics and the dire straits the characters were in prior to the I.Crisis. Oh, and thanks for the apology. Apologizing's a great skill that a lot of editors could work to improve. I don't think you're bad person at all; you seem to want this article to be better. So let's team up. --Chris Griswold 01:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Psychokineticist?

Hi, noting this at User talk:ChrisGriswold's prompting. Superman used telekinesis in one of the Chris Reeves movie to rebuild the great wall of China. Also, don't some of the Superman's powers explanations (which may have been retconned or contradicted) explain his powers as psionic - a bit like tactile telekinesis? Just clarifying, input thanks. ~ZytheTalk to me! 21:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I remember one of John Byrne's first stories explaining that Superman flew by some kind of psychic power, including the ability to hold together that which he was carrying -- if he's carrying an ocean liner or a huge pile of dirt, something must be preventing it from breaking apart in midair. So in a sense, this might be true, but I personally wouldn't have included Superman in this Category. HalJor 21:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, well I discussed it with ChrisGriswold and suggested the idea of Category:Characters with psionically enhanced strength to encorporate most of the Category:Superman pastiches, Category:Kryptonians and a few others from TV, film and other comics. The category would itself be a subcat of Category:Fictional psychokineticists.
Right, but not all the characters you mentioned dealt specifically with strength. Thereis something to be said about characters whose powers are enhanced or dependent upon belief in them; Gladiator's powers, for instance, only work if he believes in himself. The Marvel Norse Gods and the DC Greek Pantheon derive power directly from humanity's belief in them. I wasn't completely clear on the Willow Rosenberg part. --Chris Griswold 01:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
In season six, to defeat Buffy, she channelled her power into superhuman strength. I suppose that's more mystical than psionic though. ~ZytheTalk to me! 12:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've detailed more extensively what my proposal is. Please read it here: User:Zythe/Project, and contribute any ideas before I implement it. Thank you. ~ZytheTalk to me! 17:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Disputed text

Recently added text:

The story of Superman's origin parallels those of other cultural heroes and religious figures such as Jesus, Moses, or Samson who were spirited away as infants from places where they were in danger.

...

These changes are intended to retain the core elements that make Superman an iconic character.

This text should be removed. It is originial, uncited research. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is the text Chris keeps blanking.

The story of Superman's origin parallels those of other cultural heroes and religious figures such as Jesus, Moses, or Samson who were spirited away as infants from places where they were in danger.

However, facts of his origin, as well as relationships and abilities, have changed significantly over time. Editors and writers used the process of "retroactive continuity", or "retcon", to adjust to changes in popular culture, eliminate restrictive segments of the mythos, and permit contemporary storylines. These changes are intended to retain the core elements that make Superman an iconic character.

Wikipedia is a place to improve article text, not remove it because you have an opinion about it. —scarecroe 22:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Also, here are some sources as Superman as a Christ figure: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] Perhaps a new section is in order? —scarecroe 22:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Go for it. But please do cite it. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

"Vast" Superhuman Strength

The word "vast" keeps getting addded to "superhuman strength" in the infobox, which doesn't add anything -- isn't superhuman strength "vast" enough already? I've reverted this edit several times, and I know I'm not alone in that. Do we have a consensus on whether it belongs or not? I say "no". HalJor 23:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I doesn't. We discussed this recently at the WikiProject talk page. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 19:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Can you provide a link? Never mind -- I found it in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics/Archive16. I don't fully understand, and it would have been nice if someone would have mentioned this in an Edit Summary so I didn't waste my time reverting edits from someone with a spotty history, so I'll just go back to work now. HalJor 20:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Superman Blue

Can we get some more info on Superman Blue/Red in this article? It lasted a year or so, and it's in a large number of comics, so I think it's important enough to mention, at least what the character's circumstances are duing that time. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Death?

I would just like a little bit of clarification in this article. How was doomsday able to kill him? He possessed neither magic nor kryptonite, but superman clearly died from this encounter. And how was doomsday defeated anyway? Shouldn't he just keep coming back after he's killed? Jupiterzguy 02:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It's quite simple. They beat each other to death, and both of them came back (just not at the same time). The question should really be: How did they come back? I don't recall the answer to that one. HalJor 03:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The Phantom Stranger explains it at the very end of the "Reign of the Supermen" storyline. It has to do with several things: Superman's body continued to store solar radiation as his body lay dead, the Eradicator put the body in the birthing matrix in which Superman arrived on earth, Pa Kent had a heart attack and convinced Superman to return to life, and ...magic? I can't remember. I do know for certain that PS said that it CAN NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN. So, give it another 20 years and then people will be nostalgic for black blood. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 07:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure my question belongs to this topic but I did not want to start a new one. Anyway: Is not Superman supposed to be immortal? in a storyline he is still alive and looks 30 years old in 30.000 A.D. In Dark Knight Returns BAtman is mid 50s and Superman is still looks 30.He died in Doomdsday storyline but he returned. there are more referances in various comics like these ones. I think there is an unwritten consensus between DC editors that Superman will not age and die from natural causes and will live forever as long as our yellow sun is well.Isatay 13:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Superman will not age and die, just like many fictional characters do not age and die. This does not make him immortal; it makes him a licensed property. Conner Kent was the same way until DC was about to lose the lawsuit over the use of the Superboy property, and then he died.--Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Superman never died. He dies. WikiNew 21:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Superman CAN be hurt by strength, but only that comperable to his own. I have The Death and Life of Superman novel: Simply put, he doesn't actually die. The book explains that his body's energy reserves can get so low that he goes into a hibernation state, which resembles death. At one point, he was taken to Project Cadmus, and his "dead" body was still invulnerable. His body is fueled by solar energy, and once he absorbed enough, he woke up from his stasis. -- TomXP411[Talk] 07:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Can Superman father a child?

Is it just me or does this whole article smack of original research? Whispering(talk/c) 18:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The comics section is all sourced appropriately. The movies and death of sections appear to refer to events found in available media. I suppose those could use some more off-site citations. —scarecroe 23:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I cut the majority of the film section. I seem to recall a much better intro on the section. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
This section in particular lacks discussion outside the comics (in particular, a certain film adaption). Though it's not cannon within the comic books, it still deserves mention as this article is not just about the character as seen in comics (is it?). —EatMyShortz 14:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Grouping "Additional Reading"

The "Additional Reading" list includes both comic stories (Superman For All Seasons, Kingdom Come) and prose works (Last Son of Krypton, Ubermensch). I think it would help to separate the list into groups along these, or similar, lines -- I just don't know what they should be called. (The list could be a little shorter, too -- some of the comic entries are debatable.) Any suggestions, yea or nay? HalJor 07:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Sleep?

Does Superman sleep? That was the question I came to leaving the theatre for Superman Returns, as he doesn't appear to need to sleep. The part of the article listing his powers doesn't have an answer to this. SchmuckyTheCat 02:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

That's a good question..I have not heard anything relating to Superman and requirement for sleep - hopefully someone can shed some light on this one --Mikecraig 04:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

In Last Son of Krypton, Elliot S! Maggin states that Superman doesn't need to sleep but does need to dream in order to stay sane so he tries to get an hour's sleep every few days.--Gothamgazette 23:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Protection request

I request that we protect this page and the Power/Abilites until the dispute is resolved. T-1000 04:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Can't get a date

I question the 1932 date. Les Daniels, in DC Comics : sixty years of the world's favorite comic book heroes (Boston, MA : Little, Brown and Co., 1995; ISBN 0821220764), says 1933; the 1932 character was not the same one later in Action; & Marvin Gardiner, then Editor in Chief at National (as I believe it was then) bought the original story, for the legendary $130, which cost them the rights to the character. Has anybody got solid confirms? Trekphiler 02:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Or not. The editor was Vin Sullivan... Trekphiler 03:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC) (He bought Bats, too...)

We're not in KS

Can anybody say for sure if Smallville was originally in Illinois, not Kansas? I recall seeing a "DC Universe" that said so... Trekphiler 02:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Superjew

I added the "Roberto Duran" ;-) piece, based a a TV doc on Jews in entertainment industry that raised the ish. The mask law was passed to stop Klan rallies, but it's still on the books (as far as I know); this is 1 reason "Spidey's an outlaw. Trekphiler 03:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

"Canadian born"

I'm not sure why "born" changes that sentence. Had he bcome an American citizen by that time? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 15:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Shuster was a U.S. citizen. --Gothamgazette 23:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Gettin' some Action

I think it was Daniels, but it said Action#1 had a first print run of 200K, & ultimately sold 500K--& this w Supes as a backup story to a magician, Zatara... And the book was only bimonthly to start with. Also, Superman debut after the Supes strip. Anbody think it's worth including? Trekphiler 05:44 & 05:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC) I added:

"as a backup story to the magician, Zatara, created by Fred Guardineer; a newspaper strip started in January of 1939, followed by the eponymous Superman book that summer."

and:

"scarcely unusual in a period when writers and artists were paid a minimal by-the-page rate."

Trekphiler 06:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Old Kryptonite

Can somebody confirm the date of intro? Daniels says it was 1945, not 1943, & originally created for an unpublished 1940 story. Trekphiler 07:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Not knowing who or what "Daniels" is, I cannot comment on the accuracy therein, but it disagrees with what's cited at The K-Metal From Krypton: The Most Important Superman Story Ever Written. --Joe Sewell 16:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Daniels is a little boy who is also a fuzzy tigerbot. He says silly things. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
The pictures in Daniels' books are fantastic, but all of the words should be taken with a large bucket of salt and verified elsewhere. Macduff 05:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Adding other Superman Actors

I notice that Dean Cain is not on the list of superman actors, shouldnt he be on there?

He's there with the others, in the first paragraph under "Superman in Popular Culture". HalJor 17:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

first super hero

is superman the first superhero? if not then who is? please reply. i think it is superman who was the first. i want to not know about the comic, but of the hero,

superman was created in 1932 compare with this date.

Trivia

I am adding a trivia section. I think this is revelant to the history, development and "culture" of the character. IE. Superman's "s" curl which is always depicted on his forehead. --Hokgwai 02:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do not add a trivia section. This is a featured article. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 02:49, 21 October 2006

(UTC)

ChrisGriswold, could you be so kind to illuminate why "trivia" is not relvant to this article? It could be considered broad, but I believe there are items which are relevant to the character's origin, design, history and depiction. If trivia is not allowed then please suggest an appropriate place the notation of Superman's "S" hair curl. If it is relevent enough that it is depicted in just about every representation of the character in comics, animation, movies and television it should be relevant enough to place in this article. Thank you for your keen attention in keeping this article honest.--Hokgwai 04:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

If it is relevent, it should find a home in the article. If this article's Featured status is ever questioned, the trivia sections will be one of the first things to go based on editor comments. If you want to make sure your contributions are secure in an article, you would best to avoid adding them to a trivia section. I am currently working on a proposal to handle trivia on a sister site. Here, take a look at WP:TRIVIA. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 07:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

black Superman?

Is there an African American incarnation of Superman? I'd once heard that there was, but it wasn't in the article.192.231.128.68 01:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps from an alternate universe, but nothing truly notable. Maybe you're thinking of Icon? HalJor 02:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
You're thinking of Steel, a character who put on a robotic suit of armor in homage to his hero Superman, after the Death of Superman storyline. There was even a movie, starring Shaquille O'Neal. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 04:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and there's also Sunshine Superman, a black Superman from hippie-cultured "Earth-17" of the DC Comics multiverse, who appears in Grant Morrison's Animal Man run. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 04:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Don't forget the black Superman of Earth-D, who appeared in a story by Marv Wolfman and George Pérez which was printed in Legends of the DC Universe and took place between the fourth and fifth issues of Crisis on Infinite Earths. --Ace ETP 21:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Justice Alliance of America. With the Flash AKA Tanaka Rei,Batman and Robin are father and son, black Supergirl who was the wife to Superman, Green Arrow an American Indian, Hawkman and Hawkgirl brother and sister, Green Lantern AKA Jose Hernandez, Aquaman weird appearance.I got that from the Internet and [8] in which you click on obscure characters and then click J and the rest. You find the Justice Alliance of America!!!! Brian Boru is awesome 23:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Hayden Christensen as Superman?

I read a romour somehere,maybe on wekipedia that Hayden Christesen was a candidate for the man of steel in Superman Returns,but wanrer bros pulled him out of the line because they felt it wouldn't look right for the same guy who played Darth Vader to be Superman? Is this true?Does anyone know anything aobut this or any comments made by Hayden Christensen on being cast as Superman?Nadirali 08:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)Nadirali

That was a rumour, yes. But it wasn't in Superman Returns, it was in some of the older cancelled incarnations. Go here for information: Canceled Superman films. —EatMyShortz 14:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

"Bizarro" was a villian???

Regarding the statement: "Also, Superman villain Bizarro inspired a jazzy Michael Daugherty piece of music of the same name."


I haven't followed Superman for several decades... I stopped paying attention to the Superman comics when the art style changed for the worse sometime around the late 60's.

But if I remember, Bizarro Superman wasn't considered a "villian" at all; he was just misplaced in our world, as Superman was in his ??? Was there another Bizarro? ...If so, the article might make the distinction. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gloryroad (talk • contribs) 15:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

He's definitely an antagonist to Superman, which isn't synonymous with being a villain, but he certainly is that much of the time. WesleyDodds 15:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking for homage

Hi, looking for a particular homage to Superman, about a boy called Clark Kent who was born on earth to human parents, who named him as an homage to the comic book character.As he grows up he discovers that he actually has superpowers and dons a superman suit to save lives, etc believing that no one would ever tell anyone that they were saved by superman.

Is there are article for this homage - i think its a mini series, or graphic novel. I seem to remember reading something on it several weeks ago, but can no longer find any mention.

Thanks in advanvce for the help.

(Magalo 00:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC))

--Trademark123 03:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect Citation

In the cultural influence section, it's cited that this, [9], the Times article by Howard jacobsen states his name a s 'Voice of God'. However, the article lacks such information. as such, I'm going to change the infrmation and cite to Simcha Weinstein's up up and Oy Vey, which suggests Vessel, not Voice. In the spirit of AGF, I suspect that as the article and book share a title, someone mixed up the two. ThuranX 21:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

  • That's my fault. I was reworking what was already there and had meant to cite Jacobsen's "In Hebrew, El — originally meaning “might, strength, power” — is the name for God, appearing in such composite forms as El Emet, the God of Truth, and El Olam, God Everlasting. Students of the Kabbalah will further notice the rhythmic resemblance of Kal-El and Jor El to Ein-Sof, the term coined by the early Kabbalists for “The Infinite”." Obviously I never amended that portion of the text to come to that. Good catch and my apologies. I tend to have four or five books open at a time trying to assimilate it all and source what was already there as well as add new stuff. Thanks. Hiding Talk 22:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Mistersupes

Just letting you know that he is here to vandalize the page and we must keep an eye on his edits --Dark Dragon Flame 22:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks like he's rotating editor accounts... — J Greb 23:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I reported his sockpuppet and his IP adress along him in the WP:AN/I, if you notice another account or want to add something, please add it --Dark Dragon Flame 23:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually I'm not the only one check the Mr.Supes thread in WP:AN/I there's link there to a page containing all his adresses and accounts, they are over 25 --Dark Dragon Flame 01:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Similarities with Jesus

This topic is only covered by one sentence in this article. Given the numerous similarities between these two and the amount of discussion there has been about it, shouldn't we make a separate article dedicated to it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by A gx7 (talk • contribs) 22:42, February 10, 2007

No, add to the information in this article first before starting a new article. And only add information you can get from published sources. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 09:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Some kind of record?

Maybe this is original research, but... Having appeared in print monthly for over 70 years---and having appeared in solo, team and spin-off comic books, newspapers, novels, television shows, and feature films---does Superman hold some kind of record for appearing in the most stories of any single character in history? Does any other copyrighted character, besides maybe Batman, even come close? Clconway 15:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Er, no. That record would belong to Greek, Nordic or Biblical legends. Wiki-newbie 15:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Older? Yes. Often retold? Yes. But sheer volume of notionally distinct stories told? Not so clear. Or, modify the claim to "modern publishing history"? Clconway 15:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Well don't add something like that without a cite. Wiki-newbie 15:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

While I feel in my gut there is some validity to this claim, it is undoubtedly a violation of Wikipedia:NOR. I have no cite. Clconway 16:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


Questions about powers

Doesn't Superman has some sort of Kryptonian Mental Attack Technique?

Also, in the superherobox, "intellegence" is sighted as an ability. Is this super intellegence? And if not, is it worth noting? It is not mentioned in the main article. Dorin 08:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


Date

I heard 1933 not 1932 which goes with Superman being based on Doc Savage (The Man of Tomorrow aka The Man of Bronze who had a Fortress of Solitude before Superman did) who was trained to be the ultimate man.

Archival time

Seriously this talk page must be archived it has over fifty topics by now. -Dark Dragon Flame 01:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT The Placebo Effect 14:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I've done it. LordHarris 21:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Proper storyline/history

SUPERMAN WAS CREATED BY A CANADIAN! Proof = partofourheritage.ca —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.90.113 (talk) 17:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


Is there a page that gives a proper storyline of the current Superman? Or am I just overlooking it? Dark Rain

  • You are just overlooking it. Its really very easy to find just click here [[.]]

Glad i could help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.125.192 (talk) 11:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

He immigrated to the US from Canada as a teenager. So, I guess he is technically an American (I believe he was a US citizen).PonileExpress (talk) 02:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

First appearance

There is a discussion on the Comics Project talk page about the appropriateness of "Historical" and "Modern" in the superherobox. CovenantD 00:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Weakness

It is implied in Super Friends that his weakness to kryptonite is just in his head as in one episode were he can't move because of a chunk of kryptonite near him a kid (who can't walk under the belief that he can't run without his odg) manages to throw away, near the end Superman remarks "It's amazing what beliefs can do" while playing with the kryptonite like a ball and showing no ill effects, can anyone suggest an answer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.172.112.40 (talk) 10:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Superfriends is not canon.PonileExpress (talk) 16:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Questions about powers

Doesn't Superman has some sort of Kryptonian Mental Attack Technique?

Also, in the superherobox, "intellegence" is sighted as an ability. Is this super intellegence? And if not, is it worth noting? It is not mentioned in the main article. Dorin 08:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)||reposted Dorin 08:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe those are mentioned in the companion article, Powers and abilities of Superman. He's had so many over the years, they just wouldn't all fit here. CovenantD 09:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I guess he also has the ability to brainwash since he made Lois forget about him being superman in the second movie. Privat Krish 5:50, September 2007

I dont know when it was brought out but from the graphics i can see it is one of the older ones. I think he does it in the fourth movie also. He kisses Lois then Lois crumbles for a few seconds, like she goes unconcious and then when she wakes up she doesnt know any thing. Privat Krish 8:16, 24 September 2007

Flight as an ability

In the abilities box it fails to mention flight - this is quite a big ability to miss out - but it says no editing. Can someone tell me if this should be added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.201.10.214 (talk) 23:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It's in there. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

when does the copyright expire?

Don't know, but extrapolating from Copyright Term Extension Act, I'd guess not until at least 2034. And that would be the copyright on Action Comics #1, not the character of Superman, a trademark of DC Comics which they can theoretically hold in perpetuity. Clconway 21:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

i have to do a report on superman why is he so important i chose him because ha is better than other hreos what do u think

He is considered the first Superhero.PonileExpress (talk) 02:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Recentism

"The character's cast, powers and trappings have slowly expanded throughout the years. Superman's backstory was altered to allow for adventures as Superboy, and other survivors of Krypton were discovered, including Supergirl and Krypto the Superdog. In addition, Superman has been licensed and adapted into a variety of media, from radio to television and film. The motion picture Superman Returns was released in 2006, with a performance at the international box office which exceeded expectations"

It seems weird to mention Superman Returns (and its box office run) specifically because it was the most recent movie. We don't have to advertise for Superman, do we? Why not mention that he's been featured in movies, starting with Superman: The Movie? The way it's written here it reads as if SR was the first major motion picture adaptation of Superman. The Superman Returns sentence seems tacked-on, especially since it then goes on to mention Byrne's 1986 revamp, which was quite a bit earlier in the chronology. 82.95.254.249 21:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Good ideas. I look forward to seing your work. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 04:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Editing as anonymous doesn't pay off, since people will revert you just because they feel they can. And I'm not getting an account again. I'm more content with my input being ignored than being reverted. 82.95.254.249 10:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

ART PHOTO

I am just bringing this up. I love the Jim Lee photo of Superman. But it has been up for ages. I notice it sits juxtaposed in reverse to Jim Lee's artwork of Batman on the Batman page. Would it be too much to ask for a vote on whether the artwork should be changed? Jim Lee is a fantastic artist, but he does'nt have artistic license on Superman does he?? I think there are other representations of the character by other artists that are just as good. --Hokgwai 23:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

What do people think about using a picture that's more traditional and/or definitive - something by Joe Shuster, Wayne Boring, or Curt Swan. Macduff 19:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Why do you want to replace the picture? It's perfectly fine. Alientraveller 19:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a perfect picture for the article and shouldn't be changed because it's "old". If it ain't broke, don't fix it! --Maestro25 03:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree: the picture needs to be changed. Jim Lee had a definitive run on Batman, not Superman. Ichormosquito 09:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

By this time Jim Lee has probably drawn more Superman appearances than Batman ones, but that's neither here nor there. (If I had to select an artist to draw a definitive Batman, Jim Lee wouldn't even spring to mind.) Lee's style is much more 21st century than Shuster, Boring, or Swan's, and therefore more appropriate to an article someone is reading TODAY, about a character appearing today. I might say the same about a dozen other artists. It comes down to a choice of my favorite artist over yours. The Lee pose might as well stay. Argentarthropod 22:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Modern 1st Appearance

I recommend removal of Man of Steel #1 and just leaving the historical 1st appearance for now, because of the recent continuity revelations by Kurt Busiek and Neal Bailey in this article. According to the article, the new origin of Superman has yet to be told in the current "New Earth" continuity established by Infinite Crisis. --CmdrClow 01:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

In which case, his first appearance would be in the first Kurt Busiek/Geoff Johns issue: Superman #650. --Macduff 05:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Very true. This discussion needs more fuel, this is relatively important to the modern representation of Superman through this article. --CmdrClow 07:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd argue to remove it because we know Superman first appeared in Action Comics #1. That's all we need to know. And who cares how many times Superman's history has been re-written: he made his first appearance in AC#1. That's it. Alientraveller 15:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that most of this article's regular contributors (aside from the vandalizing anons) would feel that the Man of Steel date should remain and that the 650th isn't of particular note to Superman's history. However, as very few people have participated in this discussion, I think it's best to compromise and adopt Allientraveller's position, and keep it until a new consensus is reached. --Ace ETP 23:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Or, at least until DC releases a new origin story within the New Earth post-IC continuity. This is a good choice, I'll take it. --CmdrClow 04:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Just leave the historical date. The main body of the article can discuss the more complex (and irrelevant to template) issue of continuity reboots.~ZytheTalk to me! 12:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Superman as an analogy for Jesus? or the Messiah?

Considering the fact that "Siegel and Shuster were both Jewish" are we really supposed to believe that their character Superman is supposed to be an analogy for Jesus??? No matter what Christians say, according to the Jewish tradition (which is in fact the original source for Christianity {along with the Mystery Religions}) Jesus is not the MESSIAH... So which is it really???

--Carlon 00:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Read the citations. Alientraveller 08:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Superman was not originally intented as a Christ-like figure by Siegel and Shuster. But over the years, many different writers have written Superman with many different interpretations. Some of these writers have written Christ-like portrayals of Superman, in particular, Donner's portrayals in the Superman movies.--Trademark123 22:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, you're right because Jesus had an affair with his girlfriend.PonileExpress (talk) 02:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
He also couldn't fly originally, and his super powers weren't nearly as super as they eventually became. Siegel and Shuster had in mind more along the lines of Hercules or something. Their creation has evolved significantly over the ensuing 70 years. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Action Comics 1

I know their is already an image of the cover of the book, but would the image of the first page[[10]] be of any significance to this article, seeing as its first ever introduction to Superman? Rodrigue 19:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe on Action Comics article. I don't want to be indiscriminate with this article. Alientraveller 19:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use image on cover

The fair use image on the main page is not valid. A free alternative exists in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fleishersuperman.jpg, and should be used. Per WP:NONFREE,

Non-free content may be used on the English Wikipedia under fair use only where all 10 of the following criteria are met. These criteria are based on the four fair-use factors, the goal of creating a free encyclopedia, and the need to minimize legal exposure.'

'1. No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. If non-free content can be transformed into free material, this is done instead of using a fair-use defense. Non-free content is always replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available. "Acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose. (As a quick test, ask yourself: "Can this image be replaced by a different one, while still having the same effect?" If the answer is yes, then the image probably does not meet this criterion.)

The image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fleishersuperman.jpg, does as good a job of identifying how superman looks like as the image on the article page, and so should be used. Borisblue 20:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

From a purely stylistic standpoint, the image does not represent Superman's traditional insignia. Alientraveller 20:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
If that were in any way important, then why does the fair use image on the article have the insignia partially obscured? Borisblue 20:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Well it's definitely important if you want to represent Superman timelessly, not just an early cartoon version. Alientraveller 20:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Then why are we using a fair use image that has the insignia obscured, if that is so vital a consideration that we overturn one of the central principles of wikipedia? The Fleisher image is as valid a portrayal of superman as the version on the page right now. Borisblue 21:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Also, I seriously doubt that the Fleisher image is any more free than the other image. The copyright wasn't renewed on Superman?!? That seems extremely unlikely to me. --GentlemanGhost 20:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
[11]- strange but true. Borisblue 21:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah. I stand corrected. As the link says, "Be careful who you contract with." --GentlemanGhost 21:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
The second issue is that Superman is first and foremost a comic book character. True, he has expanded into several other media, but that doesn't negate that his notability is based on his origin in comic books and comics continue to sustain his presence, even when TV series are cancelled and movies franchises die out. I believe that the lead image ought to reflect this. --GentlemanGhost 21:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
The purpose of the lead image is to identify what superman looks like. This image does as good a job as the comic version. Borisblue 21:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I beg to differ. It's blurry, washed out, and barely adequate. There's low resolution and then there's low quality. --GentlemanGhost 21:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Quality is not a consideration in our fair use policy. Borisblue 21:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
To clarify, WP:NONFREE does mention that the free use image need to be "acceptable quality". However, "Acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose., rather than whether the picture is or isn't pretty. The blurriness, or technical quality is not an issue. Borisblue 21:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
The Fleishersuperman image is not ideal for a lead picture in a featured article. However it does show the traditional appearence of Superman at his inception, and as has been noted is of acceptable quality. Since it is more acceptable per fair use than the current image, I think that tips the balance in favour of Fleishersuperman.Netkinetic (t/c/@) 22:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
The Fleischer image seems to identify Superman adequately, though it's certainly not ideal. That image should be used, and if anyone can get a better screenshot of the 1940s cartoons, then just switch the image. ShadowHalo 22:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Has this Fleischer cartoon ever been released on DVD? If so, wouldn't a corresponding screenshot from that DVD have the same copyright status as this? Perhaps super-resolution imaging could be used to remove background noise and further increase the quality. *** Crotalus *** 22:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes my main concern is that I don't consider that image "acceptable quality" as the main image for such an important entry in an encyclopedia (if it was a geocities fan site possibly but even then) - it is grainy and the colour is wrong (far to greeny blue). That isn't to say Fleischer's cartoon image can't be used (it is public domain after all) but we can do better than that. The whole cartoon is available from the Internet Archive and that image appears around 2 minutes to 2 minutes 10. They have high quality versions for download and so it should be possible to get a large good quality image from that (and possibly run a quick filter over it to sharpen it up). I actually prefer the slightly tighter shot around 2 miuntes 6-8 seconds in. The only niggle would be the logo isn't representative of the modern look but I could live with that if we could get a better version of the image. (Emperor 23:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC))
File:Fleischer Superman image.png
A somewhat cleaned-up version of the Fleischer image.
I am downloading the higher-quality (MPEG-2) version from that site now. (It's agonizingly slow!) The color can be rebalanced using GIMP or some other similar utility. And, if Superman appears in the same stance for several consecutive frames, I can use Topaz Moments to get a higher-quality screenshot with reduced noise. *** Crotalus *** 00:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Excellent. I was hoping someone with some tech savvy could work their magic on it. Perhaps grab a couple of versions (long shot and tight shot) and bung them on somewhere like http://tinypic.com so we can look them over before making any final decisions on which to upload. Thanks again. (Emperor 00:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC))
Unfortunately, the results using Topaz Moments weren't all that great; there wasn't much noise in the original footage, but there was blurriness, which super-resolution imaging really can't fix. Still, after using unsharp mask and altering the colors a little, I think it came out better than the original. What really would provide the best quality is if someone with some artistic skills could print the image, trace it using a light-box, and then recolor it by hand. Assuming the artist was a Wikipedian willing to release their work into the public domain, would that be acceptable, or would it infringe on DC's current Superman copyrights? It would still clearly be a derivative work of the PD Fleischer cartoon. I haven't got any artistic skills at all, sadly. *** Crotalus *** 00:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I suspect that'd be way to complicated and could cause more problems that it fixes for little benefit. I'd say it is either the Fleischer image or stick with the one we've got. Can we see your results? I doubt it'll look too bad when at the size it is going into the entry as and if it has turned out better than the earlier example then that is good enough for me (for these purposes anyway. (Emperor 00:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC))
Image:Fleischer Superman image.png was the best I could do. Perhaps others with more photo editing experience would have better luck. I've also thought about using Anti-Lamenessing Engine, which is supposed to be a very good super-resolution imaging program, but I haven't been able to find a Windows version. *** Crotalus *** 01:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Your edited image is definitely better, in my view. If we must go with a Fleisher image (and it sounds like we must), I'd prefer to use your cleaned-up version. --GentlemanGhost 01:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

How about this one? I notice Image:Fleishersuperman-big.png this was taken from the same film, and I tried but didn't do so well making this one. ShadowHalo 01:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to have to put a dampener on this whole discussion: the image isn't free because you can't have a free image of a copyrighted character, and the character of Superman and the comic books that introduced his story are still copyrighted. The cartoon's lapse into the public domain did not and could not change this because the character was introduced in the earlier Action Comics, which is still copyrighted, and of which the cartoons are derivatives. It's the same consequence as if any of us would draw an image of Superman and "freely license" it or dedicate it to the public domain: the only aspects of the image that would be "free" would be those we created ourselves, such as the composition, background, pose, lighting, coloring, etc. We would have no power to license or dedicate the rest, and Fleischer Studios' failure to renew their copyrights had no power to change anything that did not originate in those cartoons. Postdlf 01:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

If that's the case, how come DC has never requested that these cartoons be taken down, or that the numerous companies that are distributing them on DVD without paying license fees stop doing so? *** Crotalus *** 01:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I can't explain their business reasons or lack thereof, but the law is quite clear on the status of derivative works, and it isn't in dispute that the entire run of Action Comics is still copyrighted. Postdlf 01:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
So far as I know, no one — including DC Comics — has attempted to claim that the Fleischer films are still copyrighted, and the fact that people have distributed them openly, without permission, in the U.S. for profit and without being sued as a result is strong evidence that they're not. And if the films as a whole are not subject to copyright, then how can a single frame from the film still be copyrighted? It's too bad Brad Patrick isn't still with the Foundation; I'd be interested to hear the opinion of a lawyer who specializes in copyright matters. It's possible that there are no judicial precedents for this rather unusual situation (a licensed, then lapsed-into-PD appearance of a character whose original appearance is still under copyright). *** Crotalus *** 01:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll try to think of some relevant cases, but the situation is actually pretty simple and follows from basic copyright principles. Superman is copyrighted. The Fleischer cartoon includes a depiction of Superman. The cartoon lapsed into the public domain. The consequence is that only anything in that cartoon that was original to that cartoon is in the public domain. But whatever happened to that cartoon had no effect on any pre-existing, independently copyrighted elements, such as the character, story, and appearance of Superman. As to why DC doesn't try to stop the distribution of the cartoons at this point, I don't know, it might be that they don't see enough money in doing so, but they could. There might be a laches defense against DC if they've knowingly failed to act for a long enough time, but that's another whole can of worms that we shouldn't get into. For what it's worth, I am a lawyer with some experience in copyright cases. Postdlf 01:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect, I don't think it's appropriate to simply take your word for it on this issue, considering that all sources seem to say otherwise, and that the corporation that would have an obvious interest in asserting copyright has not done so in the face of open, for-profit republication. You state that you have experience in copyright law, but we all know that on Wikipedia, you can't simply take someone's word that they are who they claim to be. I want to make clear that I am not accusing you of falisfying your credentials in this matter, simply saying that I have no way of verifying them for myself. As such, I cannot take them as the last word on this subject. Sorry. If you can post some case law specifically on point, or cite a reliable source that says these cartoons are still copyrighted, then that would be much better. *** Crotalus *** 02:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not trying to "rest on my credentials," nor do I honestly care whether you believe I'm a lawyer because I've explained my point at great length, so please don't focus on a mere aside without specifically responding to the substance of what I have written because that's not advancing the discussion. I really don't know what you are not understanding or what legally you disagree with. A work may lapse into the public domain yet not be freely usable because it had incorporated elements of other preexisting, copyrighted works. Do you understand what a derivative work is? If not, you really should read that article because that's the key concept here, and the article also discusses an example of this specific issue, where a public domain work was not free because it derived from a still-copyrighted one. Postdlf 02:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I know what a derivative work is. The question here is if it's possible for a licensed derivative work to enter the public domain while the underlying work remains copyrighted. Again, it would be very helpful if there was case law on this specific point. What distinguishes this from, say, a hand-drawn picture of Superman made by a random Wikipedian, is that (unlike a fan-made drawing) this was officially licensed by the copyright owners, and then lapsed into PD. Based on actual practice, and on the website cited previously in this thread, it seems to me that while the Superman character is still under copyright, the specific depiction of Superman in the Fleischer cartoons is in the public domain. *** Crotalus *** 02:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
That a derivative lapses into the public domain has no effect on the rights of the underlying works because they predate the derivative and do not depend upon it for their own status. Whether that derivative was licensed or unauthorized is irrelevant. Please read about the play and the film in the derivative work article I mentioned above. The film adaptation of the play was licensed. See also the copyright discussion in It's a Wonderful Life; the film is public domain, but its story derives from works that are still copyrighted. Postdlf 03:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Damn, that's depressing. Just when you think copyright law can't get any worse... *** Crotalus *** 03:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry, we only have to wait until 2034, when the copyright on Action Comics #1 expires. If Congress doesn't amend the copyright laws again to extend the terms. Postdlf 03:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I'd be more willing to bet on things moving in the other direction; the current copyright laws are extremely unpopular among people who grew up with the Internet, and once those people start getting to the age where they vote in high enough numbers, that backlash will start having an effect on national politics. Studios can contribute dollars, but not many votes, and there is a lot of resentment in middle America against the "Hollywood crowd," which could help. I'd be willing to bet money that the current 95-year terms and DMCA don't last until 2034. In any case, thank you for your commentary; I didn't mean to shoot the messenger. *** Crotalus *** 03:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome, and it's alright. On the bright side, it's 2033, not 2034; I had mistakenly thought Action Comics #1 was published in 1939, not 1938. Postdlf 03:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
The cartoons are absolutely public domain. Every source in the world says they're public domain. DC Comics owns trademarks related to Superman, and you might get in trouble if you use these images in certain novel commercial contexts (like selling action figures based on the Fleischer design), but that's a different issue entirely. The cartoons are not derivative of any specific DC Comics stories anyway (unlike It's a Wonderful Life). This is clearly a settled issue. I couldn't have bought the DVDs for $6 from a major retail chain if it weren't.--Pharos 07:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
You need to reread the whole discussion more carefully. No one's saying the cartoons are not in the public domain, but the copyright status of a work as a whole does not answer for every element within it, only those that originated in that work, because authors only have rights (or the ability to lose rights) over what they authored. If a copyrighted book quotes from a public domain work, that quote is still public domain even though the quoting book is copyrighted. And that the cartoons are in the public domain only means that whatever originated in the cartoons is public domain. The appearance and character of Superman did not originate in those cartoons, but derive from earlier works that are still copyrighted, and Superman is copyrighted as a character separate from any specific work. It's completely irrelevant that the cartoons were not slavish adaptations of specific comic book issues because a derivative need only make use of any copyrighted elements; they don't need to copy every element of a work. Postdlf 09:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as which fair use image should go in the infobox, this one has a clear, frontal view of his costume, and captures the more iconic, cheesy Boy Scout earnestness of the character well. Postdlf 03:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that one probably fits our purposes better. Borisblue 03:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Postdlf's picture is fine. That old Fleischer pic is not. Regardless of the public domain issue, it's just not what Superman has looked like for the overwhelming majority of his history. For one thing, look at his chest emblem's color. Doczilla 06:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. We need to understand that on one hand we need a free encyclopedia, but also a quality one. Just what makes Wikipedia less free than the average forum anyway? Alientraveller 15:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the Grand Comic Book Database is playing a prank on us; the image I linked to above is now, at the time I write this, the cover of a Richie Rich comic. Anyway, for future readers, it's supposed to be the cover of Adventures of Superman #424. Should we go ahead and change the infobox now? (to the Richie Rich image, of course) Postdlf 14:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Image looks fine to me and is better than the current one. However, check back to see what some older ones were. There is a tendancy to update the image on some big entries to ones that people deem nicer or more to their personal taste and there may be others lurking around that are already uploaded which we can use. On the copyright situation we discussed the issue of using user-generated images here and rapidly came to the conclusion reeached here. An image of Superman from a public domain cratoon is still an image of Superman which then makes it no better on licensing terms than other images of Superman. I imagine the cartoon can be distributed freely is because DC's contracts probably weren't as rock solid back then - not our concern really. The best solution to fair use images is using a cover of a trade paperback or something similar as these also wall under being promotional items which can be freely used (for example Amazon grant their associates free use of book covers for promotional purposes). So to that end I'd recommend looking for suitable trade paperback covers as there are a tonne of them. Comic covers may also fall into this category too. Perhaps the simplest thing is speaking to DC about it and seeing what they consider fair game. I've doen that with other publishers and they are general OK about it and often very helpful. (Emperor 15:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC))

Indefinite semi-protection

I've semi-protected the article. Scanning over the history, I see very few contributions from anonymous editors that were not quickly reverted. I suspect that this page is a magnet for abuse, and unless the regular contributors to this page enjoy reverting bad edits, I don't see much point in unprotecting it. However, if anyone has an objection to the semi-protection, leave me a message on my talk page and I'll remove it. -- Samuel Wantman 17:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Assessment

The article is an older Featured Article and may not cut today's standards. Needs work in inline referencing department, maybe suffers from recentism too. Solid article though, hits the bases. Hiding Talk 22:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

"Fictional character" vs. "comic book superhero"

Recently, the lead paragraph was changed to say that Superman is a fictional character AND a comic book superhero. In my view, this is redundant. It is generally understood that a comic book superhero (particularly Superman) is not a real person; very few comic books are about real people. Moreover, the WikiProject Comics exemplar states that the lead paragraph for comic book character articles should use one of those two phrases. While it doesn't specifically prohibit using both, my personal preference is that we pick one or the other. Either one is fine with me. --GentlemanGhost 22:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

You know, I cannot agree more. No matter how hard people believe how real fictional things are they are still fictional. Because they are located in another world or dimension or universe or whatever you choose to call it. My point is that Comic superheroes are fictional, so there is no point in stating he is both fictional character AND a comic book superhero. Obviously all superheroes are fictional. I believe Superman is real, very real indeed. But that doesn't change the fact that he is fictional, just like rest of the superheroes. TheBlazikenMaster 19:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) really leans toward stating flat-out that a character is fictional, though. See the list that page gives of "exemplary" articles about fiction and fictional characters, among them the gold-star article Jason Vorhees. Just trying to navigate the choppy waters of Wiki guidelines.... --Tenebrae 03:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I still think it's unnecessery. Well, but hey, your edit is a lot better than "is a fictional character and a comic book superhero", fictional comic book superhero is a lot better. TheBlazikenMaster 13:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Kal El

Does anyone happen to know what Kal El precisely means? I know El is Hebrew for God, but what is Kal?


Kal in Hebrew (depending on the spelling) means either 'light' (as in lightweight not light that brighten a room) or 'all' or 'voice'. I have no idea if the creators were aware of this or if this played any role in their choice. Chromatic Winter 13:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

An old Article printed in Times Magazine in 1988 is stating: "Experts have pondered the fact that Superman's original Kryptonian name, Kal-El, resembles Hebraic syllables | meaning "all that God is." Greetings Zsasz


There are 3 phrases in hebrew which could have been transliterated as "Kal-El":

  • קוֹל אֵל = Voice of God
  • כֹּל אֵל = All of God
  • קַל אֵל = Light (in weight) God (although grammatically it should be El-Kal in this case)

The word קַל can mean Light (in weight), easy, simple, soft or swift, depending on context. Until we know for sure which phrase was intended, I think that the article should refer to this hebrew connection but not refer to any particular translation as definately true. --AndreRD (talk) 20:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Alleged error

At http://www.bluetights.net/theplanet/showthread.php?p=1677314 I find

Also, wikipedia's explanation that the name means voice of G-d and the spelling they give in Hebrew is just wrong. The word for "voice" must have a "vav" in the middle and must be pronounced "kol". If there is no "vav" then it means "light"(in weight, not illumination) or "easy". "Easy G-d" would be a strange name for Superman.

I am utterly unqualified to judge the truth here, but this looks like something to take seriously. I hope someone expert will do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgeTSLC (talk • contribs) 13:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

GeorgeTSLC (talk) 13:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

"Notable Aliases"

Also known as Brad Silet =) He's made out of steel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtennis4life (talk • contribs) 22:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC) Okay...why are Superman's ALLIES listed in the "Notable 'Aliases" entry in his info box?? An "alias," to save you the time to look it up, is an assumed name...like Clark Kent compared to his real name, Kal El. Someone should rectify this situation... --Also it should be noted that though he is CALLED the big blue boy scout it is revealed in justice league or justice league unlimited that he was never even in the scouts and I would like this reflected on the page under the "fact" that he is called that.Promus Kaa 16:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Those all actually are aliases Superman has used at one point or another, but many of them were only for one story with no real lasting impact. Personally, I'd argue that most of them don't qualify as notable, people are just listing every alias that Superman has ever used.--Trademark123 16:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Last time I checked Nightwing was Dick Grayson, not Clark Kent.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Ah, I get it now. I looked up Nightwing, and although it IS associated most with Dick Grayson, the name/character actually originated in the Superman comics, when Superman apparently went on a Batman/Robin sort of deal with himself as "Nightwing" and Jimmy Olsen as "Flamebird" or something like that. It was way back in the 40's, though... --Promus Kaa 20:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
If anything Nightwing is one of Superman's more notable aliases. Not only did has Superman used the name multiple times across several decades worth of comics, but it also resulted in a brief Nightwing and Flamebird spin-off feature in Superman Family and Dick Grayson in both Pre- and Post-Crisis continuities specifically chose the name Nightwing as a Superman reference.--128.97.244.185 21:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
That's news to me, but it shouldn't be in the infobox, since to popular culture (not fandome) Nightwing is Dick Grayson...that is to say if people actually know who Dick Grayson actually is (beyond the "Robin" name).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
'Nightwing' absolutely should be listed as one of Superman's notable aliases. When Superman and his pal Jimmy Olsen visited the bottled city of Kandor (a city formerly on Krypton that hab been shrunk by Brainiac and was at the time being kept by Superman in his Fortress of Solitude until a way could be found to restore it to normal size), they assumed the Batman-and-Robin-inspired guises of Nightwing and Flamebird. Superman was the original Nightwing, and when Dick Grayson, the first Robin, assumed the identity of Nightwing in homage to Superman. I remember thinking at the time how cool that was, because I had grown up seeing Superman sometimes dress as Nightwing. I lived through this stuff, guys; toss the gray-haired fellas a bone, huh? :-) Argentarthropod 21:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Again, only notable to fans, not something recognizably associated with Superman from a casual reader's standpoint. Wikipedia articles are written for everyone, not for just fans who know the truth.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
It's also to inform. The general public may only know of Dick Grayson as Nightwing; that doesn't change the fact that Superman has used the name Nightwing as well. Wikipedia is to inform people, and as such, the article should inform the casual reader that Superman has used the name Nightwing, and that Dick Grayson picked the name Nightwing out of reference to Superman and to a Kryptonian bird. How is that not notable to everyone? Sure, comic fans that have read may know that, but for people like me that don't have the money to read all the comics and yet am still comic fans, how else are we supposed to know? Anakinjmt 19:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
For that matter, the name Nightwing was very recently used by Power Girl (and the alias Flamebird by Supergirl) on a mission to Kandor, and it had jack to do with Dick Grayson. This underscores the fact that 'Nightwing' is an important part of Superman-'family'/Kryptonian history. 'Everything comes from Superman', baby.  :-D 209.225.116.25 21:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
That last bit was from me; I had forgot to sign in. Hey, fellas. Thanks for backin' me up, Anakinjmt. Buy you a drink sometime. Argentarthropod 22:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm just thinking: There's nothing that says that the quick-glance infobox has to list every alias. For most general-reader purposes (and we are supposed to write for general readers), probably the two or three most ubiquitous do the job. And additional names/details can always go in the body of the article itself. --Tenebrae 22:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Fine. The fact that Superman has adopted the guises of Nightwing and Gangbuster is important to understanding the character. Any fan would be satisfied if we keep those two and let the others go. I don't even recognize Nova, which is the name of two Marvel characters, and Jordan Elliot. Get rid of them. Argentarthropod 21:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
What I'm suggesting is mentioning the lesser-known aliases in the article text rather than the infobox, not "letting them go" entirely.--Tenebrae 04:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I would say we should only mention Nightwing, Gangbuster was only used in one storyline I believe.PonileExpress (talk) 16:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Sword of Superman

Anyone else heard of it, apparently it gave him omnipotence, and there is no article on it. Phoenix741 22:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

This was the focus of Superman Annual #10[12], from 1984. Basically, it was just the one story, long since forgotten. Dstumme 20:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Request to neaten powers list

There was a hidden comment not to change this so I thought I'd ask. Currently the list of powers reads:

"Superhuman strength, stamina, invulnerability, freezing breath, super hearing, multiple extrasensory and vision powers, longevity, flight, intelligence, and regeneration, energy creation"

Including both "superhuman stamina" and "invulnerability" in the same list is redundant. Also, the character is only sometimes depicted as having freeze breath. I was thinking it could be changed to:

"Superhuman strength, stamina, visual and aural abilities, healing, longevity, intelligence, the ability to fly, heat vision and sometimes freezing breath." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by A gx7 (talk • contribs) 03:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC) – Please sign your posts!

A page for The Origin of Superman?

I think it'd be a good idea to create such a page to compare and contrast the differing versions of the characters origin. Such topics that can be covered are the major films, the various television series, Red Son, variances in the Multiverse, as well as information on the comic revamps. It could also be a place to provide little known established information of Superman's new origin post-Infinite Crisis that appeared in Action Comics #850 and the 10th Annual. --CmdrClow 10:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't we have Alternate versions of Superman? Compare and contrast can be quite NPOV too. Alientraveller 11:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Alternate versions doesn't cover the differing origins of the character as much as a specific page of focus would. I see where he's going, the details would lie in the origin's vast interpretations. Adding Smallville to it would be a good idea, and I think it'd help because I have no idea what version of the origin they're at in the comics. I like this idea. 66.165.48.250 19:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. No other comments? --CmdrClow 07:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
The page has been created. Intervention would be appreciated. --CmdrClow 08:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the differing stories behind his origins merit a page where they can all be laid out individually. This could also cover various other stories such as the Red Son story line. A page like this could also be useful in informing readers on some of the ways that the DC universe has been continually updated throughout the years. Instead of people just wondering why Superman has been about 30 years old for nearly 70 years now. Cpesacreta 05:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Superman's religion

Superman's religion might be an interesting aspect to include in the article. I seem to recall some stories which indicated, somewhat obliquely, that he believes in the Judeo-Christian God. I don't have a specific reference to point to. Since the introduction of the Kryptonian god Rao, though, it might be presumed that he practices a more Kryptonian form of religion. Does anyone know of secondary sources which discuss this? --GentlemanGhost 04:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Ka-El

Shouldn't Ka-El direct you to the Superman page? That is his Kryptonian name after all. --Profharoldhill 05:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Shuster

I changed this to "Canadian-born" because he later became a naturalized U.S. citizen. Unless he had dual citizenship, in which case it could possibly be changed to "Canadian-American." America's Wang 21:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Superman Influences

I'm not really a fan of the Man of Steel but I do feel the article fails to devote enough space to the precursors of the character. Popeye and ancient, mythological heroes notwithstanding, I see no mention of Phillip(?) Wylie's GLADIATOR, from which the first Superman story borrows much of its plot. And most important of all, there is no mention of Edgar Rice Burroughs' JOHN CARTER of MARS. The premise of that character is that he falls into a semi coma and awakens to find himself on Mars. On this sister planet, John Carter finds that he has powers and abilities far beyond those of average Martians. Among these are tremendous strengh,speed and the ability to travel great distances by tremendous leaps, not unlike the early Superman and the Hulk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bernard ferrell (talk • contribs) 17:52, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Wow, somebody didn't bother to read the article... Alientraveller 17:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I, humbly, stand corrected. Told ya I wasn't a Superman fan. The Batmaniac —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.80.65.234 (talk) 18:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Concerns about this page

I've been looking at the writing on this page, and I'm a bit concerned about it, as it seems a little, hmm, I'm not quite sure how to put it, but it seems bland and strained to the point of not being all that good. Since it was just in FAR, I won't take it there yet, but I do think it needs some improved writing. For example, the third paragraph...has a pair of sentences right in the middle that seem out of place. And in sections like "Literary Analysis" and "Popularity" the introductory sentences just seem a little insipid to me. It's like they're stating the obvious I suppose? Anyway, I'm not sure it should be removed as a FA, but I do think the page is now a bit overwritten. FrozenPurpleCube 13:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Simply... whaaatt? Make sense please or don't start the discussion until you can actually write what you intend. Alientraveller 15:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
What do you not understand about what I said? I think it's reasonably clear, and I don't see any reason for this standoffish approach on your part. FrozenPurpleCube 23:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Well can you actually explain it clearly? What does "bit overwritten" mean? Alientraveller 18:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Super-Intellect

Superman's super-intellect, although not as famous as his other superpowers, is just as noteworthy. However, during John Byrne's weakening of his powers, it became such that Lex Luthor and Batman could outsmart him, and he was known only for his brawn and heroism. Since then, particularly in the Silver Age-like All Star imprint, the Birthright miniseries, and the One Year Later arc, his mental capacity has been sharpened. Even in Superman he was taught various subjects, including relativity, through recordings of Jor-El as a toddler in his spacecraft. In Superman IV, Lex, who previously claimed to have IQ 200 and be the greatest criminal mind of his era, states that Superman was the only one who could keep up with him. In Superman Returns, Lois' child, who is implied to be Superman's son, excels at science. In Supergirl, the protagonist, also a Kryptonian, has impressive computational abilities. In the Smallville episode Obsession, Clark has knowledge of quantum physics. In a Wizard installment, a report card shows Clark getting straight A's. The DCU RPG shows that he has a +18 knowledge of science, and The New Batman-Superman Adventures official webpage [13] reveals he has a computer-like mind (compare to Sage). For in-comic references, refer to Superman Thru the Ages!. His father is Krypton's greatest scientist (see Superman: The Animated Guide by DK Publishing [14]), and depending on continuity, his mother is either an astronaut or historian. Superman's mental powers have been referenced in a Seinfeld episode wherein Jerry posits why Superman wouldn't have super humor, as "Why would that one area of his brain not be affected by Earth's yellow sun?" --Kasparov 02:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to nitpick, because it is implied through out the movie, but in Superman Returns they come out and say that kid is Superman's son. At the very end, Superman visits Lois's house and gives Jason (?) a very Jor-El-esque speech ending in my son. SO it's not impled, it's stated explicitly. Dachande (talk) 12:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Superman adopts a kid anyway in the recent comics, Lor Zod.PonileExpress (talk) 16:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk for Merging with Superman Robots Article.

I couldn't find anywhere else talking about this, and the discussion from that page led me straight to here, so I've started a new section for it. If anyone could point me to a better place to put this that would be greatly appreciated and I apologize if this is in the wrong place.

As for merging the Superman article with the Superman Robots article I don't see the need for it. The Superman robots do enough that they can merit their own article, and adding further information to the main Superman article would only begin to clutter things. Though it may be more efficient, eventually the main article might become overwhelming to visitors who are just looking for quick information. I feel these articles should be left separate and if people need information on the Superman Robots they can still be able to search for it and pull up it's individual article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpesacreta (talk • contribs) 05:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

searching for citation

The History of Superman article says the following:


Does someone know what source this info was taken from? I just finished reading Gladiator myself and have noticed the surprising amount of similarities between Hugo and Superman. --Ghostexorcist 19:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

"One of the most popular" is better than "The most"

He is not the only well known superhero. I'm very against it to be described as the most famous superhero of all time.

Even with sources it can still be argued that others are as well known. I'm not a fan of Spiderman, not a fan at all. In fact he sucks in my opinion, but still, he is almost as well known as Superman.

So can we please stick with "one of the"? That's a lot better wording in my opinion. TheBlazikenMaster 20:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Immigrant

I know there's been discusson and analysis of Superman as an a representative of immigrants, with Seigel and Shuster aggrandising immigrants in him (being children of immigrants themselves, and Shuster a Canadian-American immigrant). I can't remember where I've heard this discussed, in order to source it. I suppose this might belong in the "literary analysis" section, if someone else knows what I'm talking about and can source it. -- AvatarMN 07:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe I heard this in interviews with Bryan Singer, so I'll try to find it. Alientraveller 08:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Eugenics

Under Powers and Abilites on this page, (and in other related pages), it says that "his Kryptonian heritage, which made him eons more evolved than humans." However, Action #1, which I just looked at again to be sure, used the term advanced. This might be very important, as I have heard and read many times that Superman was originally a result of eugenics or selective breeding on Krypton, rather than natural selection. Supposedly, this was an example of how comics and most of the world accepted eugenics at the time, and it only fell out of favor after the concentration camps were liberated. If there are other comics where it says Kryptonians evolved, never mind. If there are not, maybe we should use the word advanced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdm99 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe that part of the section is referring to his earliest story line and not one that retconned the source of his powers to selective breeding. The quoted sentence is just a paraphrased version (as you already know) of "Kent had come from a planet whose inhabitants' physical structure was millions of years advanced of our own." (Action Comics #1, page 1). I see no problem with it. --Ghostexorcist 20:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
No. That sentence was exactly the one I meant, and when you read it, it says neither "evolved" nor "created through eugenics" but just advanced, which would fit either. If this was the only explanation for his powers in the beginning, then making it eugenics would not be a retcon but just a fuller explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdm99 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Eugenics implies that the Kryptons employed science to direct the course of their evolution, but it just says they are more advanced than humans. The original text should be replied upon, instead of the so-called "fuller explanation", which is just an interpretation (please forgive me if that sounds rude). And please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). --Ghostexorcist 22:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Evolution implies that they didn't, which is not said either. This would matter even less except that I'm pretty sure that I have read that eugenics was the standard explanation; both because the comics implied it and because that people naturally assumed that an advanced race would breed superior individuals.
(Sorry about the signing. Thought I did.)Rdm99 23:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Though he was not the originator of the concept, Sir Francis Galton, the man who coined the term "Eugenics", formed his research around the evolution theories of Charles Darwin, his half cousin. So it all comes down to evolution. It would help if you could provide citations for the sources that state Eugenics had it's part "in" (and not influenced) the early storyline. --Ghostexorcist 23:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
this book mentions eugenics, but it doesn't state that it directly influenced Superman, just one character that was one of the influences for Supes. However, there are plenty of books that mention Nietzsche's "social" concept of the Übermensch (superman) (see here), but it is not connected to the fictional character. The only acceptable eugenics argument would be an interview with Superman co-creators that states eugenics had it's part to play. No one could counter argue against that. --Ghostexorcist 23:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the citation are almost irrelevant. I have heard people, on various half-remembered talk-shows say that superman's powers came from selective breeding. I think I've heard this often enough that I believed this was a common idea, and therefore probably correct. Possibly, the people were wrong, or possibly I'm remembering the theory wrong.
The question is - did the comics depict the source of his powers as Eugenics (basicly selective breeding) and not evolution (a natural process); or did the authors not say anything or care about that because this didn't matter to them. I remembered that quotation that Ghostexorcist quoted in full. It DOES NOT say whether the super powers were evolved or bred. Are there other parts in later comics that say definitely, or a quotation?Rdm99 01:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Clark Kent

I'm going to add a {{Megrefrom}} tag, with regards to Clark Kent to this article, as all three of Batman/Bruce Wayne, Spiderman/Peter Parke and the Hulk/Bruce Banner discuss the hero and alter ego in the same article, not in separate ones and I don't think Superman/Clark Kent should be different. asyndeton 15:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I've posted a lenghty argument in favor of merging over at Talk:Clark Kent#merge proposal, and altered the merge tags accordingly. Let's continue the discussion there. --Ace ETP 18:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Super Weaving

I want to know if super weaving should be added to the power list. http://www.superdickery.com/stupor/6.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahgal (talk • contribs) 04:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think it should, it seems very unnotable. TheBlazikenMaster 15:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Can we PLEASE come up with some agreement?

I'm sick and tired of the powers listed in Superman's infobox being changed all the times. So please can we get into some agreement? TheBlazikenMaster 19:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The solution is simple, stop replacing superhuman durability with invulnerability. Superman is NOT invulnerable. He is blatantly vulnerable to Kryptonite and magics, and beyond that he can be and has been injured by beings with comparable strength to his own. Wonder Woman has broken his ribs with a kick, Captain Marvel has knocked him unconscious with a punch, Doomsday cut him repeatedly and broke his arm (not to mention he KILLED him with brute force), Zod broke his jaw and Even Dr.Light has injured him with a simple everyday weoponry laser & the list goes on and on. Superman has superhuman durability, he does not possess physical invulnerability. Manssiere 21:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you completely, but that doesn't stop the info from being re-added. TheBlazikenMaster 21:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • It is original research and advocating a point of view not to describe Superman as invulnerable bsed upon your own opinions or a dictionary definition, which amounts to a synthesis of sources. The number of sources which describe Superman as invulnerable mean that to comply with both Wikipedia policy and intellectual honesty we have to describe Superman as invulnerable. For a quick precis of the number of sources using the term invulnerable in conjunction with Superman, see [15], [16], [17] and [18]. Hope that explains, Hiding Talk 20:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
In that case we have to describe Odin as omnipotent. Manssiere 00:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Seriously guys, can you stop edit warring already? I wanna see something new on my watchlist. TheBlazikenMaster 22:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Oh, good god! We've been through this one before! DC uses the word invulnerability. Over and over and over. They're the source. Stick with them. Wryspy 05:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Look, Superman was invunerable at one point (50s, 60s, 70s and early 80s). Currently he's portrayed in the comics with superhuman durability. So he's been both. But the convention has been to describe him as invunerable (which is what Wryspy pointed out). This article is about Superman the character and his history, not Superman the character as currently portrayed in one medium (or two if you count the recent cartoons). Stop edit warring between the two. If needs be, include both. DonQuixote 10:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
So, Superman wasn't invulnerable when he was first created. He could not be hurt except by the largest artillery shells. --Ghostexorcist 10:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
We don't discuss interpretation of sources, we discuss sources and summarise them. Do you have an issue citation for a relevant issue of the comic which describes Superman as durable? Or is using this term original research? Hiding Talk 11:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Why are you asking me for a source on durability? All I said was he was not invulnerable when he was first created. My reply was in response to DonQuixote's "Look, Superman was invunerable at one point (50s, 60s, 70s and early 80s)." Get over yourself. --Ghostexorcist 11:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Er...yeah, that's the point. Superman's powers have changed considerably throughout his history. So arguing for one or the other is pointless. DC's stance is that he's invunerable. If needs be, include both. DonQuixote 12:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
"Both" is a good idea. --Ghostexorcist 18:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
The question of whether he's vulnerable or not really varies upon circumstances. If I remember rightly Kal-L was remarkably less invulnerable than the current Superman. Also, while the term "invulnerable" has been used to describe him, it has also regularly, including recently, been said that he is "vulnerable" to magic and kryptonite. Also, given that he was killed by Doomsday, it's kind of hard to argue that he's really "invulnerable". Maybe the best way to say this would be to say something like "he has often been described as "invulnerable", although it has also been made clear that he is vulnerable to such things as magic and kryptonite". We might throw in something about how lack of exposure to solar radiation makes the current version vulnerable as well. John Carter 20:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I like what you're proposing. That seems like a good way to word it. Anakinjmt 14:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Invulnerability does not mean he cannot be hurt, it means that he is immune to one or more forms of physical injury. In Superman Returns, Lois Lane says he is invulnerable, DC Comics Encyclopedia says he is invulnerable, why should we be the only ones that call his invulnerability as durability? Reevnar (talk) 16:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

"Truth, justice, and the American way"

How come the article doesn't contain this famous "motto" of Superman?

  • Good point. At some point I'll work it into the article. There's a good source here, [19], another at [20], mention of how it defines the superhero at [21], and I think there are enough sources to demonstrate how it has enetered the lexicon of the States, from usage during the Iraq War as a source of both patriotism and as a criticism over Guantanamo Bay. Also, there was a dispute over using it as the title to what became Hollywoodland, although that needs sourcing. Got it, [22], The (Tinsel) Town That Ate Superman By KRISTOPHER TAPLEY Published: August 20, 2006. Will work this into the article when I get a free minute or twenty. Hiding Talk 10:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


Isn't it fair to say Superman is a projection of American might? In foreign countries, Superman is seen as quintessentially American. There is a leftist tendency to make Superman universal, a tendency that came across in the Superman Returns movie.[1] Matt Sanchez (talk) 10:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The issue is just trying to fit the famous slogan in the article. Matt is just going off on a tangent. Anakinjmt (talk) 20:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's incorrect to put "Superman Returns exceeded expectations" as a fact. It's not. According to Bryan Singer it exceeded expectations internationally, but such Warners big-shots as Alan Horn stated disappointment with the film's performance, and its domestic intake was lower than its budget. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Epiphone83 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

  • It's written as noting that it was the international box office which exceeded expectations. But other input is welcome, it could be that after domestic returns the international expectations were lowered, and then performance exceeded those lowered expectations. Do you have any sources for Alan Horn's comments or the domestic take? Hiding T 21:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Methodist?

I'd have to agree with User:Scarecroe that the cite does not reach the bar of reliability. The cite is a Scripps Howard columnist, and while this is a major and venerable syndicate, the opinion columnist simply claims that "superhero scholars" say Superman is Methodist, but he doesn't provide any examples. And the website he points to, adherents.com, doesn't seem to have anything about Superman or superhero under "S".

Given that this is a claim never made by the creators or the company that publishes Superman, there is a very high bar in terms of authoritative sourcing. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Given that the authors of Superman originally were jewish, surely Superman himself was of Jewish Origin? This does of course bring up the issue of his circumcision somewhat, given his invulnerability.

What do others feel on the subject - it may not be referenced in the literature, but could be inferred? 213.120.214.91 (talk) 08:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Saying that Superman is jewish because the makers are is Original research. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 12:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

X-ray vision in infobox

I understand the need to not have people constantly changing stuff, especially in the infobox...which is why I heeded the notice from the page and came here to discuss...

Is there any reason X-ray vision is not included in the list of abilities? I'm not sure this can be considered the same thing as "superhuman senses," or even included in that general term as it applies to his senses being more acute than a normal human...but not with completely different abilities.

I feel that if "heat vision" is different enough to mention individually, surely X-ray vision is.

I'd like to hear feedback on this as I've looked through the discussion archives and haven't seen this brought up before. If no one responds after some time, I will add it. --JohnDoe0007 (talk) 20:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)O.K. is it just me or has noone figured out that it isn't X-Ray vision it is phloroscopic vision seigal and shuster had no Idea what a phloroscope was when the invented him but X-rays wer well known back then so they incorrectly described the ability thusly.[jamesmitchell1986@yahoo.com]

I agree, but you have to get more support. You can get reverted easily if you add it to the infobox. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 20:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
It used to read something like Superhuman strength, speed, stamina and invulnerability, freezing breath, super hearing, multiple extrasensory and vision powers, longevity, flight, and regeneration. Then over the course of the 29th October 2007 it got choppy and at the end of it it read something like Superhuman strength, speed, stamina, durability, senses, intelligence, regeneration, and longevity, super breath, heat vision, and flight. The note is there because the list has the potential to get vast. That said, I'd be in favour of adding X-Ray vision, because it is readily associated with the character. I'd be inclined to drop regeneration and longevity from the current list, because to my mind if we want to kepp it short we should stick to those powers that the average person readily associates with Superman. Hiding T 23:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. How would we go about inciting a vote on that? Or would that even be necessary? I'd like to see those changes made, as it is a featured article, and I figure it should list X-Ray vision in the infobox. --JohnDoe0007 (talk) 04:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


Okay, how about "Superhuman strength, speed, stamina, durability, senses, intelligence, regeneration, and longevity; super breath, heat vision, x-ray vision and flight" --JohnDoe0007 (talk) 11:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Lead image

As Wikipedia policy says we should not use a fair use image when a free image would suffice, and as the major use for the image in the infobox is an iconic identifying image of the character, I have replaced the Jim Lee image with one from the Fleischer cartoons, which are in the public domain. I recognize that this is an older image, and less cool than the Jim Lee one, however it is a free image, which is very important, and it is still iconically and recognizably Superman, making it suitable as a lead image. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it's an image of Superman in a cartoon, not a comic. And this was decided upon ages ago. Alientraveller (talk) 15:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Where? Also, Superman is a multimedia phenomenon - with the success of the films, it is clear that far more people have encountered Superman outside of comics than in comics. There is no justifiable reason for demanding a comics image for the basic task of identifying the character. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
The Fleisher image is no replacement for the Jim Lee one. The cartoon is an archaic interpretation of Superman. Lee's art represents a Superman for the ages, iconic, and all details present and correct. The Fleisher Superman has the wrong chest symbol. Now I do recall this old discussion, and the consensus was to keep the Lee picture. I took part in it, and I don't really want to turn myself into a broken record player. Alientraveller (talk) 15:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
It would be helpful if you linked the discussion - I didn't see it when I scanned the page archives. As for the chest symbol, I think it's rather comics-supremacist and presentist to declare the Fleisher image "wrong." But, more to the point, we are generally willing to make some sacrifices in quality in order to get free images. Look at Richard Schiff for example, where we use a positively hideous photo instead of any of the very good but non-free ones we could use. Images that are not free should be avoided. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
#Fair use image on cover. I must have fizzled out there, but there was a reason we kept Lee's drawing. And I think red chest isn't comics supremacist, but really showing how he's been depicted over the years. I supported having the hideous Fleisher picture as a compromise in the media section over something more well-known *cough*Chris Reeve&cough*. Alientraveller (talk) 16:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I sincerely do not see a consensus to ignore WP:NONFREE there. I'm also suspicious of the claim of "timelessness" are strained when talking about such a recent image. A timeless image would be a Curt Swan Superman. But even there, Superman has changed over time - in many regards the Reeve movie image is more timeless simply because it's been more seen. Superman has changed enough over the years that no single image will capture all of the iterations. We should thus default to actually following our policy. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
My arguement is the Fleischers made an interpretation of Superman. Superman debuted and continues in comic books. Films flop, TV shows are cancelled, but what remains is the comic. Another issue is that of a derivative image: the Fleisher cartoons are in the public domain, but they still depict a copyrighted character. Although the commons images appear they will survive their deletion nomination, I am still unsure. Ultimately, we are still talking about a copyrighted visage, and I would chose the better picture. But I do welcome more opinions. Over and out. Alientraveller (talk) 16:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Not that the Fleischer cartoons aren't fun to watch, but I definitely prefer the Jim Lee rendition of Superman. I agree that using a classic iconic image from the comic books for an article about a character who debuted in comics, first achieved fame in comics, and to this day remains one of the dominant characters in the "world" of comics books, makes sense, especially since there is a separate article concerning the appearance of Superman in "other media", i.e., other than comics. I also concur that the issue of a "commons image" of a copyrighted character is a tad ambiguous, and even if the ambiguity didn't exist, I think the Jim Lee image is a better representation of Superman (for this article) and trumps the fair use image vs. public domain image issue. Spiderboy12 (talk) 17:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Policy does not allow for the sort of trumping you describe, which leaves only the legal issue, which seems to be being sorted out on Commons presently. Assuming the debate gets settled such that the image remains on Commons, the "Jim Lee is a bit better" argument does not trump WP:NONFREE. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Superman is first and foremost a comic book character, and the Jim Lee image is representative of him. While I understand what Phil wants to do, I don't think that the antiquated cartoon image is at all representative of the character. It's not a free equivalent at all, so I don't believe it's appropriate to replace the Lee image. Common sense should reign here; contemporary depiction of Superman will be unlikely to have a free equivalent. Non-free images are permitted with a fair use rationale, and using a 1940s free image does not match the significance of the current one. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of an infobox image is generally treated to be identification of the character - the Fleischer image is sufficient for that. Superman's appearance in comics is also a significant issue and will no doubt require fair use images. But the primary identification image can be done via a free rather than fair use image. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Superman's primary identification is not at all like the Fleischer image, though? There's clearly differences that do not make the image a free equivalent. It's not representative of Superman in not just the comics, but the large majority of his appearances. He's had different looks throughout the eras, obviously, but the present image is the most consistent of his appearances. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Not at all like? Blue tights, red cape, briefs, and boots, an S-shield logo and a spit curl are all present in the Fleischer version. The S icon is a bit different, but it's a relatively small difference, and not, I think, overwhelming - we could cover the difference in the caption in but a few words. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree that we should use the comic pic, he is originally from comics after all. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 20:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/30/opinion/30lundegaard.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Superman/Archive_2&oldid=1222207874"