Jump to content

Talk:Superman/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 8

A page on current events

Can we have a page for what superman is current doing in the Comic world —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supermike (talk • contribs) 21:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like in-universe news, I'm afraid it isn't encyclopedic. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 21:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Recentism. Alientraveller (talk) 21:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

But batman has a thing on use about whats going on with him in his book so why can't superman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supermike (talk • contribs) 01:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Where? Alientraveller (talk) 08:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

"Alien" planet

It's amusing to read "...born Kal-El on the alien planet Krypton" in the article's lead. Whoever wrote it doesn't seem to realize that any planet other that Earth is "alien", even those belonging to our own Solar system. So, what else is new? --AVM (talk) 19:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, earth is also an alien planet to those from another planet. So just remove the word alien from planet. I agree that it's dumb to include it. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 19:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Done. I restructured the article's lead, too (it was too long, and had some inaccuracies). --AVM (talk) 01:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I reverted the restructuring based on length, since that is against current practise on Wikipedia per WP:MOS and WP:LEAD as well as the advice given during the featured article review. The lead should summarise the article and act as a standalone article in its own right. It can be up to four paragraphs, and the advice at the FA review was that four was the right length in an article this size. Hiding T 11:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Hayden Christensen

I just heard that he has replaced Brandon Routh. Is there any truth to this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.235.132.245 (talk) 23:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hell No! (JoeLoeb (talk) 22:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC))

Information that needs to be added and cited

The article needs to be updated, including mentioning the Justice League and Justice League International (both continuations of the "Timm-verse" began in "Batman, the Animated Series) in the "In other media" section.

Also, note needs to be made of recent legal decisions that may turn the copyright over SuperMAN to the Seigel estate.DevlinKyle (talk) 02:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


Also, Larry Niven does not have authorization to make assumtions regarding Superman's or Lois Lane's sexual relationship to the context of the story's origin or the story's impact within contemporary myth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scarlettohara66 (talk • contribs) 05:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Clark Kent

added Clark Kent for deletion. --Gman124 talk 00:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Alvin Schwartz

What about Alvin Schwartz (author)? wiki article about him says: "Alvin Schwartz (born November 17, 1916, in New York City, New York) is an American novelist, poet, essayist, and comic-book writer best known for his Batman and Superman stories, in the latter of which he introduced DC Comics' popular Bizarro World."

How is it possible that he is not even mentioned in the Superman article? Are there two of them (supermen)?

Austerlitz -- 88.75.67.253 (talk) 08:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

How old is superman?& some other subjects.

His charichter age,the age of the comic,how long was he in space B4 landing in Kansas. Why didn't his dad die in "lois and Clark the new adventures of superman" like he did in the movies and comics.Also I believe that superman speaks every language on earth and on other planets am I correct?Also since he isn't invulnerable if you were to bring him down to human standards who would win him or Batman since superman is superinteligant and superfast and thus has read many many books including those on self defence and martial arts and other things would he be able to hold his own against the batman without his brute strength and near indistrucabilit(key word NEAR)Please mail me at [email redacted] Brakets put in for hopefully a link to the adress but if mailing direct please ignor them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.12.165.254 (talk) 20:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Goku

Supes has a japanese counterpart named Goku, should their similarities be note in a trivia section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kazaan (talk • contribs) 19:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Since Goku came second (at least the manga and anime one, which you're probably referring to), it would probably be better to mention Superman as influencing Goku in Goku's article. DonQuixote (talk) 02:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, Goku is referenced in the article regarding Superman's impact on pop culture. User: Kazaan

So you guys are saying Akira Toriyama used Superman as an inspiration for Goku? Are we sure he said that? Thanks! Ehccheehcche (talk) 15:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Goku is based on Sun Wukong from the Chinese classic Journey to the West. Son Goku is a Japanese transliteration of Sun Wukong. Saying Supes influenced Goku is original research. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 19:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

"Inside The Siegel/DC Battle For Superman" goes nowhere, & a newsarama search comes up blank... TREKphiler 11:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The link to Metropolis(comics) is misdirected to Metropolis. Also does this article seem to be locked but doesn't have a header on it to say so? Zamp m (talk) 15:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

OK I missed the part of the discussion about protecting the article. Makes sense. Zamp m (talk) 16:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Diamond people

I remember seeing in Superman comics I used to read in the mid to late 60s these diamond characters. All I can remember is that Superman would fly off from time to time to another planet where everyone was miserable, and everything was made of diamonds, and in black and white - it was sort of the antithesis of planet Earth. I have tried to find info about them on the internet many times, like what they were called, but always draw a blank. Any ideas? Johnalexwood (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Energy Superman

I know that it gets mention in History of Superman, but should there not be some mention of the energy based Superman of the 90s? It's not as big a deal as Man of Steel or Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow, but I still think that it warrants a metnion. Euchrid (talk) 13:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Russell Keaton

What about Russell Keaton from the Newsarama article here, shouldn't he also have a creator's credit? And shouldn't the alternate origin for the Siegel-Keaton version of Superman be listed? --68.81.70.65 (talk) 00:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

  • He wouldn't get a creator's credit, no. Unless you have a very strong reliable source which states otherwise. Most of teh press I have seen on the issue has simply presented it as a quirk of fate. The info on the recent developments should certainly be added, but given this has only just surfaced, it is better to avoid WP:RECENTISM and let the dust settle, and also allow editors time to actually integrate the information into the article. Hiding T 11:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Character Origins

See the USA Today Story The crime that created Superman: Did fatal robbery spawn Man of Steel? http://www.usatoday.com/life/books/news/2008-08-25-superman-creators_N.htm

I also came across this comment: "In a 1933 James Cagney movie called Footlight Parade one of the characters says to Cagney something like "What do you want from me, Mr. Kent? I'm no Superman you know!""

Don't have time to properly incorporate this, plus the article is locked. Posting it here for review so that it can be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ema Zee (talk • contribs) 15:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

"Circus Costume"

Is it really necessary that his costume be described in the intro section as "like a circus costume?" I can't find anything that indicates his costume was intended to resemble a circus outfit, nor does it seem like an important piece of information to include. 66.253.173.149 (talk) 01:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

If some reliable sourcing can confirm whether that was the inspiration, that would be an important thing to include. Nowadays there's a whole history of superhero costumes that a creator can drawn from, but back then, Joe Shuster was essentially creating the very first one. The only direct antecedent appears to be the skintight, full-body costume of the Phantom. (I don't know if Shuster himself was influenced by the Phantom; I'm just observing that the Phantom's costume was earlier and similar.) What were Shuster's inspirations? That's important knowledge that speaks to the creation of an archetype. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm reminded of a line from the Adventures of Superman (TV series) episode "Riddle of the Chinese Jade", where the bad-guy gets a glimpse of Superman and says, "Who's the guy in the circus suit?" I think The Superman Encyclopedia went into the subject at some length, but I have no access to that book at present. I will in about a week. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
It's actually called The Great Superman Book. [1] It's an encyclopedia published in 1978, that attempts to encyclopedia-ize the entire Superman comic book chronology to that point. I don't know if co-author Michael Fleisher is part of the Fleischer family or not. Anyway, I'll look into this matter further when I get the chance. I have a hunch there's also something about it on the documentary that came out in 2006 that coincided with the new film. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Read further into the article and you'll see it cited to Daniels, Les (1998). Superman: The Complete History, 1st edition, Titan Books. ISBN 1-85286-988-7.
    • Obviously the idea long predates 1998. The TV episode is from 1951. It was either the Fleischer book or another source I don't recall, that pointed out how obvious the circus costume would have been to people of that era. The circus was a major industry in those days, long since reduced to just another bit of entertainment. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
      • The idea may well predate 1998. But Daniels makes the point that Shuster was influenced by circus costumes in his 1998 book. So that's what we cite. The Fleischer book and the comics themselves aren't such good references since they're primary source, and attempting to speculate or analyse them is original research. We have a clear citation to a suitable work which makes the point that the circus costume was an influence. That's all we need. Hiding T 12:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
        • The comics would be a good source, if they actually state that Superman is wearing a circus costume, as that would be its authors making the statement directly. However, if Daniels asserts with assurance that Schuster was specifically using a circus costume, that pretty well covers it, and hopefully sufficiently answers the original question. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
In the introduction to Superman from the 40s to the 70s, it's mentioned that Superman's costumed might have been inspired by circus costumes. It also says that Supergirl's costume might have been inspired by figure skaters' costumes. DonQuixote (talk) 20:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Magic Mountain Ride

Should the article mention the record-breaking Superman ride at the Magic Mountain theme park? I think so and thus concur.

Longevity

In Action#62 (7/43), the Superman story: "They'll always be a Superman!", the story is told by someone in 2143, of 1943, and at the end of the story, Superman now two hundred years older appears, looking as he always has. He tells some children that it seems that he is made of lasting material and will be around a while yet. (193.250.60.117 (talk) 10:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC))

The common depiction of Superman is that he only lives TWICE as long as a human and would eventual die of old age at 200 years of so.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.112.186 (talk) 02:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Alternate version section

Don't we need an alternate version section with the {{main}} link to Alternate versions of Superman? There is no link other than the one in the footer template and a number of various versions are themselves notable and worth of mention in a brief overview paragraph? (Emperor (talk) 19:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC))

I would think so... one way or another. Is there a way to tactfully note that the character has gotten the AV "treatment"? - J Greb (talk) 23:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Have had a bash, somewhat tactfully. It's hard to try and write it in a way that you catch both the casual and the knowledgeable reader, but I've done the best I can by paraphrasing the lead to Alternate versions of Superman. Hiding T 12:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect link in article

In the "Literary Analysis" section of the Superman page, there is a link to metropolis, but it links to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolis and not http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolis_(comics)

The other links seem to link to DC's fictional city, but this one links elsewhere.

Magiaaron (talk) 23:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. DonQuixote (talk) 23:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Missed this song reference

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superman's_Song —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffcol (talk • contribs) 03:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Superman wasn't paid because he only did police work as a hobby. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Where did the "S" Shield come from?

What is the story about the origen of the S Sheild? I had always thought that his earth mother, Martha, had disigned it when she made his costume. But in the cartoon it came with his child escape pod. If its origin is from Kripton, then The S wouldnt originaly stand for Super. Does anyone have an answer to this and can it be added to the page?--Redmander (talk) 21:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to research the matter. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
(EC) Conceptually, it came from "S"uperman and the shield of a police badge (see early drawings of Supes). As for the "in-universe" origins, it varies from one telling to another. DonQuixote (talk) 22:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Precisely. It began as a more simple "S", which stood for "Superman", and then it evolved into its current shape and various stories retrofitted it to have stood for the "family crest" on Krypton. One interesting thing about the Fleischer cartoons of the 1940s, as good as they are artistically, is that the "S" is not fully evolved yet. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Very old response, but the most common origin I've seen is that the Superman shield is the family crest of the House of El. It's that way in the movies and Smallville, in Lois and Clark: New Adventures of Superman, it's at least hinted that way. I have no idea if this is true in the comics though, as it's been awhile since I've read Superman comics (Blackest Night tie-ins notwithstanding). Anakinjmt (talk) 21:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Ambiguous source of quotation and reference 52b

I know nothing about this topic. Quoting from the article:

In 1975 after news reports of their pauper-like existences, Warner Communications gave Siegel and Shuster lifetime pensions of $20,000 per year and health care benefits. Jay Emmett, then executive vice president of Warner Bros., was quoted in the New York Times as stating, "There is no legal obligation, but I sure feel there is a moral obligation on our part."[53] In addition, any media production that includes the Superman character were to include the credit "Superman created by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster".[52]

The sentence "In addition, any media production..." is ambiguous. Was this another quotation from Emmett to a newspaper reporter? Was this a memorandum at Warner Bros.? Is this official policy at WB, and, if so, is it an actual legal contract? Expecting to be able to fix this on my own, I referred to note 52, as cited, which refers one to a MacDonald article at Publishers Weekly. Thing is, this matter is not discussed in the PW article at all as currently posted on their site, as far as I can tell. Maybe this was also intended to be [53], which is an article (Dean 2006) that was published in The Comics Journal? I cannot verify this, as I have no access to this periodical.

Help?

Joshua McGee (talk) 07:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

  • From the MacDonald article: "In 1973, with a major Superman motion picture about to be made, Siegel sued again—this time he lost. A group of creators, including Neal Adams and Jerry Robinson, were incensed by the treatment of Superman's creators, and waged a public relations campaign that resulted in partial vindication—Warner agreed that Siegel and Shuster would henceforth be credited as creators of Superman on all comics, TV shows and films, and they were to receive a yearly pension of $35,000 each." We've summarised that as "In addition, any media production that includes the Superman character were to include the credit "Superman created by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster". I'll tweak it to make it a full quote from MacDonald, that's the best step forwards. Hiding T 11:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Red and Blue Blur

Whoever added that is cool. Nice nickname for the Man of Tomorrow. (JoeLoeb (talk) 14:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC))

Unsourced. Probably something an editor made up. Hence it's not in the article. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah...., but it's cool. (JoeLoeb (talk) 21:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC))
That's the name that Clark is currently using as his alter-ego in Smallville. He's not flying and doesn't have the uni, so he's just in his red jacket and blue t-shirt and jeans and being called the Red-Blue Blur. 148.61.13.4 (talk) 18:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I know that, I unfortunately watch the show. I'm just saying it's a nice name.(JoeLoeb (talk) 00:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC))
I talked to Dark (DarkFalls) and I came back to here to talk to you fine people if I can add the R&BBB to names and aliases to Superman. Any takers? (JoeLoeb (talk) 04:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC))
I don't know if it would go here or on a Smallville related article. Tricky one. My off the top of my head answer is that I'd like to see it well established before it's added here. Has it just appeared in the show so far? Hiding T 11:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Any takers. (JoeLoeb (talk) 22:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC))
Not sure if it should be added, as that's only used in Smallville and this article deals with the primary appearance of Superman, in the comics. If it was to appear in the comics I'd call it a no-brainer. Anakinjmt (talk) 21:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Superman Doesn't Die

In the life and death of Superman the title death does not refer to his actual death because he does not die. I don't even know if he can actually die because he is like a battery. The sun recharges him and is what provides Superman with his energy. His denseness is supposedly from the Earth's gravity being different from Krypton's.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.139.1.68 (talk) 20:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I think he's trying to say that the "death" in the title "Death of Superman" is incorrect, which is technically correct. However, for all intents and purposes, he was dead. He was declared dead at the scene by a medical doctor (which legally is all you need to be dead), and the "real" Superman did not return for several months. He was treated by the entire world, both in-universe and in real life, as being dead. Anakinjmt (talk) 21:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
That and he and Jonathan Kent fought demons to get his soul back in his body. You don't get much deader than that.129.139.1.68 (talk) 16:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Superman's fictional history

Because Spider-Man and Wolverine have their own fictional history articles, I will make an article about Superman's fictional history. I request help for this article. Leader Vladimir

From the article: The motion picture Superman Returns was released in 2006, with a performance at the international box office which exceeded expectations.[10] The use here of “exceeded expectations" sounds at best like studio PR puff, and at worst erroneous: it is certainly ambiguous. Whose expectations were exceeded? I have tried to follow the citation, which appears to have been to an interview with the director Bryan Singer, but the link doesn’t work for me. In the context it was given in, it follows the statement that Superman III and Superman IV: The Quest for Peace didn’t do as well as the first two movies. To me this reads like "Superman Returns" was a success along the lines of the first two movies - but there is nothing to say that this is so. What comparitors were being used? On box-office returns, it would only be proper to use inflation adjusted figures to say how well the movies did compared to each other. Furthermore, international box-office is a term I have only ever seen used when excluding the U.S. (rather than as a synonym for “global”), so it looks to me that “performed badly” in the U.S. might be inferred, and that the statement is designed to make the film’s performance seem more impressive than it was. Jock123 (talk) 09:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Performance of Superman Returns

From the article: The motion picture Superman Returns was released in 2006, with a performance at the international box office which exceeded expectations.[10] The use here of “exceeded expectations" sounds at best like studio PR puff, and at worst erroneous: it is certainly ambiguous. Whose expectations were exceeded? I have tried to follow the citation, which appears to have been to an interview with the director Bryan Singer, but the link doesn’t work for me. In the context it was given in, it follows the statement that Superman III and Superman IV: The Quest for Peace didn’t do as well as the first two movies. To me this reads like "Superman Returns" was a success along the lines of the first two movies - but there is nothing to say that this is so. What comparitors were being used? On box-office returns, it would only be proper to use inflation adjusted figures to say how well the movies did compared to each other. Furthermore, international box-office is a term I have only ever seen used when excluding the U.S. (rather than as a synonym for “global”), so it looks to me that “performed badly” in the U.S. might be inferred, and that the statement is designed to make the film’s performance seem more impressive than it was. Jock123 (talk) 09:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

  • The link works well enough for me but to quote:

Newsarama: Superman Returns of course, will make plenty of money. The DVD is going to be monstrous. But it seems it’s not as successful as everyone wanted it to be or as successful as people wanted it to be.

Bryan Singer: Domestically. Internationally it has so far exceeded our expectations. I was personally surprised because it is an American superhero. Compared to my experiences with the X-Men movies I feel disproportioned. The strangest surprise has definitely been the international gross.

  • From memory this was the only thing that turned up regarding the film's performance. We can't analyse and compare figures because that amounts to original research, because, as you say, we run into issues of inflation adjusting and so on... Let's see if we can tweak the article. Hiding T 10:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Their disinterest in making the expected sequel fairly much speaks for itself, yes? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 12:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It says "The case is currently scheduled to be heard in a California federal court in May, 2008." As this time has already passed the wording should be changed. 66.191.21.120 (talk) 02:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

What's stopping you? →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh, it wouldn't let me edit it. But now that I've logged in I can.Five- (talk) 20:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Although I don't think I feel comfortable fixing it. I don't know if the case was actually heard on that date or how to find out. I was going to just change it to "The case was scheduled to be be heard..." but I don't think that's a good idea without knowing for sure.Five- (talk) 20:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Have you checked Google? I would think there would be something about it. For that matter, you could go to the citation and see if it has a followup. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect references

The following statement was not by Jeff McLaughlin:

"Jeff McLaughlin saw the character as pushing the boundaries of acceptance in America. The extraterrestrial origin was seen by McLaughlin as challenging the notion that Anglo-Saxon ancestry was the source of all might.[160]"

^ McLaughlin, Jeff "Comics as Philosophy" (2005). Univ of Mississippi Press p92. ISBN 1578067944

While this is taken from a book that the Dr. McLaughlin has written, it is actually a quote from another author. I have confirmed this with Jeff (he is my philosophy prof), however I cannot remember who he had quoted. --Markuskeats (talk) 07:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Possible addition in using The Blur as a redirect to the Superman page. READ ON.

I've thought about the possible addition of using the nickname The Blur to link to the Superman page. Such as when someone types in The Man of Steel, and linking to the page itself. The name comes from the Smallville tv show, where it's used as a nickname for the Clark/Superman character. Is this a possibility?(Krogers09 (talk) 03:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC))

First of all, please don't indent without putting in a ":" as it messes up responses and makes it next to impossible to read. I went ahead and fixed it for you. Second, The Blur is only used in Smallville. It's not used in the comics and it's not exactly a well-known phrase like "mild-mannered reporter" from The Adventures of Superman is in regards to Clark. We've had numerous discussions about this, and consensus currently is unless it's used in the comics, it won't be added. Anakinjmt (talk) 05:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Possible addition to the music reference section.

I was thinking that adding the Crash Test Dummies "Superman's Song", from the 1991 "Ghosts That Haunt Me" to the list of songs mentioned might be in order.

While it is true that many, many references to Superman have been made in all forms of media, and the character has often been referred to in various songs, "Superman's song" was rather popular on various "Adult Oriented Rock" and Adult contemporary venues throughout the 90's, including being featured on VH1 in varying degrees of rotation for most of the decade (it even sneaks on every now and then these days).

The fact that it's title is "Superman's Song" in my mind kind of "seals the deal", you just don't get more referential than an eponymous song.

Superman is correctly identified as a cultural icon in the article, and I fully appreciate the groups desire to avoid "trivializing" the impact of the character by including every conceivable mention or reference, but I do feel that in this instance the reference is of some interest to many participants in Wikipedia.

Thank you for your time.

James

Rampant unicorn (talk) 04:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Influence of Doc Savage on formation of Superman character

From the Creation and Conception section:

"The pair re-envisioned the character, who became more of a hero in the mythic tradition, inspired by such characters as Samson and Hercules,[18] who would right the wrongs of Siegel and Shuster's times, fighting for social justice and against tyranny."

I should say that the pulp character Doc Savage, very popular at the time of Superman's publication, is a glaring omission in the "origins" section of this article and was far more direct an influence on the "creation" of Superman than any characters from classical mythology.

Doc Savage was promoted as "Superman" in Street & Smith house ads as early as 1933: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_f3SZ5Tu916o/SKW1V6jeqgI/AAAAAAAAHYU/EGfuWVH5tDk/s1600-h/73115_173189_1.jpg (This ad is also reproduced in Jim Steranko's "History of Comics" book.)

Doc's name was Clark (Clark Savage Jr.)long before Clark Kent came around, and it was through Doc that the Clark Gable connection to Superman was established (Doc's image in early issues of the pulp magazine was actually drawn to resemble Gable). (See "The Man of Bronze" in illustrated pulp form by Lester Dent aka "Kenneth Robeson.")

Doc was called the "man of bronze." Superman, later, the "man of steel."

Doc trained his body and mind to ultimate levels and possessed a powerful physique and "super" abilities to speak multiple languages, identify chemical odors, devise scientific inventions and perform innovative surgery, among other talents.

His private sanctum was a "Fortress of Solitude" in the Arctic (apparently when Doc vacated Superman took over the rent on the property without even bothering to change its name).

The character who would be called Superman in his original form was primarily a combination of Doc Savage and the character from "Gladiator," with amplified super-powers, who was given a colorful circus costume to wear and a pulp/sci-fi-style origin.

Doc and his creator Lester Dent are noticeably absent from the article here and as primary influences deserve representation.

ClarkSavageJr (talk) 09:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that these are your own conclusions and fall into the category of what's called original research. ArtistScientist (talk) 10:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Label the information as you please; doesn't mean that the facts stated above aren't both true and supported by the works of numerous contemporary authors such as Will Murray, Philip Jose Farmer and Jim Steranko. Siegel and Shuster would never have stated this inspiration outright, obviously, because it would have been grounds for a lawsuit. The DOC SAVAGE magazines were on every newsstand for five years preceding Superman's appearance and as common as TIME magazine is today and continued to be in national circulation into the 1950s. Doc is unfamiliar to most today, over 75 years later, but in 1935 he was as well-exposed as Spider-man is now, whose comics can be bought in a 7-11 or bookstore practically anywhere. Siegel and Shuster themselves said they were avid pulp readers; that's not a matter of conjecture. To imply that they could have been unfamiliar with the Doc Savage character would be as absurd as to suggest that "a character whose first name was Clark, called 'Superman,' nicknamed 'the man of [a type of metal]', who had a superb physique, amazing sensory abilities, and a polar 'fortress of solitude,' and took it upon himself to battle super-villains and threats to America or the world" could not describe Doc Savage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.20.219.5 (talk) 13:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that the facts are true. You can't use the facts to advance a new position. The argument itself must have been made by a reliable source. Click here to see for yourself. ArtistScientist (talk) 13:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Googling "Doc Savage inspiration for Superman" gets countless hits. Do I have to list them all?

Prefer a printed source? OK, Jim Steranko in his HISTORY OF COMICS, Vol. 1, 1970, after giving an extensive description of the Doc Savage character and his origins on pages 19 and 20, and a reproduction of the Street & Smith Doc Savage ad which prominently features the word "Superman," writes, on p. 35-37: "Initially, Superman was a variation of pulp heavyweight Doc Savage . . . Comparison between Shuster's original Superman drawing and Doc's promotional ads bears marked similarities." "Siegel's Superman concept embodied and amalgamated three separate and distinct themes: the visitor from another planet, the superhuman being and the dual identity. He composed the Superman charisma by exploiting all three elements, and all three contributed equally to the eventual success of the strip. His inspiration, of course, came from the science fiction pulps . . . The idea of a visitor from a world other than our own . . . [probably] came from John W. Campbell's AARN MUNRO stories about a descendant of earthmen raised on the planet Jupiter who, because of the planet's dense gravity, is a mental and physical superman on Earth." (Another precursor to Superman's super-leaping abilities was John Carter of Mars, who undoubtedly influenced the Campbell stories -- but the point is, the Campbell stories were apparently on the newsstand at the time Superman was being developed, and that's why Steranko points them out.) Steranko goes on to discuss Hugo "Gladiator" Danner's super-strength and invulnerability to bullets.

The "creators" of numerous old comic book heroes can be trusted as "reliable sources" far less than those who have written about them or observed connections such as Siegel and Shuster's Doc Savage "swipes" because virtually all of these usually quite young (17-18 years old in many cases) comic book artists and writers drew liberally from current other-media sources such as pulp magazines and movie serials for "inspiration" to create their own characters. These weren't experienced and worldly adults who had spent years formulating deep concepts. They were kids copying bits and pieces from what they had seen and thought was "cool" at the time. To tell true stories of what they'd "lifted," even in later years, would have simply been to invite lawsuits, which is why they frequently cite public domain or mythological characters as their inspiration. No rights issues concerning Hercules! Superman was a giant-headed villain in his original form -- until Doc Savage happened and Siegel and Shuster reworked the character with elements incorporated from Doc, Hugo Danner, and various sci-fi pulps which they had been exposed to in the meantime, between the early incarnation of "The Superman" and 1938.

If the name "Clark," the epithet "man of steel," a fortress of solitude, or any other such thing had been present in the first version of the Superman character, this argument wouldn't hold water. But the fact is all these things appeared on the newsstands -- and attracted a lot of attention and, in the case of Doc Savage, were popular -- just before the second version of "Superman" appeared. Siegel and Shuster ate these things up, were heavily influenced by them and drew from them as they pleased just as everyone else did in the infant comic book publishing business at the time and for many years afterward.

In order to provide proper history of characters such as Superman, observation by knowledgable parties is necessary. Steranko, Murray, and others who have studied the pulps and their authors and KNEW the people involved in their creation, and who have observed and catalogued primary source material related to the businesses of comics and pulp publishing in the 1930s-50s and/or worked in the field themselves (as Steranko did) who put forth the information I am trying to convey here know what they are talking about and aren't by any stretch of the imagination unreliable.

And all of these reliable sources agree with me that Doc Savage was a primary inspiration for Superman. So this information should be included in the Wikipedia article about the character.

70.20.219.5 (talk) 12:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

See that's better now that you've given sources for the idea, it's a good addition to the article. ArtistScientist (talk) 23:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Pop Culture

Nicholas Cage named his son after Superman's birthname, Kal-El. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fyaishar (talk • contribs) 21:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Criticisms

Surely there should be an article, or at least a section mentioning the numerous criticisms that have arisen about the character, that he's too strong, he doesn't lose enough, flat and one-dimensional character etc. I just think its odd that this article fawns over superman so much and reads like a fan site.

If you (or anyone) has articles or sources with criticism of Superman from legitimate comic book industry critics and not just angry fanboys posting on their blog about how Superman is a stupid character when compared to Wolverine then go ahead and find a place for it to give the article more neutrality. Bhall87Four Scoreand Seven 15:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Trademark edit

The edit made by User:Rabhyanker footnotes his own company, Trademarkia. There was much discussion here over whether this was WP:COI, with, from what I read, nothing decided one way or the other. This information might be available from the Patent and Trademark Office itself, which would obviate the need for a commercial third party adding its links.

I think unquestionably, Rabhyanker's placing the trademark information so high up in the article, rather than placing it within the extant and related "Copyright" section," shows COI. In addition, this editor makes WP:DATED vios, which I have corrected here. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


Pending changes

This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

Six-paragraph lead?

Are featured articles exempt from WP:LEAD guidelines? Or is the "should" in "should contain no more than four paragraphs" merely suggestive of an overall preference? I'm just curious; this is the first more-than-four lead I've seen on a featured article. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 20:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Suggestive. As this article is written now, every paragraph is important. If there were bloat, then we should cut it down to four or less. DonQuixote (talk) 03:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
That's excellent, thank you for your reply. I've sometimes (not often) felt the "four paragraph" guideline to be followed a tad too strictly, resulting in, say, two unrelated paragraphs being compiled together to make one larger paragraph. But you're absolutely right, there is zero filler in the lead. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 05:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

superman is the alter ego where as Clark Kent is the Original person

Kal-El was his birth name. Clark Kent was his adopted name. Superman was a name he later adopted. Superman is the Alter Ego where as Batman is the alter ego of Bruce Wayne but Bruce Wayne is not the alter Ego of Batman. Supermans first self is that of Clark Kent. Superman came long after Clark Kent.70.15.191.119 (talk) 06:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

That's the current take on the character. Previous versions of the character (the movies and comics) had the character identifying himself as Kal-El, that is Superman, and turning his Clark Kent identity into an alter ego. DonQuixote (talk) 10:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Interesting. Some years back I read a "Freudian analysis" of Superman which concluded that the Clark Kent persona (i.e. the mild-mannered guy) is who Kal-El thinks of as his "true" self. That is, Superman is something he "does", but Clark Kent is who he "is" deep down inside. Talk about overcompensation, eh? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Probably just like a cop or some other stressful job holder working hard to separate his work and private life. As Superman, he is needed for what he can do. As Clark Kent, he is needed for who he is. Of the two, its natural to prefer the latter. Either way, this alter ego is one that has been had since the 70's at least. I wouldn't think the article would be hurt by having some more cited references that discuss this perception of identity and its shift over the years. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
The evolution of the character (as with any other long-running fictional character) has flowed with the times. If you read the early comics, he was about as "out there" and self-righteous as one could imagine. As our nation has become more complex and introspective, so have its heroes. Plus, it's hard to rework the same stories over and over. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I think that you might be right. I also think you definitely need cited references to note that. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Criticisms

Quite a few times on Wikipedia I've noticed articles tagged for resembling fansites, and / or being biased. When I stumbled on this article, I was convinced for a minute I had been taken to a fan website. I understand that this is a very popular character, but NO mention of the fair amount of criticisms recieved over the years anywhere, even small, even in passing, dumbfounds me.

This needs to be fixed, now I'm not demanding a whole article with shatteringly eloquent "Supermans suxx!" but a small section is surely needed to balance the article, and make it better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.185.167.219 (talk) 20:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources, please feel free to add the information to the page. I would be interested to read about whatever commentaries you might provide. I've always considered Superman to be a little too perfect. Flawed, human characters are easier to relate to. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 20:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Agree. If criticism is to be accounted for, it should be backed up with reliable sources at once. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree as well. Everything else in here requires sources. Criticisms also have to pass the same litmus test. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
It might have been constructive for the OP to have listed a "criticism" or two instead of talking about it in generalities. Gotta start somewhere. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Thomzahler, 26 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Please change: Thom Zahl's romantic comedy Love and Capes is a parody of the entire genre, with the love story between a Superman analog ("Please, I'm iconic!") and his non-super fiancee as the primary focus.

to

Thom Zahler's romantic comedy Love and Capes is a parody of the entire genre, with the love story between a Superman analog ("Please, I'm iconic!") and his non-super fiancee as the primary focus.

The change is the spelling of the creator's name. I know this because I am the creator. It can be checked independently at www.loveandcapes.com, the home page for the comic itself.

Thomzahler (talk) 22:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Done Thanks, Stickee (talk) 22:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Ross Webster for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ross Webster is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ross Webster until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

What happened to Superman's flame breath?

In the comics he has flame breath what happened to it now? How did Superman turn that coal into diamond in Superman 3, did use his heat? AnthonyTheGamer (talk) 10:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)AnthonyTheGamer

What happened to Superman's flame breath? He brushed his teeth (rim shot!).
Seriously, I don't recall ever reading that he had that. In Superman III', though, he squeezed the coal into a diamond. Super-strength, and a hefty suspension of disbelief. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The Paragon

Due to the fact that Superman has shown an indomitable will, a purity of heart completely free of evil or temptation, and a remarkable kindness, can Superman be considered the most benevolent and upstanding hero of the DCU? Leader Vladimir (talk) 03:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

We don't make those sorts of evaluations here, preferring to cite those reliable, verifiable sources that do. It's kinda Who We Are. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 79.85.113.108, 4 April 2011

Section Power and abilities, middle of the last paragraph : The only mineral on Earth that can protect him from Kryptonite is lead. Could you change mineral to element or substance because lead is not a mineral but a metal. Thanks.

79.85.113.108 (talk) 06:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

How about the only substance? If you get too specific, as with "mineral" or "element", the reader might think that it doesn't rule out the possibility that some other substance can protect him. Like if he coats himself with baby oil or something. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
You are right, substance should be the best choice in fact. As surely as mineral is an inapproriate word to qualify lead. 79.85.113.129 (talk) 09:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Done. The mineral article states that pure elements can be regarded as minerals, but that's not really the ordinary usage of the term, and "substance" covers all possible bases. Besides which, the sentence right after it says, "Lead is also the only substance that his X-ray vision cannot penetrate." Consistency. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Origin of superman

In the the first action comics superman was raised in a orphanage. Should this not be stated in the article as this was the first back story. 72.39.150.188 (talk) 13:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's sources to support that (Daniels, Les (15 May 2004). Superman: the complete history, the life and times of the man of steel. Chronicle Books. p. 42. ISBN 9780811842310. Retrieved 16 April 2011.) But it seems that the article Origin of Superman would probably be the place to mention that kind of detail. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:29, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, especially since that origin never really made it past the first issue. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Renouncing citizenship

I am dropping this story off about superman renouncing his citizenship (http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/29/superman-renounces-his-u-s-citizenship/). The involved editors of this FA will, I am sure, know how to handle this.

Since when was Kal-El an American citizen anyway? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Maybe I am mistaken, but I thought the matter of his citizenship was addressed in some issue back in the 70's or 80's where the oversight of his citizenship was addressed. There have been tons of discussions about it (talk about too much time on your hands..), this being but one. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
And boy, am I dating myself here, but didn't President Kennedy or another president naturalize him as a citizen back in the day? It's possible I'm misremembering--Tenebrae (talk) 15:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
At one point, it wasn't an oversight so much as an acknowledged deficit. In Superman #122, 1958, issue "Superman in the White House", Clark Kent tells Jimmy Olsen that Superman is not a naturalized citizen. He oughta know. :) (See [2].) Not that this means Kennedy didn't bestow citizenship upon him. He might well have done, but I don't remember hearing about it. Of course, after Crisis on Infinite Earths things changed. Superman came to earth in a birthing matrix and was born on earth, making him a citizen of the U.S. for that reason. --Moonriddengirl (talk)
Yeah, they investigated the birthing matrix angle in the early 90s during the Armageddon 2001 crossover when one possible future had Superman become president. DonQuixote (talk) 23:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

A question

Did Siegel and/or Shuster mock The Lord saying something like:Since god created the man, we shall create the Superman!? If it's true, ~maybe it'd be interesting add it to the article.Brazilian Man (talk) 06:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

It'll be added to the article if you can find a reliable source...which I doubt. DonQuixote (talk) 13:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Maybe the DC version of the Bible. ;) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Khaworth, 9 May 2011

Please change the spelling error "containts" to "contains". It is located in the paragraph immediately before the subsection "Personality" begins

Khaworth (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for pointing this out. It is now corrected.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 19:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Infobox Image

THIS image may fit the guidelines better, and it may be better to show the primary action associated with the character. Because the current image is a side shot, it may be worth re-examining. --CmdrClow (talk) 22:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

While the image itself is a move forward and nails things down nicely, I've got to ask some questions about the sourcing:
  • Is there a web page other than the "image only" one you can point to?
  • Does the site the image is hosted on provide anything further on the sourcing of the image? Or is it the Wikia norm - license tag only?
  • Is thee any original source information that can be provided that the file host is missing?
- J Greb (talk) 06:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Superman: plant-eater?

Recently, I've noticed some rather biased writing being inserted into the personality section. The relevant (prior) section read as follows (sans full refs):

"In Superman: Birthright, Superman is established as a strict vegetarian. However, this has been contradicted as in "Superman: Grounded" he ordered a philly cheese stake(sic). His vegetarian diet was apparently not always part of the character. In the 1966 Broadway play It's a Bird...It's a Plane...It's Superman, Superman (played by Bob Holiday) sings, "Gosh I'm hungry, I'd sure like a T-bone steak."

As previously stated, Superman is presented as a "strict" vegetarian - a rather modern (and amusingly novel) idea. As he has not always been presented as such, I thought it helpful to not give undue weight to any dietary preference - after all, the guy might not even eat (for sustenance, though he apparently digs soft pretzels, etc.). I offered the following rewrite/tweak (again, sans full references):

"Superman has sometimes portrayed as a vegetarian, while at other times, an omnivore; indeed, it is often unclear as to whether he even needs to eat. In Superman: Birthright, Superman is portrayed as a strict vegetarian. However, in Straczynski's "Superman: Grounded" he ordered a "philly cheese steak" sandwich. In the 1966 Broadway play It's a Bird...It's a Plane...It's Superman, Superman (portrayed by Bob Holiday) sings, "Gosh I'm hungry, I'd sure like a T-bone steak."

I am open to discussing some version closer to the latter, but see it as biased int he extreme to give undue weight to Kal's relatively newfound vegetarianism. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and if you are seeking a reference for Kal's lack of a need for food, look no further than the DC wiki itself; apparently Kryptonians, under a yellow sun, do not need to "eat or sleep":

"Tam-Or says that as Earth's sun precludes the need for rest or food, the Labor Guild has been working literally non-stop since New Krypton was formed."

And we do use these sorts of wiki's; precedence was established with both Harry Potter series of books and Doctor Who.- Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Um, using a wiki as a reference is weak if you just use it on its own, as wiki can be editied and unreliable stuff can be added. Only reason it is used is because it has a reliable source, so in a round about way its still the reliable source that is of importance. Further, the whole vegitarian angle was encorperated because he sees an aura around living things. When they die, it leaves them feeling empty hence why he eats vegies. Hence, not only does the strict reference holds water. Further, your statement that he is an omnivore is unsourced and opinion oriented. Further, just because someone eats meat and vegitables does not necessarily make them a omnivore. Someone could easily be a carnivore but occasionaly eat vegitables (digestive purposes, palet cleaning, etc). Conversely someone could be a vegitarian and eat meat (needing protein, etc) for various reasons. However, these are cases for ordinary people, and here we are talking about a fictional character. A fictional character could easily be written by one perseon in one way, then the details are forgotten/ignored by subsequent writers (or the same writer) and the person is protrayed in a different way. For examples of this look at the Chris Kent page. At this point we don't know if either is the case (writers consciously ignored that fact established in birthrite, or consciously ignored it, or were unaware of it). Further, DC's continuity is shaky at best, always restablished by the various continuity resets so details established once can be contradicted later. There is no RS that says the writers actually chose to change him from a plant eater to a carnivore, or if he slipped and ate meat, or if the writer was unaware/ignored the previously established dietary preference. All that can be said was he was established as a plant eater in one continuity, but has eaten meats in others. Both are reliably sourced so they can't be removed. There is no proof of his dietary habbits beyond them. Both facts were stated. We can't add our opinion that they establish him as anything else (omnivore, lapsing plant eater, carnivore who occasionaly eats plants). All we as editors should do is add the facts and leave it, as the original edit did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odoital25 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I've pointed out previously that the edit you prefer - one, I will add, that you created - favor the vegetarianism angle in terms of how it was written. The simple fact of the matter is that yes, indeed, Supes has been portrayed as eating different things - not via continuity (a term as vague and -frankly - useless here at Wikipedia as 'canon'), but simply by different writers and different time periods of the comic's publishing history. And you might want to look up [An animal whose normal diet includes both plants and animals. Human beings and bears, for instance, are omnivores. the definition] for omnivore; someone who eats both plant and animal matter is precisely that. And since we are indeed talking about a fictional character who - technically - doesn't even need to eat (but likes to) - Ii think we are beating the mashed corpse of a horse here. I do not care about DC's "shaky continuity", and more than I care about the scientific breakdown of Superman's Kryptonian physiology - excpet where it has been cited. We have sources noting the eating of meat. Therefore, he isn't a vegetarian. Is he one now? For now. When a new witer comes along that has him addicted to White Castle sliders or whatever, we can not that by citation as well. We do not favor what the current writer is doing, since recentism is not something we do here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Superman has been constantly re-invented over the years. Originally he couldn't fly, but merely jump long distances, which is a lot more logical than flying. The notion of his being a vegetarian is pretty funny. It's got to be a prank. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Its not — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odoital25 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

According to the Superman: Birthright article, he is a strict vegetarian but his "power" of being able to see living things aura is not explored. Birthright was used by DC to be the canon origin for Superman replacing The Man of Steel. Birthright was subsequently replaced by Superman: Secret Origin which will ultimately be replaced by whatever origin he is given during the DC reboot in September. During the years I read the comics he was an omnivore and from what I can remember the comics never touched upon if Superman really needed to eat but there are comics out there showing Clark eating Big Belly Burgers and eating at Dooley's. His secret phrase with Lois during the Jeph Loeb period is "beef bourguignon" which he says is his favorite meal.
I think the living things aura detail was added by Mark Waid as an excuse as to why Superman doesn't kill which was pretty much pointless considering it was established that he doesn't kill because the one time he did (Superman (vol.2) #22), it drove him insane (Superman: Exiled storyline). I think it's safe to say that while Superman is a strict vegetarian in Birthright, most continuity shows him as an omnivore. As for not needing to eat, a Google search of does superman need to eat? shows that he probably does not need to, it's just a matter of finding a reliable source. Bhall87Four Scoreand Seven 18:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I think its safer to say that different writers have interpreted him differently, diet included. Therefore, we should not be pushing the vegetarianism angle simply because it is recentism. We note all of them or none of them -that is the smartest course of action, not providing undue weight to any single one of them. And a Google search isn't useful here, as most of the results bring up endless blogs and forums wanking themselves into oblivion over minutiae about Supes.
And personally, I agree with Baseball Bugs - blaming vegetarianism on the "aura" thing is a cop-out; it's akin to a legless man promising to never run again, or a mute taking a vow of silence. but of course, that's my personal opinion. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I actually don't prefer vegitarianism or added it. I added the eating of cheese stake. I didn't like the way you added without source his not needing to eat or omnivorism. Then I went on some long tangent mostly out of being cranky. Sorry about that. Anyway, the aura thing and the vegitarianism were used to explain even more why he doesn't kill. Why not put that at the end of the sentance where it talks about how he doesn't kill. Something like, in one continuity his desire not to kill is based on the aura and mention his vegitarianism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odoital25 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Superman

A question I was asking is where did Superman develop from? On-line I find it says from Ohio and I have been told from a former employer who says he has the info. in his businesses history book that it started in Chatham Ontario.

The other question which may solve the first is What was the date that the author started writing the script for the first issue? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.225.226 (talk) 16:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Joe Shuster was born in Toronto, Canada but Jerry Siegel was born and raised in Cleveland, Ohio. Shuster moved to Cleveland in 1924 and met Siegel in high school where the two met and created Superman. So Superman was "developed" in Ohio. As for when the story was written, according to Siegel's Wikipedia page, "Reign of the Superman" was written in 1933 and says that Siegel and Shuster rewrote the story to the more familiar character and that it took nearly six years for them to find a publisher. So the story was probably created 1933-34 and finally published in 1938. Siegel may have had Superman in his mind as early as 1932 when his father died from a heart attack after his store was robbed. Bhall87Four Scoreand Seven 18:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Lede too long?

I reverted the removal of the template, and wanted to start a discussion to either fix the lede being too long, or determine a consensus that the lede is fine the way it is. My reasoning is that the lede is too long regardless of how long the article's subject has existed. Is there any content that is not critical for the lede that can be removed or summarized? I think maybe the fifth paragraph starting with "A significant overhaul..." can be removed, and perhaps the fourth as well, as they are important to the article, but not necessarily for the lede. I think if those two paragraphs were to be removed it would make the lede an appropriate length and we could remove the template. Does anyone have any other suggestions? - SudoGhost 19:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Given the character's long and very convoluted history, I don't think the lede overall is too long. (And I'm guessing you're a fellow journalist by use of the term "lede"!) I do think a good editor could probably trim 50-100 words surgically, however, to streamline it a bit. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
And I did just see a sentence that, for reasons I give in the edit summary, I removed for being blatantly inappropriate for a lede. Also another bit of way excessive detail about one of his many films.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
It's certainly a good start. I think if we can get it to about two fewer paragraphs, it would be a perfect size, because outside of a few sentences, most of the lede is fairly key information. I'm thinking maybe the "While sometimes referred to less than flatteringly as "the big blue Boy Scout" by some of his fellow superheroes" sentence can be removed, as a "sometimes" statement doesn't reflect a summary of the article. Looking at it again, I think maybe the fourth and fifth paragraphs shouldn't be removed, but summarized into a couple of sentences. I'm also not sure "Umberto Eco discussed the mythic qualities of the character in the early 1960s, and Larry Niven has pondered the implications of a sexual relationship the character might enjoy with Lois Lane." belong in the lede, because again, it does not reflect the summary of the article the article (that sentence is the only sentence that even mentions the word sex, and the lede should be "if you could describe the article as briefly as possible, what would it be", and that sentence would and should not be part of any such description). However, I wanted to discuss here if these sentences and references should be moved out of the lede and into the article proper, or simply removed, before I make any such changes. - SudoGhost 23:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I removed the non-notable movies from the lede, because while its important to mention the notable movies, I don't think that should then be followed by a filmography of every live-action Superman movie followed by a review, as that belongs in the article proper, not the lede. - SudoGhost 23:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I'd agree on the "big blue Boy Scout" and Larry Niven lines being unnecessary in the lead, and as I'd mentioned, some of the length can be shortened simply by surgical editing without removing information. I think the movies material can be trimmed but should be there. We've shortened it already by removing two blatantly inappropriate items, so I'd like to suggest waiting a few days and see what other editors besides us have to say before we trim any less-blatant, grey-area material.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
That's fair. I apologize if it seems like I'm being too aggressive with trimming the lede, I just didn't want to be "that guy" that re-adds a tag without attempting to solve the problem the tag addresses. However, now that I've made some suggestions there's not really much more I can do, so I have no problem waiting a few days and will greatly welcome some feedback and suggestions on this. Thank you. - SudoGhost 23:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Can we please keep some of the nicknames in a paragraph there. It's like how the Batman page has the nicknames in there without making the intro too long. It just doesn't seem right to not include them, seeing as how they've been there for some time.----
Are there any other reasons, besides "other articles have X" and "they've been there for some time"? Those by themselves are not reasons to keep something, but if there's some other reasoning I think that help clarify your reasoning. - SudoGhost 17:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Not that I can think of. It's just that those nicknames have been with Superman for a while. Culture and tradition wise, it just seems right to keep them, especially since they used to be there.Valkyrie Red (talk) 23:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Especially Man of Steel. I mean, it's even being used as the title for that new movie.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 03:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Ianlgordon, 14 August 2011

Siegel's father owned a store in Cleveland and not the Lower East Side of New York as stated in the entry. The existing footnote 24 to the entry confirms this fact.

Ianlgordon (talk) 10:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Done Topher385 (talk) 14:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Flame Breath

As I have read from a superman encyclopedia, in the 1940's superman had flame breath. AnthonyTheGamer (talk) 00:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC) AnthonyTheGamer

Only after eating a particularly stinky lunch, though. ;)
Seriously, can you cite the book and page? If so, we can include it. If not, we cannot. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 14 October 2011

Please change the release date for Man of Steel from December 2012 to June 14, 2013. It currently states this on imdb (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0770828/) and on your wikipedia Man of Steel page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_of_Steel_%28film%29. Thank you.

Spaceace5577 (talk) 02:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Instead, I just removed it; see WP:V and WP:CRYSTAL. Let's try and get some references for this. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  02:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Parody, more detail on SNL sketch

More detail is needed for at least one of the SNL parodies: Uber Man: What if superman was raised in Nazi Germany? I can't remember all the players, but Al Franken was "exposed" by Klaus Kent's/Uberman's X-ray vision. And Garrett Morris played a modern day American USAF general who pointed out that we would have developed a Kryptonite bomb. I only saw the sketch once. I think Ackroyd played Klaus Kent. 143.232.210.150 (talk) 23:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone find a source for this?MilkStraw532 (talk) 00:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Annnnd pow! - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
And socko! - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

DC Reboot, New Superman Profile Picture?

Since recently, DC rebooted their main comics line, featuring a new costume for Superman, which overwrites the old one, should we change the picture?

I recommend this picture:

http://ghostradio.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/superman1.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.66.56 (talk) 13:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy and Wikiproject: Comics' policy is that "using the most universally recognisable appearance of a character, for example Spider-Man in the red and blue rather than some other costume...fits this purpose best." As the relaunch is only a couple months old, Superman is still best known with a yellow belt and the red underwear and not in the "Kryptonian armor" that he has now. I'm not opposed to changing it, I'm just noting policy. The picture should go in the History of Superman article though. Bhall87Four Scoreand Seven 17:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. In about a year or so, I guess, it'd make mores sense to put it up, if it hasn't been retconned/changed by then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SilverBlast (talk • contribs) 18:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
The smart money would be on DC getting smacked with the money stick of declining sales before they realize the stupidity of screwing with one of their flagship characters. People tend to get irate when you mess with their icons. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
So, wikipedia is now a forum to discuss where would "the smart money would be"? Maddox (talk) 16:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
No. I was pointing out that we should not be in a hurry to change info. Sorry the different language made it hard to read between the lines, so I'll it make it easy, here you go: DC changes stuff all the time, and its never permanent, or even long-lasting. Hope that helps. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Work needed

Hello everyone! This article currently appears near the top of the cleanup listing for featured articles, with several cleanup tags. Cleanup work needs to be completed on this article, or a featured article review may be in order. Please contact me on my talk page if you have any questions. Thank you! Dana boomer (talk) 19:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I have fixed several of the tags (mostly dead links), but some still remain, including one major banner. There are also several areas that need referencing, such as the video game section, and Critical reception and popularity is rather trivia-heavy and would probably be more encyclopedic if shown in prose, rather than bullet points. Is anyone willing to work on this article? If not, I am planning to put it up for FAR within the next couple of weeks. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 17:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Origin of Superman - a New View Previously Not Mentioned

This is by Dr Edward Stim of Tokyo Japan who may be contacted by email at perry3505@hotmail.com The origin of the Superman comic character given in the Wikipedia article on the subject is incomplete and inaccurate in that it ignores the Argosy All Story novel "The Mental Marvel" by Fred MacIsaac published in 6 installment in August/September 1929 and which has many of the elements of the later Superman character of Siegel and Schuster. Here below is my summary and it can easily be checked. I have the 6-installments from the original Argosy All Story novel. Dr Edward Stim

Origin of Superman Here it is; the novel from which Superman came, as it appeared in Argosy All-Story Weekly in 1929 as The Mental Marvel by Fred McIsaac in 6 segments ending just 3 to 4 weeks before the great stock market crash whose origin’s it deals with. And no one knew it till I discovered it and you know it now too. Roger Thule is the Mental Marvel, so called because his dad by unorthodox education and child raising methods brought him up as the Mental Marvel and then exhibited him like Barnum and made millions. By age 21 Roger has thought every brilliant thought and with nothing left to conquer enters into a suicidal depression. Papa Thule hires a great brain specialist Dr Marvin who decides to introduce Roger to the beautiful ex dancer, Broadway ingénue Eloise Lane (cf. the Lois Lane) and makes Roger a million dollar bet he cannot woo and marry Eloise, who is reputed to have the hardest heart in town. To impress Eloise whose boyfriend is the world heavyweight boxing champion, Roger studies the art of boxing and enters the ring as the Mental Marvel because of his ability to psyche out his opponent. Several times in the story he is referred to as a Superman and the newspaper that follows his exploits is the Daily Planet. Also Eloise’s attitude toward Roger is exactly like Lois’s toward Clark Kent – contempt for his reliance on brain trickery and lack of real manliness like her boxing champ BF. My guess is that the creators of Superman, who were late teenage when this story came out, read it, were influenced and later came to legal agreement with author Fred MacIsaac whereby in return for his giving up rights and never revealing it, he was paid well. Take it out, read and see. It is an acey page turner. Submitted 5 December 2011 from Tokyo. Telephone from USA 011 81 3 3811 8124, ask for Dr. Stim — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.30.43.39 (talk) 17:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the article ignores the story is because it had no influence on Siegel and Shuster creating Superman. While I will concede that Argosy and Argosy All-Story Weekly would be something Siegel and Shuster would read, all of this information goes under original research and cannot be included. Also, I find it odd that Siegel and Shuster would be adept enough to force an established writer to give up rights to a character/story only to sell their creation to a comic book company for $130 and essentially a lifetime of being treated badly by said comic book company. Bhall87Four Scoreand Seven 19:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Image

The main image here, File:Superman.jpg, is up for deletion review. I think it may not qualify for fair use (I may be wrong), but if it doesnt qualify, we do have File:Superman-billiondollarlimited1942.jpg as a free use image, which while obviously not as well rendered, does give us most of the iconic features of Kal-El. Also, how come we dont have the "S" logo used as a fair use image? its a logo, so has slightly different copyright status than other images, and it is the most iconic image for the guy. Can't we grab the "S" logo from the DC website, like we use the DC logo?(mercurywoodrose)75.61.135.151 (talk) 18:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Appropriate credit to Doc Savage as heavy influence on creation of the character

The Street & Smith pulp magazine character Doc Savage, first published in 1933, was more than a minor influence on the creation of Superman. The characters's first name was Clark, he possessed amazing physical strength and abilities, dedicated his life and use of those abilities to the unselfish pursuit of super-criminals, and had a retreat in the Arctic called "The Fortress of Solitude." (http://www.oldsfbooks.com/dsm3810.jpg) Jim Steranko's book includes more than a "comparison" between Doc Savage and Superman, it includes an example of a printed Street & Smith house ad referring to Doc in bold type quite specifically as "Superman" years before the Superman strip appeared (http://www.shadowsanctum.com/doc/dovsavage_ad1934.gif), and, very likely, in fact, at the precise time when the original strips were first drawn. That Doc was called "The Man of Bronze" (http://www.epstudiossoftware.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Docsavage.jpeg) for years before Superman was referred to as "The Man of Steel," along with these other characteristics is all more than passing coincidence, yet these facts are glossed over or downplayed in the article, or, in the case of the origin of the name "Clark," the fact that Doc Savage's name was taken from Clark Gable (http://www.thepulp.net/the-links/docsavage/two-clarks/) is applied to Superman instead, and references to the noted shared elements, all of which have since become accepted as part of the Superman "legend," have been deleted when specifically added to the article. Why? Is the purpose of the article to be factual or serve the interests of agencies which might prefer it to be so that Superman was originated entirely from whole cloth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClarkSavageJr (talk • contribs) 10:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

We give Steranko's Doc Savage comments most of a paragraph and two footnoted quotes. If other reliable-source authorities have anything to add beyond speculation — we have no idea if Siegel and Shuster took from Doc Savage or if these were coincidences inspired by the same Zeitgeist — then they would seem valid to add. What you have above is original-research synthesis proposing a theory, and simply judging from your user name, there might be some fan bias involved. Why don't we see what other editors have to say?--Tenebrae (talk) 15:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Publication History Update for the New 52 DC Reboot

Publication History section should be updated to include the New 52 Reboot — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.16.23 (talk) 06:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree, we argue Superman is relevant even now, but we can't keep his page up to date? The Bryne era of Superman (which I love, don't get me wrong) is heavily referenced in this article. The New 52 Reboot of the Superman continuity represents the biggest changes to the character since the end of the Silver Age, and last reference to recent stories is the whole New Krypton storyline. 64.131.168.165 (talk) 00:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I updated the publication history to include The New 52 and updated the comics currently featuring Superman. Right now there's not much of the new Superman to comment on except on the costume as the relaunch is only 8 months old and neither Action Comics or Superman are doing exceptional jobs on how this Superman is different from the 1986-2011 one.

Power And Abilities Raising Heat Temperature

In Superman 3, he raised the temperature of his hand to create coal to diamond while using super strength and plus his hand flashed yellow heat. In the Superman comic books when the sun was no longer useful, Superman wore a fire suit to use for his powers. Now this is definitely facts. AnthonyTheGamer (talk) 21:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC) AnthonyTheGamer

Given the enormous range of powers that have been attributed to Superman over the years, including the many one-off powers from the Silver Age, a complete listing of everything 'super' he has ever done is neither feasible nor desirable. Euchrid (talk) 04:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Illegal Alien

there is nothing here about the living in smallville and later moving Metropolis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.114.238.246 (talk) 17:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

See Origin of Superman. DonQuixote (talk) 17:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 May 2012

It is incorrect to say that Nietzsche invented the term Superman. He used the word "Übermensch" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Übermensch) which is variously translated as overman, overhuman, above-human and superman. Probably George Bernard Shaw was the first significant author to translate this as superman in his play Man and Superman the title of which was a reference to Nietzsche.

Can this be corrected in the text please changing the sentence

Whilst the term Superman was initially coined by Friedrich Nietzsche it is unclear....

to

Whilst the term Übermensch, was initially coined by Friedrich Nietzsche and translated by Shaw as Superman, it is unclear....

Paul richard goddard (talk) 21:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The Latin for "over" is "super". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Sure, why not? You clearly are requesting this in good faith. I'll do it for ya. No comment on merits of edit. Egg Centric 21:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 July 2012

Edit Request #1:

The second sentence under the "Personality" sub-section currently reads, He adheres to a strict moral code often attributed to the Midwestern values with which he was raised.

It should read, He adheres to a strict moral code, reflecting the traditional American values with which he was raised.

The original sentence states that Superman's ethics are shaped by Midwestern culture. The issue I see with this is that Superman's morality has traditionally been viewed as the result of American cultural values, rather than the values of one part of the United States. His slogan has traditionally been, "truth, justice, and the American way," reflecting his core American values. As the son of immigrants, I always related with Superman's adoption of American values, which are the very ethics and moral standards by which Superman lives. I never viewed these standards as being Midwestern in nature, since I do not believe that doing what is morally right should be considered Midwestern. I have always interpreted them as simply American values. Also, if Superman's strict moral code is so often attributed to Midwestern values, then why is there not a citation for this? Furthermore, the link itself does not take the reader to any specific content highlighting these sort of Midwestern values. Instead, the link takes the reader to two sub-sections of the greater article "Midwestern United States," which are "Religion" and "Music," neither of which suggest that a moral code of doing what is right is a Midwestern value. Actually, DC Comics editor Whitney Ellsworth, who instituted Superman's code of ethics in 1940, was born and raised in Brooklyn, New York, not the Midwest. Please take this edit into consideration.

Edit Request #2:

The last sentence under the "Personality" sub-section currently reads, Additionally, he has been often portrayed eating in animation, such as sharing a picnic with Lois in Justice League Unlimited and ordering a pie to go in Young Justice

It should read, Additionally, he has been often portrayed eating in animation, such as sharing a picnic with Lois in Justice League Unlimited and ordering a pie to go in Young Justice. Please note that the original sentence is missing a period.

Thank you for your time.

Doworks000 (talk) 02:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)Doworks000

Partly done: I added the missing period. Regarding Midwestern vs. American, although I think I understand what the editor who wrote the sentence meant, I do see your point. In my opinion, either wording would work if it were reliably sourced. For the time being, I've placed a "citation needed" tag on the sentence. Rivertorch (talk) 09:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I've changed the sentence to: "He adheres to a strict moral code often attributed to the small-town American values with which he was raised." and added the same source used at Clark_Kent#Adoption. Incidentally, I also found a source that says, "Superman would not exist if Clark Kent was not raised on good mid-western values from his adopted parents." But, it's a review on a blog, so it's not acceptable as a source. --Musdan77 (talk) 22:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Floating figure

There's just a random picture of Obama in front of Superman with no context or reference to anything in the article. Why? 129.139.1.75 (talk) 17:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

It's in the section "Cultural impact". So no, it's not random, and yes, it has context and references "Cultural impact". DonQuixote (talk) 18:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we should update the Copyright issues section. Recently, DC Comics won the legal rights to Superman over the Siegel and Shuster estates. --Leader Vladimir (talk) 03:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Not true. They won partial rights.. it isnt settled yet. Spanneraol (talk) 12:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, it's still important. And besides, the Copyright issues section really needs to be updated. --Leader Vladimir (talk) 15:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
I've begun working on this. It's an issue with which I am somewhat familiar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fashionethics (talk • contribs) 00:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Biological age of Superman

According to a reboot from Scott Lobdell, Superman's storied adult age is 27 (Earth) years.[3] Might this trivia be included in the article somewhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.146.144.86 (talk) 13:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Übermensch

Currently, The Reign of the Superman claims as definite fact that Nietzsche's Übermensch concept influenced Siegel, contradicting this article. While this article notes that the comic book hero seems like the polar opposite to the Übermensch, the original Superman in The Reign of the Superman was indeed a villain, making the connection more plausible, but this original concept is ignored here.

As a side-note, it may be telling that Superman was initially used with the article the by Siegel, both in the title The Reign of the Superman and the first story about the re-envisioned – heroic – character, The Superman. This suggests it was not used as a name yet, but as a common word referring to a pre-existing concept. Only a personal impression, but in the title The Reign of the Superman (especially considering the story) and also in The Superman it definitely sounds like Übermensch is intended, even if not specifically and precisely in Nietzsche's sense, but a popular sense derived from it. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

  • I don't see a flat out contradiction. The article makes the point that Siegel and Shuster have never gone on record as stating Nietzsche as an influence, therefore it is unclear how they were influenced. It discusses sources which claim Nietzsche influenced them, but since there is currently no link to a definitive statement from either that Nietzsche was an influence, we have to be very wary of synthesis and original research. I'm not sure how telling the use of a definitive "the" is. Most pulp heroes of the era used a definitive "the", from The Shadow and The Phantom through to early The Batman. Again, I would be wary of original research here too. Hiding T 11:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
There is definitely a contradiction, even though I cannot tell which of the two articles needs amendment. Please check The Reign of the Superman#Publication. It flat out states that Nietzsche's concept of the Übermensch inspired Siegel, citing some refs. If the refs do not actually say that or are less reliable than the refs used in this article, the statement should at least be softened and hedged in the other article. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:57, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
The other article merely needs amending to state something along the lines of "so and so" have claimed that Nietzsche is an influence on Siegel and Shuster. But I think you are seing something that isn't there. This article does not state that Nietzsche was not an influence; those two positions contradict. This is rather an issue where one article is more in-depth than another. Hiding T 20:31, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

H'El on Earth

Alright, I've made the H'El on Earth article, but I'm gonna need help in the editing process. Leader Vladimir (talk) 22:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Why? Not why do you need help, but rather, why did you make the article? Also it's incomplete. It stops after H'el kicks them out of the fortress.129.139.1.75 (talk) 21:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Superman Jewish?

I saw a Super comic some years ago where Clark Kent was visiting his foster parents' graves. He was kneeling and saying a prayer, which the unwary would have assumed to be in Kryptonian, but was in actuality "El malei rachamim..." -- the Hebrew prayer for the repose of the soul of the departed. I knew the creators were Jewish and they were undoubtedly familiar with the golem legends and the -el ending of many Hebrew names, but I never expected to see anything so explicit.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.76.238.2 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 7 August 2011

Do provide specific reference for discussion next time. Though in any case, just because he used some words from a Jewish prayer does not necessarily make him Jewish. Maybe his foster parents were Jewish and it was merely a form of respecting them. As a counter-point, Superman/Clark Kent got married in a church (not a synagogue) in his civilian identity and and his kryptonian fortress through a kryptonian ceremony in his Superman identity. Quite a number of times in fact (if one counts all the Elseworld and "What if" stories. And not once was it done in a synagogue with a Jewish ceremony. Zhanzhao (talk) 20:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, the creators of Superman, were planting little hints as to his ethnic heritage and the fact that he was Jewish, including that Superman’s arrival on Earth as an infant in a rocket ship parallels the biblical story of baby Moses being delivered to Pharaoh’s daughter in his papyrus basket. Also that Superman's Kryptonian name, Kal-El, sounds like the Hebrew for voice or vessel of God. [1]Altbob (talk) 20:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Joe Shuster's 1945 pencil sketches on which Superman's face is based, were actually portraits of Stanley Weiss, a 24 year old (at the time) Jewish man that Shuster met in the Catskill mountains of New York. [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Altbob (talk • contribs) 19:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC) Altbob (talk) 20:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

It occurs to me that his creators were very young men, boys in fact, who probably did not think deeply about any of these things. They created a fantasy hero, do you really think they were imagining analogies with Moses or anything else? 92.23.145.26 (talk) 17:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Superman....is false!

The Patten may have came from the U.S.......But, the Invention and creation Of Superman came from CANADA and were every Canadian Knows, that the U.S. took him over, but he is truly Canadian! Invented and Created in Canada. Then 1st Produced in the U.S.! Fact! Just like the Light Bulb and the Phone, Just like The Game of Basketball. Just like Insulin and the Pacemaker. Just like the Zipper Creation of Todays Jet Engine (The Avro Arrow!)When The U.S. was just breaking The Speed of Sound, we were already at twice the speed of sound! All Came From North Of the Boarder! Patented and/or Sold in the U.S. but not invented in the U.S.. Pure and Utter FACTS!! Those 1st ones are still there! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.61.252 (talk) 10:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Is there a point in there?129.139.1.75 (talk) 18:03, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Dude. The creator was from Cleveland Ohio. You can't just keep yelling "FACT" and not cite a source. This isn't the bible.129.139.1.75 (talk) 18:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Illegal Immigrant / Personhood

Hi,

since personhood is defined to be a Human and in some countries some of the Hominidaes, is Superman technically a person? He isn't even a mammal or any kind of Earth animal.

And if he's not does he fall under any kind of Human law? A coyote (the animal, not the smugglers) is not an illegal immigrant just because it crosses the Mexican-US border.

If Superman were to actually kill someone, could he be charged with murder? Could anyone be charged with murder if they kill Superman (Lex comes to mind)?

DJ Doena (talk) 11:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Unidentified Flying Object

There is a song floating around on the internet, purportedly called "Superman", or "Superman, Where Are You?" Some of the copies of it claim it is by Iron Maiden, but I am certain it is not. However, repeated web searches reveal no reliable information about its origins, nor the artists performing it. I am trying to find out who this song is by. If anyone knows, please reply.

Here is the URL of a site containing the lyrics: http://letras.mus.br/iron-maiden/1751859/ This site claims it is Iron Maiden. It is not. A thorough search of Iron Maiden tracks reveals no such release by them.

Here is a YouTube link of an actual recording of the song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fsMtCUIVGA I cannot vouch for the legality or legitimacy of the recording.

If anyone knows who this is, please post a reply.

Thank you

Lightbulb101069 (talk) 06:42, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Getting this back to GA

The Good Article review that delisted this article gives several reasons for the delisting, but primarily it's sprawl and uncited POV. I've made an initial pass to address these two issues, and encourage other editors to do the same. The American icon Superman, of all articles, should have a GA. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:12, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it deserves - even if it was never a Good article, but a Featured one (like Batman, which managed to keep the star - so that and Spider-Man are probably the articles we could follow to get at least to Good status). igordebraga ≠ 20:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Heat vision

A tag needs to be added under abilities for heat vision — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fireman1245 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 August 2013

Under the Creation and Conception heading, last paragraph - delete the extra "a" in "argues": "It had to have an effect," aargues JonesDajones3030 (talk) 14:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)dajones3030 Dajones3030 (talk) 14:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Done RudolfRed (talk) 15:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

New source re: Superman and Christianity

To be found here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I am concerned about possible non-NPOV and reliability issues. There seems to be a pro-Christian agenda on the part of "MOVIEGUIDE":
MOVIEGUIDE® is affiliated with the Christian Film & Television Commission® ministry (CFTVC)... Both MOVIEGUIDE® and CFTVC are dedicated to redeeming the values of the entertainment industry, according to biblical principles...
You might be better off using the sources contained within the article (via Tampa Bay Times and BBC News), rather than using the article itself. Levdr1lp / talk 18:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Primary picture change

Perhaps, emphasis on "perhaps", we should change the primary picture to Superman's New 52 look. DC Comics outright said that they're not going to change Superman's outfit anytime soon. I mean, we did change Spider-Man's and Iron Man's pics in their articles. Leader Vladimir (talk) 16:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Pictures should represent the character as they are majorly identifiable, it is not necessary, for instance, to update Batman's image every time someone reinterprets his costume, which they do every other week. The current image is probably the most common and identifitable image of the character, if the new design is important (and it probably really isn't), it could be added in the body. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Speaking of this and the Batman image, have a look at them both, side-by-side. In terms of artistic symbolism, they work very nicely together, represending the duality between both characters. Superman representing light, day, hope. Batman representing dark, night, fear. Superman as the alien and unknowable godlike entity, Batman as the pinacle of human capability. I know I'm rambling here, but damn it, those are two damn fine pictures. Squee. Justin.Parallax (talk) 19:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Agree with the two immediately above. Wikipedia does specify we use the most dominant, familiar look of the character, and not fall prey in WP:RECENTISM. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request, 5 November 2013

i need to put something in capital letters that is it

Jordan st.andre (talk) 20:21, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

i love mombut A.K.A me because i made a new account — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordan st.andre (talk • contribs) 20:22, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. --Stfg (talk) 22:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2013

File:Keyshawn mitchell

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.31.88.99 (talk) 12:42, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Superman suit

This subject is already discussed in some detail in the target article. - MrX 15:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Merge:Not enough information by itself. Jhenderson 777 16:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2013

"anti-Semitism" is misspelled herein as "anti-semetism" please correct.Jonnycash11 (talk) 14:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC) Jonnycash11 (talk) 14:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

What section please? Jhenderson 777 16:02, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Done here. LittleMountain5 19:14, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Little Mountain. BTW Jonnycash11. You will at some point be allowed to edit semi-protected articles like these since you signed in. So welcome to Wikipedia. Jhenderson 777 19:24, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Last sentence of personality

It reads "Batman admonishes him for identifying with humanity too much and failing to provide the strong leadership that superhumans need." Shouldn't this read "that humans need"? As a superhuman he could use his influence to guide ordinary people, right? Jonnycash11 (talk) 03:35, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

The many categories Superman and other Kryptonians fall under

Fictional characters who can duplicate themselves; because in Superman Red/Superman Blue exposure to a machine using all colors of Kryptonite splits Superman. Fictional characters with ice abilities, because of ice breath, the category includes freezing powers. Fictional characters with fire or heat abilities because of heat vision. Fictional sole survivors because Superman is often and originally depicted as the last Kryptonian, later Kara Zor-El is the last survivor of Argo city and Kandor. I don't think Zod and Faora would count. Fictional characters with superhuman durability because Superman has bullet proof eyeballs. Would listing Kryptonians under these categories be appropriate? CensoredScribe (talk) 16:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Categorization is for distinguishing aspects of a subject, not every facet of their personality. What you keep proposing leads to overcategorization and once you get into dozens of categories, they become meaningless. Categories are used to organize articles, they shouldn't be used to describe a subject. You act as if there is a deficit of categories that needs to be addressed when what exists is sufficient. Mass creation of unnecessary categories will lead to a block or a restriction of your editing abilities. Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I think super hero's are meant to fall under a ridiculous number of categories because they are a ridiculous concept. I'm sure Batman could make a robot however this is not commonly dealt with like Superman's robots. These kinds of articles should reflect the lengthy canon of the comics rather than EU films and cartoons that might be better known but are never the less EU material. None of the EU is ever really that dark or edgy as the comics so a lot of aspects of the character that originally made them memorable gets left out. Superman used to be a sole survivor which is something the reboots have addressed; as he is roughly half the time he should be listed as one. Ice and heat powers encompass heat vision and ice breath and Superman being able to split into two using Kryptonite is a well known storyline which has been done more than once. CensoredScribe (talk) 17:19, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Please read our guideline on categories, particularly Wikipedia:DEFINING#Non-defining_characteristics. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

There is another wiki, called TV Tropes, which is much better suited than Wikipedia for those kinds of informations. That site is not an encyclopedia, but a place to detail all the fun info about works of fiction. Even if contradictory, overlapping, overdetailed, controversial, based on interpretation of the reader... in fact, pointing those type of things is precisely the fun part of that site (and if you can write things with humor, so much the better). This specific things, the several powers of Superman, are discussed at the entry New Powers as the Plot Demands Cambalachero (talk) 17:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics#Super_hero.27s_and_villains_should_fall_under_several_categories_when_applicable - SummerPhD (talk) 23:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Please add...

...Category:Fictional immigrants to the United States. --173.51.29.188 (talk) 23:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

This is not a defining characteristic. Please see Wikipedia:DEFINING#Non-defining_characteristics. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Fictional characters with x-ray vision

This proposed category would include most notably Superman, but also one of the first super heroines, Olga Mesmer and the mythological Chinese physician Bian Que. Superman uses it more often than Lex Luthor uses lead. CensoredScribe (talk) 05:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia seems to regard Clark Kent and Superman as two entirely separate people for some reason.

Superman is also a reporter and a farmer from Kansas because he is the same person as Clark Kent. Peter Parker and Bruce Wayne do not have their own pages; while The Dark Knight version of Batman does have a separate page; as does feral superman from an else worlds. Not including those attributes makes this article sound too in universe; unless you would like to admit Superheros should have a ridiculous amount of categories living at least two different lives and typically having multiple doctoral degrees. Lex Luthor being the worlds leading authority on several fields of science is what makes him extremely dangerous; more so than the philanthropy, being the president, or running several business. Those are the newer more superfluous elements; at the core Lex Luthor is a dangerous mad scientist. CensoredScribe (talk) 23:29, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Doomed

A new comic event called "Doomed" will start in the Superman books in May. You can get the details here. Maybe we should make an article about it. Leader Vladimir (talk) 02:40, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Since no one else made an article, I already did. Leader Vladimir (talk) 17:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Addition of New 52 picture?

Not necessarily as the main page image, but since we have pictures of both the Golden Age and Modern-Age versions, we should probably have a picture of the newest incarnation as well. It's not a temporary costume change, like the Electric Superman and other various costume changes were, it's a completely rebooted incarnation of the character. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.79.120 (talk) 20:17, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Video Game topic is redundant

I think the contents of "5.7 Video games" should be merged with "In other media". HValle (talk) 13:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Possibly wrong first appearance date in Summary

In the section "Publication information" it says that Action Comics #1 was released in 1938. The same date is mentioned in the Action Comics #1 article itself. The summary says the Publish date was 1939. 80.238.199.41 (talk) 10:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. DonQuixote (talk) 11:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Do we really need to have two separate pages, one for Clark Kent and the other for Superman? Not much into comic books personally, but Bruce Wayne redirects to Batman, among other examples. Outside of comics, Anakin Skywalker redirects to Darth Vader. (They were once two separate pages.) I know there's been several different characters playing Robin, and it should stay that way. But there is one Superman. Jgera5 (talk) 03:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

If there is enough well-referenced and cited content in the Clark Kent article, there is no reason for a merge. They can be discussed as two related but independent subjects. || Tako (bother me) || 14:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Look at the size of the Superman article and the Clark Kent article... if you merge them, it will be a huge article... I'm agree with Tako. Arussom (talk) 15:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
The two pages, arguably, deal with the same subject. A merger would mean that repeated information could be cut over all content would not be as huge as it currently is. Taking a look at sizes we see that, at 113,367 bytes, Superman ranks at 5813 in terms of Wikipedia article length but it is still amongst the longest superhero articles. Batman, inclusive of Bruce Wayne, has 117,151 bytes. At the moment the clearest indication on the Superman page that there even is a Clark Kent page is in the merge proposal box. If this were removed then people conducting general research into superheros might easily miss all the external Clark Kent information. Different aspects of subject information could be discussed in independent but related sections on the same page in a similar way as is done for other superheros on Wikipedia. Gregkaye (talk) 08:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
As a very longtime comic book fan, I have no problem with Superman and Clark Kent having separate articles. Clark Kent has a much richer and more detailed background than any other superhero's alter ego, with the arguable exception of Peter Parker. In addition, he is the only one to have had his own long-running series. "The Private Life of Clark Kent," which featured stories involving Clark in which he never changed into his Superman identity, ran as a recurring backup feature from 1972 to 1982. An attempt to create a similar feature for Bruce Wayne in the late 1970s lasted a mere two issues. Not to mention that Clark is significant enough to have his own logo. WaxTadpole (talk) 19:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Possible format for a merger

At the moment the table of contents for the Superman article reads:

1 Publication history ... 2 Fictional character biography 2.1 Age and birthday 2.2 Personality 2.3 Other versions 3 Powers and abilities 4 Supporting cast 4.1 Enemies 5 Cultural impact ...

This might be adapted as follows:

1 Publication history ... 2 Character Origins and Identities 2.1 Age and birthday 2.2 Kal-El 2.3 Clark Kent (early years) 2.4 Superman 3 Fictional character biography 3.1 Personality 3.2 Other versions 4 Powers and abilities 5 Weaknesses 6 Clark Kent (dual identity) ... 7 Clark Kent in other media ... 8 Supporting cast ... 9 Cultural impact ...

The wording of titles may be up for debate but additions might work as follows:

2.3 Clark Kent (early years) <would mainly come from Clark Kent, 1 Overview>

5 Weaknesses <would come from Superman, the last paragraph of Powers and abilities>

6 Clark Kent (dual identity) <would come from Clark Kent, 2 Secret Identity and would include the following subsections:>

6.1 Security of identity 6.2 Identity change 6.3 Debate over true identity

7 Clark Kent in other media <would all come from Clark Kent, 3 In other media with the following subsections:>

7.1 The Adventures of Superman radio series (1940-1951) 7.2 Kirk Alyn film serials (1948-1950) 7.3 Adventures of Superman TV series (1952-1958) 7.4 Christopher Reeve films (1978-1987) and Superman Returns (2006) 7.5 Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman (1993-1997) 7.6 Smallville TV series (2001-2011) 7.7 Animated series 7.8 Man of Steel (2013)

We can also note that the name Superman appears 185 times in the Clark Kent article, the name Clark Kent appears 25 times in the Superman article and perhaps suprisingly the birth name of the character, "Kal-El", appears just 16 times in the Clark Kent article and a mere 5 times in the Superman article <and more on that below>.

Sure, any merger that was to happen should be into a "Superman" article but perhaps it would be helpful to envisage this as a merger of the two alter-egos of Kal-el.

Gregkaye (talk) 10:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

  • The question should be, is Clark Kent a separate topic from Superman. Years ago there was a discussion over whether the aphorism, "There is a sucker born every minute", with proponents of deletion asserting that "everyone knew" this phrase was coined by PT Barnum. In fact Barnum experts don't believe Barnum coined the phrase, he merely didn't challenge it being credited to him. During this debate I spent a couple of hours, and I studied how the phrase was used.

    I found close to half of the instances of articles that used the phrase, never referenced Barnum, at all. I argued that since the phrase had an independent life from Barnum it would be a grave disservice to redirect it to Barnum, just because some lazy writers incorrectly believed Barnum coined the phrase.

    I suggest the same holds true of Clark Kent. As this google book search illustrates, people discuss the "Clark Kent" personality type independently of Superman. Similarly a google search on "Clark Kent glasses" or a google book search demonstrates that the character of Clark Kent has enough independent notability that many works of fiction refer to the glasses characters wear as "Clark Kent glasses" -- without any references to Superman, at all.

    Therefore I am strongly opposed to merging Clark Kent with Superman. Geo Swan (talk) 23:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

"superhuman intelligence"? bullshit!

The superman I know, has about average-human intelligence, and for comparison, can in no way can match up to the intelligence of his friend Batman !! which supposedly possesses "Genius-level intellect" (although i could argue that Batman has superhuman intelligence himself ;p ) - Unless someone can provide some good references claiming that Superman posesses Superhuman intelligence, i'll remove it.. Divinity76 (talk) 09:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

In the Silver Age, Superman regularly invented fantastic machines, including the robots that serve him in the Fortress of Solitude. Remember, these powers are for all incarnations, not just the most recent. Euchrid (talk) 09:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
His brain must at least be able to process information at super-human speed given the speed of his reactions. Whereas it would take a typical postgrad about 4 years to knock out a Phd Superman could probably read all the relevant literature and knock out one in a few hours. Given that he attends lots of emergency situations I would be surprised if he hadn't boned up on the medical field and had the advanced medical knowledge of at least a junior doctor. He could speak Russian in Superman 4 too, so it makes sense he would learn most of the languages on the planet given his vocation. Betty Logan (talk) 09:42, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Sounds more like superhuman knowledge than superhuman intelligence, though to Divinity's question, Superman isn't a detective as he just tends to bash things, so his intelligence would be different to Batman's anyway. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
If superpowers have to be from all time periods, as said by Euchrid, then it's not enough if those powers were used in the Silver Age, they should still be used in the modern day. If authors stopped using them decades ago, then they should not be listed. Cambalachero (talk) 19:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
That would contravene WP:RECENTISM. We wouldn't exclude a power on the basis it isn't used any more for the same reason we wouldn't exclude a power that has been only introduced only recently i.e. it would prevent encyclopedic coverage of the topic. Betty Logan (talk) 20:48, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps I wasn't clear - we list the powers from all time periods. Not all powers have to be in every time period. We need a full coverage of the topic, not just the most recent version. Imagine if the Sherlock Holmes article only talked about the Benedict Cumberbatch version, for example, or the whole Doctor Who article was wiped every time he regenerated? Euchrid (talk) 21:28, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

As opposed to which other Superman?

Superman is the superhero persona of a fictional character that appears in comic books published by DC Comics, and is considered an American cultural icon.[1][2][3][4] The Superman character described on this page was created by writer Jerry Siegel and artist Joe Shuster, high school students living in Cleveland, Ohio, in 1933; the character was sold to Detective Comics, Inc. (later DC Comics) in 1938.[5][6] Superman first appeared in Action Comics #1 (June 1938) and subsequently appeared in various radio serials, television programs, films, newspaper strips, and video games. With the success of his adventures, Superman helped to create the superhero genre and establish its primacy within the American comic book.[1]

Within the context, the bold phrase seems either unnecessary or requiring greater explanation. 86.128.5.177 (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the catch. It'll be corrected. DonQuixote (talk) 21:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
As opposed to the Ubermensch.Semeion (talk) 14:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Strange

Perhaps one of the oddest issues of Superman comics is number 19 (Nov-Dec 1941). In the first story he fights newspaper comic characters. In the second there is a dream sequence (revealed after the dream) where Lois discovers his secret identity and he goes into another dimension and accidentally kills Lois. The reason for the dream is not explained other than that some rocks fell on him, and that never bothered Superman before. The last story has Clark taking Lois to see a Superman cartoon where he has to stop her seeing Clark on screen changing into Superman, though obviously everyone else in the movie theatre saw it. The first story in the next issue 20 (Jan-Feb 1942) has Lois print a joke copy of a newspaper revealing Clark is Superman but through a mix up it goes into national circulation and everybody knows Clark is Superman. In that issue, Hitler starts appearing, but no Japanese villains. Although America was in the war in December 1941, comics were printed 3-6 months early to give retailers a chance to sell them by their cover date so they were not at war when #20 was printed.(84.236.152.71 (talk) 20:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC))

Hi, it's unclear if/what you are proposing. Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, not for general discussion about the subject. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:36, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Both Superman and Clark Kent have their own pages but, are both the same character?

I realise there are certain things on each page that aren't on the other but, couldn't that info be moved from one to the other and have the pages merged? Having two pages for one character just seems odd?Cebr1979 (talk) 03:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Infobox Image

I propose a new image for the infobox, using Alex Ross' image of a classic, iconic Superman. SupermanRoss.png, linked below, is hand painted and of a higher quality than the current image. Articles like Wonder Woman, Joker, Shazam, and Martian Manhunter also currently use high quality portraits in the infobox. I believe SupermanRoss.png accurately shows the character's full costume, as Superman is facing forward in this image. Please let me know what you think. JosephSpiral (talk) 13:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Superman by Alex Ross
Cambalachero, I've uploaded a newer version showing the full image in which the cape is not cut. JosephSpiral (talk)
The source you've provided for FIle:SupermanRoss.png does not seem accurate. Clicking on the source link does not bring you to the image. You have to be really careful with non-free images because their use is restricted on Wikipedia per WP:NFC. Each use of a non-free image requires a separate, specific non-free rationale be written per WP:NFCC#10c and that the image satisfy all of the criteria listed in WP:NFCCP. Non-free images should also not be used in any of the ways listed in WP:NFC#Unacceptable use. Moving non-free images around within an article could nulify the non-free rationale for one of the images being moved. Many of the images currently being used in the article are non-free and a few such as File:ActionVol2No1.jpg and File:Reign of the Superman.jpg do not seem to satisfy WP:NFCC#8. "ActionVol2No1" also doesn't satisfy WP:NFCC#10c and "Reign of Superman" also doesn't satisfy WP:NFCC#1 which means they can be removed. Removing File:Superman.jpg from the infobox is going to affect it's rationale and might mean that the image can no longer be used per WP:NFCC#3b and NFCC#8. Finally, simply adding boiler plate rationales to non-free images so that they can be used in a particular article is not the way to satisfy NFCC#8 so you have to be a little careful when it comes to licensing. It would be better to try and find free images since they are less restrictions placed upon their use and all that is really needed in a consensus to use the image in an article because there are no copyright issues to worry about. - Marchjuly (talk) 22:18, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
I just saw the source problem and fixed it. Thanks. JosephSpiral (talk) 22:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Simply for being a front view rather than a side view, the Ross image better fulfills the requirements for infobox images. (Tangentially, I've never liked him looking off the page.) --Tenebrae (talk) 22:56, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment: While I like Ross' work, isn't there another artist we can choose. All of the characters that the OP mentioned in the start are drawn by Ross. There are many talented artists that have drawn Superman over the years. Wikipedia should show some diversity to better reflect the range of artistic styles in DC comics.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:31, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

There are other artists to choose from, but in regards to this article, I believe Ross's image is the best I have seen of Superman (it has him looking straight, with the costume in plain view, and represents the classic image of Superman). As for the other articles, I listed those because they were also done by Ross. They also happen to be the very few Ross images I can recall that are in infoboxes. There are probably more Jim Lee images and similar style drawings in infoboxes, and the vast number of infoboxes do not have high quality portraits of a character looking straight ahead with the full costume in plain view. I agree that infoboxes do not need to be filled with Ross images, but I believe this Superman image better fulfills the requirements for the infobox. Also, the current image does not show a full view of the iconic "S". Just my two cents. JosephSpiral (talk)
Perhaps, still some other artists should at least be a part of the discussion.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely. Editors are more than welcome to contribute other suggestions. JosephSpiral (talk) 12:50, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Even though I personally prefer Jim Lee as an artist over Alex Ross (just a matter of personal taste), I think the proposed image of Superman by Alex Ross is a better fit than the current image by Jim Lee for the encyclopedic purposes that the images are meant for. There are three reasons why I think this:

1. The proposed image shows full frontal view of the character, while the current only has a side view of the character.

2. Superman's pose in the proposed image is arguably more iconic than Superman standing on a gargoyle (which is a pose more associated with Batman)

3. The proposed image is three dimensional.

HOWEVER, I do think this discussion would benefit if we had more than two options (the current and the proposed) to choose from. Darkknight2149 (talk) 00:21, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Lead change

The second sentence of the lead paragraph contains "high school students living in Cleveland, Ohio, in 1933". Why is it necessary to have this in the second sentence? I have yet to see any other comic book article in which the creators' hometown is crammed into the second sentence of the article. This can go in "Publication History". What are editors' thoughts on this? JosephSpiral (talk) 16:25, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree; I have removed it from the lead. It's now only in the Publication history section. —DangerousJXD (talk) 21:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Seduction of the Innocent

There is no discussion (or cross-reference) to Fredric Wertham. 00:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

video games

As far as I know, the Atari 2600 Superman was commercially successful. It's not hard to play, and it has a certain silly charm. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 00:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^ Superman: The High-Flying History of America's Most Enduring Hero, by Larry Tye
  2. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/03/books/model-for-superman-comes-to-center-for-jewish-history.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Superman/Archive_3&oldid=1137211874"