Talk:Superman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Superman article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
Ohio Portal
Superman is part of WikiProject Ohio, which collaborates on Ohio-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to current discussions.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.
Suggested article edit guidelines:
Featured article star Superman is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 31, 2004.
This article is a current selected article candidate on the Ohio portal. A selected article should exemplify Wikipedia's very best work related to Ohio. Please feel free to leave comments.
Peer review This Everydaylife article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale (comments).
Archive
Archives
Archive 1,

Archive 2


Contents

[edit] Proper storyline/history

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

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

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

[edit] First appearance

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


[edit] Questions about powers

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

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

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

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

  • Which version of the second movie? I don't remember when that happened, and I have both seen the oringal Superman II and the director's cut. TheBlazikenMaster 16:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Copyright

when does the copyright expire?

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

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

[edit] Recentism

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

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

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

[edit] ART PHOTO

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Removal of Modern 1st Appearance

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Superman as an analogy for Jesus? or the Messiah?

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

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

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

Superman was not originally intented as a Christ-like figure by Siegel and Shuster. But over the years, many different writers have written Superman with many different interpretations. Some of these writers have written Christ-like portrayals of Superman, in particular, Donner's portrayals in the Superman movies.--Trademark123 22:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Action Comics 1

I know their is already an image of the cover of the book, but would the image of the first page[[1]] be of any significance to this article, seeing as its first ever introduction to Superman? Rodrigue 19:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Fair use image on cover

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Indefinite semi-protection

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

[edit] "Fictional character" vs. "comic book superhero"

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

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

[edit] Kal El

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


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

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


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

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

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

[edit] "Notable Aliases"

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

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

[edit] Sword of Superman

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

This was the focus of Superman Annual #10[3], from 1984. Basically, it was just the one story, long since forgotten. Dstumme 20:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request to neaten powers list

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

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

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

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

  • Superhuman stamina and invulnerability are really somewhat different. The Flash has superhuman stamina, meaning he can run at fast speeds for a long time, but he isn't invulnerable. As to freezing breath, I don't think an info box is the place to get into the vagaries of Superman's powers. That's best discussed at Powers and abilities of Superman. Hiding Talk 18:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
    • The reason it got that hidden note was because of the vast madness in case you're wondering. TheBlazikenMaster 01:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A page for The Origin of Superman?

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

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

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

[edit] Superman's religion

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

[edit] Magic Mountain Ride

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

[edit] Ka-El

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

  • It's Kal-El, which does indeed redirect here. Hiding Talk 07:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shuster

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

[edit] Superman Influences

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

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

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

[edit] Concerns about this page

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

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

[edit] Super-Intellect

Superman's super-intellect, although not as famous as his other superpowers, is just as noteworthy. However, during John Byrne's weakening of his powers, it became such that Lex Luthor and Batman could outsmart him, and he was known only for his brawn and heroism. Since then, particularly in the Silver Age-like All Star imprint, the Birthright miniseries, and the One Year Later arc, his mental capacity has been sharpened. Even in Superman he was taught various subjects, including relativity, through recordings of Jor-El as a toddler in his spacecraft. In Superman IV, Lex, who previously claimed to have IQ 200 and be the greatest criminal mind of his era, states that Superman was the only one who could keep up with him. In Superman Returns, Lois' child, who is implied to be Superman's son, excels at science. In Supergirl, the protagonist, also a Kryptonian, has impressive computational abilities. In the Smallville episode Obsession, Clark has knowledge of quantum physics. In a Wizard installment, a report card shows Clark getting straight A's. The DCU RPG shows that he has a +18 knowledge of science, and The New Batman-Superman Adventures official webpage [4] reveals he has a computer-like mind (compare to Sage). For in-comic references, refer to Superman Thru the Ages!. His father is Krypton's greatest scientist (see Superman: The Animated Guide by DK Publishing [5]), and depending on continuity, his mother is either an astronaut or historian. Superman's mental powers have been referenced in a Seinfeld episode wherein Jerry posits why Superman wouldn't have super humor, as "Why would that one area of his brain not be affected by Earth's yellow sun?" --Kasparov 02:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Talk for Merging with Superman Robots Article.

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

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

[edit] searching for citation

The History of Superman article says the following:

“ In 1935, their Superman story was again rejected by newspaper syndicates wanting to avoid lawsuits, who recognized the character as being a slightly altered Hugo Danner, the lead character from Philip Wylie's 1930 novel Gladiator. ”

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

[edit] "One of the most popular" is better than "The most"

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

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

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

[edit] Immigrant

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

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

[edit] Eugenics

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

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

[edit] Clark Kent

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

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

[edit] Super Weaving

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

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

[edit] Can we PLEASE come up with some agreement?

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

The solution is simple, stop replacing superhuman durability with invulnerability. Superman is NOT invulnerable. He is blatantly vulnerable to Kryptonite and magics, and beyond that he can be and has been injured by beings with comparable strength to his own. Wonder Woman has broken his ribs with a kick, Captain Marvel has knocked him unconscious with a punch, Doomsday cut him repeatedly and broke his arm (not to mention he KILLED him with brute force), Zod broke his jaw and Even Dr.Light has injured him with a simple everyday weoponry laser & the list goes on and on. Superman has superhuman durability, he does not possess physical invulnerability. Manssiere 21:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you completely, but that doesn't stop the info from being re-added. TheBlazikenMaster 21:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • It is original research and advocating a point of view not to describe Superman as invulnerable bsed upon your own opinions or a dictionary definition, which amounts to a synthesis of sources. The number of sources which describe Superman as invulnerable mean that to comply with both Wikipedia policy and intellectual honesty we have to describe Superman as invulnerable. For a quick precis of the number of sources using the term invulnerable in conjunction with Superman, see [6], [7], [8] and [9]. Hope that explains, Hiding Talk 20:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
In that case we have to describe Odin as omnipotent. Manssiere 00:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] "Truth, justice, and the American way"

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

  • Good point. At some point I'll work it into the article. There's a good source here, [10], another at [11], mention of how it defines the superhero at [12], and I think there are enough sources to demonstrate how it has enetered the lexicon of the States, from usage during the Iraq War as a source of both patriotism and as a criticism over Guantanamo Bay. Also, there was a dispute over using it as the title to what became Hollywoodland, although that needs sourcing. Got it, [13], The (Tinsel) Town That Ate Superman By KRISTOPHER TAPLEY Published: August 20, 2006. Will work this into the article when I get a free minute or twenty. Hiding Talk 10:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


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

  • Superman is already described off the bat in the article as an American cultural icon, so I don't really see an issue. Hiding T 19:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
The issue is just trying to fit the famous slogan in the article. Matt is just going off on a tangent. Anakinjmt (talk) 20:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Methodist?

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

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

[edit] X-ray vision in infobox

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Write your list here first, and we'll see where we go from there. Hiding T 17:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


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

[edit] Lead image

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

  • The legal decisions are covered in the copyright section, and the stuff about the Justice League and Justice League International is better placed in the animated section of Superman in popular culture. Hiding T 13:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clark Kent

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 [jamesmitchell1986@yahoo.com] 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)