Talk:Superman/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Excessive subsections

On July 10, 2015, four edits made by PraeceptorIP have resulted in several subsections about copyright ownership and contract disputes. The number of subsections are excessive. Is it not possible to group these subsections to make them significantly fewer in number? What are editors' thoughts on this? JosephSpiral (talk) 15:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

@JS - The reason I put in the subsections was that it was very hard--almost impossible--to follow the material in the article the way it was in one long paragraph. I think it is more readable and easier to follow conceptually when broken up into pieces identified by tags (subheads). I did not want to delete somebody else's content, so I just made it more digestable. -- PraeceptorIP (talk) 19:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

PraeceptorIP, how about grouping the subsections up a bit more? Perhaps by decade, or something along those lines? JosephSpiral (talk) 14:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

@JS - But they are pretty much by decade now, except where two suits in the same decade are over radically different claims. PraeceptorIP (talk) 15:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Use of "File:ActionVol2No1.jpg"

As I tried to explain above in Talk:Superman#Infobox Image, there are restrictions placed upon how and where a non-free image such as File:ActionVol2No1.jpg can be used in Wikipedia articles. Images licensed as non-free need to satisfy all 10 of the criteria listed at WP:NFCCP for each usage. This includes WP:NFCC#10c which requires that a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use. This file does not have such a rationale so it can be removed per WP:NFCCE. It would seem that all that is needed is to simply add the necessary rationale, but things are not always so simple and adding a "boiler plate" rationale is not really a valid solution.

Since the image is not being used as the primary means of identification (i.e., in the infobox) of the subject matter, the "contextual significance" required by WP:NFCC#8 is harder to satisfy per WP:NFC#Meeting the contextual significance criterion. Simply using the image because it looks good (i.e., purely decorative reasons) is not something really considered essential to the reader's understanding to the degree that removal the image would be detrimental to that understanding. Rather, the image itself needs to be discussed within the article (supported by reliable sources per WP:NOR) in such a way that makes seeing the image actually matter. Comic book covers are not all that different from album covers when it comes to satisfying NFCC#8. Non-free use for an album cover is fairly easy to justify in a stand-alone article about the album itself, but much much harder to justify in an article about the artist/band who released the album, musicians who played on the album, or discography-like list articles, etc. The same reasoning applies to this article. It's simply not enough for a non-free image to show a depiction of Superman, especially when there are already multiple images being used for that purpose in the article. The image has to be something that really helps the reader understand the subject of Superman in such a way that cannot be expressed by text alone. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Superman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Image of Hercules and Samson

I removed the images of Hercules and Samson because I felt they weren't as important influences on Siegel and Shuster as the pulp magazines they were rabid fans of. The Influences section of the articles could get really cluttered if we showed every single influence on the pair so I decided to trim some.BaronBifford (talk) 19:12, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Agree. There was a surfeit of images, and that one was particularly tangential.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

What would be really neat for this article is a contemporary photo of a strongman wearing a superheroish costume - ie tights over a contrasting bodysuit. Shuster was a big fan of strongmen and bought their fitness manuals.BaronBifford (talk) 05:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Third party critiques

The first section of the article contains a lot of analyses by critics and historians. Even if there are citations for these, a lot of their views are speculative. We should only include inspirations which are robustly supported by evidence (such as interviews by Siegel or Shuster). Saying "hey this character kinda looks like Superman and this critic I'm referencing agrees with me" is not very useful. BaronBifford (talk) 07:44, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Superman as a Moses parable

I deleted a paragraph that speculated that Superman was based on Hebrew lore. Firstly, this text is largely speculative. As far as I know, Siegel and Shuster never cited Moses as an inspiration. Furthermore, this biography I'm reading, Super Boys by Brad Ricca, says "Jerry was brought up Jewish, but he and Joe tended to distrust the religion of their old world parents". This puts heavy doubt on any religious symbolism in Superman in his original form, and any text in this article which argues for it should have very robust evidence.

Superman might have had Jesus inspirations, because end-of-the-world evangelicalism was really big in those days, and Jesus was sometimes described as a "superman". But this too is kinda speculative.

Reading Action Comics #1, I am further sure of this. Superman is not described in messianic terms. In that book, Superman comes from a race which is simply millions of years more evolved than humans, not from anything divine. Nor is he some humble servant of God. He is just a pugilist vigilante.BaronBifford (talk) 09:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Archiving links

I've gone through a bunch of footnotes to add archive links in order to help prevent link rot — in some cases newly archiving them — but there are a lot more footnotes that need them. Hopefully other editors will give a hand in this task. It would help bring this article up to GA review. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:23, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Redlink editor's changes

I have reverted wholesale changes made by a redlink editor with extremely few edits, who added purple-prose WP:SYNTH and WP:PEACOCK and is not giving page numbers for his book citations. Given the claims being made in a longtime stable article, we need not only page numbers but specific quotes from the book citations in the footnotes to support these claims. I would hope that the editor respects WP:BRD and rather than edit-warring will discuss his issues on the talk page. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: Can you be more clear by what you mean? Do you not like the word outlandish? Also, I referred to an ebook so I don't have page numbers for you.BaronBifford (talk) 06:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@BaronBifford: Hi, Baron. Indeed, "outlandish" was one of them; unless we were quoting an authoritative source directly, I'm sure you can see how it might be considered a [{WP:NPOV|neutral term]]. Also, adjectives like "very" and "major" are non-quantifiable and, so, POV. It's better to give the plain fact — "They were influenced" — rather than adding en emphasizer — "They were very influenced". But you seem to have gotten there on your own, so we're good.

I think there's a template field that indicates ebooks; perhaps we should add that to ebook footnotes.

Would it be possible for you to add a "quote= " field to your book cites, so that other editors can see what the book is saying?

Thanks for your work on the article. With regards, -- Tenebrae (talk) 17:17, 3 December 2015

You want me to actually quote passages from my books? This is first time that has been demanded of me on Wikipedia.BaronBifford (talk) 17:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure "demanded" is the right word, given what I actually say in my previous post, but I'm surprised you haven't encountered this before since it's done commonly with offline sources — that's why we have the "quote=" field. See, for example, this edit by another editor. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@BaronBifford: The Ricca book is cited for the Weissmuller look. Are these other statements supported by that source? "The tight-fitting suit and shorts were inspired by the costumes of wrestlers, boxers, and strongmen performers. The emblem on his chest may have been inspired by Flash Gordon's costume or the uniforms of athletic teams. Many pulp action heroes such as swashbucklers wore capes." --Tenebrae (talk) 20:51, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's all supported by the same book.BaronBifford (talk) 04:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Superman, the immigrant story

Critics interpret Superman as a parable for the immigrant story, but there seems to be little evidence of this in biographies and interviews with Siegel or Shuster. The boys were both born in America and they don't talk about having trouble fitting in. They were Jews, but issues of anti-Semitism don't appear. The earliest Superman stories make little mention of the character being an alien outside of origin stories, and no talk about him struggling to fit in.

This makes me want to erase speculative interpretations of third-party critics regarding the immigrant angle. Wikipedia is about salient and verifiable facts. BaronBifford (talk) 16:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

We're allowed to cite as fact that authoritative critics and historians suggest this or that interpretation. For example, see The Great Gatsby#Themes. I applaud your wanting to merge the conception and inspiration sections to avoid redundancies, but I would caution against making wholesale unilateral deletions. That said, I think you've made largely very judicious edits; I've only reinserted one sentence and one paragraph, the latter of which I've trimmed to remove something that you had wisely removed. The vast bulk of my edits today are footnote formatting and additions of archival links. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

@BaronBifford: I do applaud, and have thanked you for, removing popular-press religious speculation and some grad student's thesis claims. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Well yeah, it might be a fact that a critic said something about Superman, but it doesn't follow that what he said is factual. BaronBifford (talk) 03:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

You're violating WP:BRD — when you were first reverted, you should have gone to talk page to discuss. By re-inserting, you've begun edit-warring. Again, see The Great Gatsby#Themes or any of ten-thousand other examples. It is not for you to say "who cares what some historian thinks." Literary analysis by reputable and respected historians and scholars is vitally important, and it is absolutely remarkable for an editor to unilaterally declare that no such analysis is allowed in what he is treating as his own article.

I have restored the longstanding status quo. If you want to change it after you've been reverted, then call for an RfC. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

RE: "it doesn't follow that what he said is factual." What they are they is scholarly analysis. For you to say that you know better than these respected historians, Talmudic scholar and a New York Times reporter-author is the height of hubris. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:27, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

What's Wikipedia's official policy on scholarly interpretations? BaronBifford (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Among other areas covering writing about fiction, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Novels#Major themes. It absolutely is expected in articles about literature.

Also, I notice a great reliance on Brad Ricca in your citations. There was not a single citation for him before you started editing on December 2. Now there are four, in such interpretive areas as "Influences." Not only that but you gave full citations for his book multiple times, which goes against any sort of standard footnoting. It's not my business if you're him, but if you're citing him and building him up and then removing respected historians and scholars, I find that troublesome and I know other editors would, too. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't care about the reputations of these sources; I'm not saying these guys are idiots. What I focus on is how factual they are. For instance, an actual interview with Siegel or Shuster carries more weight than some critic who says "hey I noticed that they were Jews and Superman kinda looks like Moses so maybe he is Moses". As Wikipedia is supposed to be about facts, shouldn't we focus on what Superman meant to Siegel and Shuster rather than what they meant to some critic who had no part in Superman's development?

As for Brad Ricca, in his book he also makes his own interpretations. He too thinks Superman might have been influenced by Jesus, but he has no evidence for that other than "Siegel was exposed to a lot of evangelicalism in his day". So I ingore that. With Ricca (or any historian for that matter), one should separate fact from interpretation.BaronBifford (talk) 04:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't even know where to begin, this is so elementary. The artist isn't the end-all and be-all of the meaning of a piece of art. Often artists themselves don't know or can't articulate the subconscious nature of creativity. That's why criticism and scholarly analysis exists — to look beneath the surface and bring up themes, ideas and influences the artist may not even have been aware of. This is very basic, well-established stuff — there are entire college courses devoted to it, in addition to careers. It is not for any editor to unilaterally declare that their analyses are worthless, which is exactly what you're doing by insisting that you know better than they what the subtext of this work is.

You're free to believe that. But if you want to remove this stable, well-cited, authoritative content once it's been restored, then you need to get a consensus. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

We're not writing a college thesis or a scholarly book or participating in a book club. I'm not saying their analyses are worthless, only that they do not fit the scope of an encyclopedia. BaronBifford (talk) 05:09, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I've already pointed you to the pertinent Wikipedia guidelines for writing about fiction, which says that such analysis does belong here. I understand you've only been a registered editor a short time, so I would urge you to read those guidelines. Other editors — including the ones who added it and the many editors who have been here since and polished it — obviously feel the analysis belongs here, and we operate by consensus. If you want to remove all that stable, longstanding analysis, you have every right to call for an RfC or otherwise gather a consensus to do so.--Tenebrae (talk) 05:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Very well. If it's official policy, then I will concede to you. I will not erase these interpretations, though a may reword things so as to make clear what is fact and what is opinion.BaronBifford (talk) 05:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Please stop your attempts at promoting what you make seem your or your friend's book: You cannot have a source in both footnotes and "Further reading" You've suffused this article with Ricca references and attempted to remove scholars, historians and award-winning journalists, and when told the existing material was pertinent, appropriate, long-stable and reflecting consensus, you coupled your grudging acceptance of it with "fine but I'm going to write it my way" — in which you had a "that said" WP:SYNTH passage in order to reflect your POV about what the scholars, historians and award-winning journalists said.

You removed a passage saying it was redundant with an image. If you were more experienced with Wikipedia and willing to listen to other editors without continuous, tiresome argument you would know that in order to use non-free images, those images must reflect point in the text. If anything, the deletion should be the other way around — if we've a non-free image we don't need since we have one already reflecting the content, then the image and not the content should go. In this instance, I'm leaving the issue about a particular image to other editors.

There's more, but the larger issue is your reluctance to work collaboratively and your insistence that only your view and interpretations are the correct ones, all the previous editors be damned. And the Ricca-pushing is particularly distasteful and reeks of WP:COI. I'm asking you to please stop making unilateral wholesale changes to the article without seeking consensus. Perhaps 3/4 of your edits went through without any other editor objecting. But you want 100 percent of them or you engage in protracted argument that as I've shown you can violate guidelines and/or policies. It's reached a point where your WP:OWN-like behavior is beginning to call for mediation or admin intervention.--Tenebrae (talk) 16:24, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Holy Christ, no wonder Wikipedia is calcifying. This is article has substantial weakness and is rated C in all categories. It substantial rewrites, which I am trying to do, but can't because I have to pass every tiniest change through a committee of people whose edits are mostly maintenance and reversions.BaronBifford (talk) 23:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

What you deride as "committee", experienced editors celebrate as "consensus." The article's rating, incidentally, only changes when an editor asks for an article review. Were we to ask for one, it would rise substantially. Many of us have been waiting until we can submit it for GA. And none of what you are saying addresses the obvious book-shilling that I and other editors clearly see. --Tenebrae (talk)

"Book-shilling"? I have no connection to this Ricca fellow. It's just a book I picked up. It's said to be the first comprehensive biography of Siegel and Shuster, and I found some striking insights in the book that contradict popular myths of Superman.BaronBifford (talk) 23:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I see. More insightful, I suppose, that Rabbi Simcha Weinstein, New York Times reporter and best-selling nonfiction author Larry Tye and highly regarded historian Jim Steranko, who consulted on, and appeared onscreen in, a PBS documentary trilogy on superheroes — all of whom you deleted in order to plaster Ricca all over the article, including both in footnotes and, redundantly, in the further-reading section. In fact, you deleted Steranko with the edit summary, "Who cares what some 'historian' thinks?". Well, the answer is: All the other editors who have worked on this article. Saying that your book trumps the works of all these other respected individuals, and your comments and attitude in general, show someone not editing in good faith. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:53, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

You're incapable of seeing past the reputations of authors and analyzing the content of their works. Are you even trying to put any thought into article? Give me your email address and I'll email you a copy of the ebook and maybe you could read it and actually WORK on the article with me instead of red-stamping my work like some bureaucrat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BaronBifford (talk • contribs) 00:05, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I've been editing comics articles here for 10 years; I'm actually quite capable of knowing historians' and authors' works. The fact that you don't know historian Steranko, who wrote the first major — and still in many ways definitive — history of comics' Golden Age suggests that perhaps you don't know this field intimately. And your continuing to shill for this book, even to the point of apparent piracy of the digital edition — which I, as an author, cannot in any way condone — points to a remarkable myopia. The article has three or four citations to Ricca's book. Isn't that enough for you? It's one book among countless written about Superman and his creators. It's not the second coming of Christ. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:05, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

If you don't like piracy, I'll BUY you a copy. And I'll buy for myself copies of these others book like that rabbi's you mention. Hey, you know what? I just did. I'll be analyzing Weinstein's work and see how it contradicts or corroborates other works I've read. Now, give me your Amazon ID and I'll buy you a copy of Ricca's book and any other book on Superman you might want to study and we could work on this article together. Together, we could perhaps reverse the stagnation of this article and bring it up to Featured-level quality. Like Siegel and Shuster, we could sit together in a studio debating material and jointly crafting magnificent and insightful prose. But... you don't to do that, do you? That's not who you are.

You've been editing for 10 years, but you've become a bureaucrat. You're a bureaucrat, no longer a writer. You no longer care about improving the content of articles, but maintenance and protocol. Most of your edits are tweaking references and links, proofreading, or wholesale reversion of other people's contributions because they broke some little rule. You're an obstacle, not a collaborator.BaronBifford (talk) 10:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I've had numerous differences of opinion with Tenebrae, and find him difficult to collaborate with... but I respect him as a responsible contributor to Wikipedia. Your personal attacks are uncalled-for and counterproductive. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:56, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I'm sure he does this in good faith.BaronBifford (talk) 15:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Of course I operate in good faith, and I find it remarkable that anyone would denigrate important, unsung tasks like "tweaking references and links [and] proofreading". Really? Volunteering one's time to do copy-editing is something to sneer at? And I'm afraid I don't find it in good faith to go against consensus derived through years of discussion, debate, compromise and agreement by deriding them "little rules"; that is the language of someone who feels rules don't apply to him.

But believe it or not, I agree with your philosophy in general and your overall goal. I agree with you that the article can be tightened — which ironically is copy-editing — and fact-checked, with the goal of a GA review.

I intend to work with you in that regard, and in fact have even ordered a print copy of the Ricca book so that I can add the footnote quote= field you detest, as well as page numbers. That's being collaborative. I would ask that you refrain from wholesale delations of wide viewpoints from respected historians, scholars and others out of your personal disagreement, and refrain from further promoting Ricca, who has multiple cites in this article already. As I've noted before, neither I nor anyone else has objected to an estimated 75% of your edits, and I'm not sure it's reasonable to get angry that 100% doesn't get accepted. If you're ready to truly work collaboratively, so am I. I'll additionally ask other editors to help raise this to GA review.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I admire BaronBifford's attempts in improving this article and for putting the time in to do so. It has been stagnant for too long without much change. The two of you working together would be excellent for improving the quality of this article. DrRNC (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

BaronBifford, please refrain from edit warring. It is inappropriate to promote any one particular work, and we cannot delete other interpretations of the character, simply because the interpretation is not that of Siegel or Shuster. Please find consensus on the talk page before making repetitive edits. You have made multiple infractions on Wikipedia's rules, which have been explained to you by Tenebrae. DrRNC (talk) 21:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Redundant info

The subsections Creation and conception and Influences needlessly repeat some bits of information. I plan to trim them appropriately.BaronBifford (talk) 16:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: I've started rewriting the Creation and conception section in my Sandbox. If you want to collaborate with me, you are free to propose changes and even edit my Sandbox. It's a complete rewrite written to have no redundancies with the Influences section, and it also references the Les Daniels book which I have also bought and am studying to make my work as awesome as possible.BaronBifford (talk) 18:56, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm happy to work together on it. I'm concerned about your saying you want "to make my work [emphasis added] as awesome as possible." This isn't about that. This is about making the article as good as possible. It's not about having you be "awesome" — this isn't your thesis, your essay or your article. Go ahead and scoff — what I'm saying goes to the core of Wikipedia collaboration and I think if you reread your comment, you might see how it might be interpreted as attitudinal. I agree with you we should avoid redundancies; "complete rewrite" is overdoing it. But I'll come back later to look at it and I urge other editors to do the same and weigh in. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Collaborate with me (and yeah bring your friends) and it will become our awesome contribution. I'll put off publishing this draft for a week or so to give you time to get your books.BaronBifford (talk) 19:10, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Okey-doke. Just ordered Daniels' Superman: The Complete History- The Life and Times of the Man of Steel in trade paper. Estimated delivery is between Dec. 11 and Dec. 29; it probably will arrive closer to the 11th, but with crowded holiday shipping, who knows? Fortunately, there's no deadline, and we can work on other things here in the meantime.--Tenebrae (talk) 01:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Influence of Aarn Munro

Steranko (1970) suggests that John W. Campbell's Aarn Munro stories might have influenced Superman, but he just lists this as one of many possibilities. Here is the paragraph in question from his book:

The idea of a visitor from a world other than our own probably took its fictional bows in Voltaire's 1752 tale Micromegas. Since then, countless authors have employed the idea including H. G. Wells in War of the Worlds. More probably the thought 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. Siegel used this man from another planet speculation to explain the reason for his protagonist's extraordinary physical development. The idea of Jor-El saving his only child by propelling him off the planet in a tiny rocket had it's biblical counterpart in the parable of Moses and his concealment from the Pharaoh. The doomed planet Krypton exploding at the point of escape was a perfect dramatic touch that lent an epic quality as the first episode unfolded.

So Steranko is just listing a bunch of precedents that happen to resemble Superman in some way without any evidence to link them to Siegel and Shuster other than the possibility they read them as kids. Steranko wrote this book way back in 1970. Since then, more information about the creative process of Siegel and Shuster emerged through interviews and court cases. We now have strong evidence that characters such as John Carter of Mars and Popeye were indeed influences, but AFAIK they never acknowledged they were influenced by Aarn Munro or Moses.

Thus, I want to remove the line linking Aarn Munro to Superman. He was one of many possibilities, and for that it is sufficient to say that "Siegel and Shuster were avid readers of pulp science-fiction and adventure magazines, many of which featured characters with extraordinary powers..." BaronBifford (talk) 20:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, I would move this to "Literary analysis" and keep the "Influences" section small and consisting only of what S&S directly stated, as done generally in WikiProject: Biography. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:50, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Influence of Hercules and Samson

Following on from the above, there is a line in the article that says that "Siegel also acknowledged the influence of mythic heroes in the traditions of many cultures, including Hercules and Samson." If Siegel ever acknowledged that, it was not in Daniels. Here is the relevant excerpt from Daniels (1998) pg 18:

He was in the tradition of the mighty heroes who are legendary in every culture, from Samson and Hercules to Beowulf, and he fought against crime and tyranny and social injustice.

So Superman was just "in the tradition". That just another resemblance. Since everyone has been exposed to tales of "mighty heroes", this line isn't really worth anything.BaronBifford (talk) 21:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with your reasoning and don't believe it belongs. DrRNC (talk) 21:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Ditto. If we can find a Jerry / Joe quote, that's different. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Ubermensch

Let's now address this excerpt:

It is unclear whether Siegel and Shuster were inspired by Nietzche's concept of the Übermensch. Howard Jacobson and others point out that in many ways Superman and the Übermensch are opposites. Nietzsche envisioned the Übermensch as a being who was beyond moral codes, whereas Siegel and Shuster envisioned the perfect man as holding himself to a higher standard of adherence to them.

Here is a copy of Howard Jacbson's article from The Times, which is itself just a press review of Samchi Weinstein's book, Up, Up, and Oy Vey!. Only one line in his article mentions the Ubermensch:

If Siegel and Shuster knew of Nietzsche's Ubermensch, they didn't say; but there is nice irony in the fact of their strictly non-Aryan Superman coming to supersede the philosopher's in the popular imagination.

Basically, Jacobson bought Weinstein's argument that Superman is Jewish, and that makes him non-Aryan, which makes him not an Ubermensch because... the Nazis loved Nietschze or something? He certainly doesn't compare Superman's morality to that of the Ubermensch.

Holy Christ, who wrote this crap? Doesn't anyone scrutinize the content of their sources carefully? Tenebrae, I think your suggestion that we should quote the relevant excerpts from the books we reference in the citation is a wise idea. It can save future editors this sort of trouble.BaronBifford (talk) 00:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Geesh. Finally! — : ) --Tenebrae (talk) 00:52, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

And if the Jacobson cite is simply a review paraphrasing what's in the book, I'd say toss it, since we can just cite the book. There may be cases where we cite a review because the book isn't available, but otherwise, we go to the original source.

And may I extend a compliment to you, too, BaronBifford. Clearly, this article needs careful, detailed work. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

This article also references an article by John Shelton Lawrence, but I can't assess that source's merits because it is behind a paywall and I don't feel like spending more money right now. In any case, I am uncomfortable with this comparison. Superman's moral code has shifted over time. While he always been a basically good guy, in his earliest incarnation he didn't give a shit about laws or manners if these got in the way of exacting justice. In Action Comics #1 he breaks into the governor's mansion at night, beats up the bodyguard, and wakes the governor to make him give a wrongly-convicted man a stay of execution. Then the tortures a guy who was bribing a senator. Later versions of Superman, due to the Comics Code, were more respectful of authority. Given the shifting nature of Superman's ethics, it is imprudent to draw comparisons between him and Nietzsche's Ubermensch.

Yep, you've guessed: I'm removing this problematic excerpt from the article until somebody can provide us with more reasoning. Does anyone have a copy of Lawrence's article that they can give me?BaronBifford (talk) 00:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Until and if we can read Lawrence's article, I'd have to agree with you. That said, the concept of "Übermensch," a term from 1883 that appears to predate the English version "superman", seems unavoidable to address in at least a basic degree, since a character called "Superman" in the context of the times invites comparison — S&S didn't create the word or the concept whole-cloth. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:59, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Jewish symbolism

I'm reading through Simcha Weinstein's books, Up, Up, and Oy Vey!, and I think it's a questionable source. He points out similarities between Superman and Jewish lore, but he has little evidence. He notes that the boys were Jews and that anti-Semitism in America was strong in those days, but not much else. His book cannot compare to that of Ricca, which is a focused biography of Siegel and Shuster, or those of Daniels and Sterenko (who don't mention Jewish influences at all).

Ricca (2014) notes possible allusions to Moses, but has his doubts:

Jerry was always interested in what was outside his own realm of experience, in the unknown beyond his reach. This meant spaceships, distant planets, secret occult mysteries, and even the ins and outs of publishing. And also money and girls. This interest in the unknown extended to religion as well. Jerry was brought up Jewish, but he and Joe tended to distrust the religion of their old world parents, which was fairly common for first-generation Jewish Americans. Still, there are several parallels between Superman’s origin and that of Moses in the Old Testament: An infant arrives in a small vessel and is adopted. As a grown man, he finally embraces his true background to save his adopted people. But people during the Depression were not talking about Moses so much in the papers and on radio. They were talking about Jesus.

There is plenty of evidence in Ricca's biography that shows that Siegel and Shuster were not practicing Jews:

Both men married outside their religion. Shuster wanted to marry a Catholic girl in his youth, but his mother forbade it. Much later, he married a New Age spiritualist. Siegel's second wife, Joanne, was not Jewish either.
"Sundays for Jerry were generally good days because Shabbat was over and he could actually do things. Not that Jerry was against his parents’ religion, but he just didn’t see the point to some of it. On Hanukkah, he made fun of always getting an inscribed pen from his father while his friends got more interesting gifts from Santa."
Also lack of evidence: in the biography there is not mention of them attending synagogue, observing Jewish rituals and customs, or celebrating Jewish holidays once they became adults.

Weinstein posits that Superman's real name, Kal-El, is in some way Hebrew. But he acknowledge in his book that "we may never know whether Siegel and Shuster were aware of these precise Hebrew translations; nevertheless, the character’s name could not be more apt."

In short, Weinstein's book is a book of interpretations. I say we should create an Interpretations subsection to where we can move unconfirmed theories like Weinstein's, and leave the Influences section for things that we can be reasonably certain influenced Siegel and Shuster. If Wikipedia wants interpretations, at least allow us to separate them from the facts.BaronBifford (talk) 14:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I think the allusions to Moses should be left out of the Influences subsection. From what you're saying, it's as though Weinstein believed Siegel and Shuster were probably influenced by Jewish lore because of their background. I don't think that's substantial. I like that you're looking for concrete evidence about what actually inspired Siegel and Shuster. Perhaps an "Interpretations" subsection would work, but there is already a "Literary Analysis" subsection. On a side note, the Batman article is in need of an interpretations section. The gay interpretation of the character has it's own subsection, without any other interpretations. DrRNC (talk) 21:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) With all due respect, I think we're talking apples and oranges. S&S's adult take on religion has no bearing on the fact that, as even Ricca states, their families were religious. Culture seeps into you from the moment you're born, and it strains credulity to think that neither Jerry or Joe was ever exposed to the Bible or the Torah. Clearly, Jerry's family, from what I read above, observed Shabbat, so he was exposed to that. Ricca is not an authority on religion, religious influence and religious embolism, and so I can't give his speculation on that anywhere near as much credence as I would that of highly regarded rabbinical scholar.

All that said, I can see where the "Influences" section is nothing but problematic. I'd like to suggest the Weinstein content be moved to "Literary analysis" and the influences section reduced to a few sentences of solely what S&S themselves directly state — which is exactly what WikiProject: Biography does with comedians, for example. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I moved that bit to the Literary analysis subsection. That's perfect.

Weinstein's only evidence is the the general circumstances of Siegel and Shuster: they were Jews growing up in a period of strong anti-Semitism. He didn't examine their lifestyle, their hobbies, or the events that shaped their lives. This excerpt from Weinstein's book shows his poor reasoning:

While a number of influences have been cited for their Superman creation—the movies of Douglas Fairbanks, the science fiction of Edgar Rice Burroughs, Greek mythology, Arthurian legend, Western folk heroes, and American cartoon icons such as Popeye—Shuster and Siegel’s Jewish heritage was perhaps their greatest inspiration.

Considering the boys spent their free time reading and writing science fiction and adventure stories and not doing religious things, this is an unreasonable assumption.BaronBifford (talk) 00:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree that "greatest" may be overstating it. It's inconceivable to me that their culture, in this case Jewish, played no part at all, however. I think that possibility, with the rabbinical authority RS, is certainly worth a mention in Literary analysis. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Done.BaronBifford (talk) 22:14, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Images

I removed a cover scan of a Superman issue illustrated by Frank Quietly. While it is a nice piece of art, I felt that it did not represent a major milestone in the development of Superman nor did it illustrate what the text is trying to explain. Wikipedia policy is to minimize the use of copyrighted images. I think some other images in this article should also be culled, such as the scan of the John Byrne issue, and possibly the second Action Comics #1.BaronBifford (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Good call on the All-Star Superman — it wasn't even the first issue and just seemed decorative. I think Action Comics vol. 2, #1 belongs, since it shows the 2011 attempt at updating the iconic costume. I think you're right about the John Byrne cover — it doesn't add anything different or illustrate a point that needs illustrating, like a new costume. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

IMO, when DC Comics had all their books start off from issue 1, it was just a dumb marketing gimmick. It doesn't represent anything really profound, at least not enough to warrant the inclusion of a copyrighted image. And the costume we see on the cover was just a temporary thing; it's not what Superman is wearing now (raised collar and no over-shorts).BaronBifford (talk) 01:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

That's your POV and you're entitled to it. Others might say that any difference from the iconic costume is notable and that having an example — which needs to be illustrated since we're talking visual design — is important. I agreed with you on 2 out of 3 images; one can't always get everything ones wants. In any case, there's no consensus to remove and perhaps other editors should weigh in, as I've asked them to. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:26, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Tenebrae in that the cover of Action Comics vol. 2 #1 belongs. Having the original Action Comics #1 along with the second volume #1 shows the series' progression and how much has changed over its publication history. Also, Action Comics is a very significant series in the context of both Superman and comic books as a genre, and its end and continued publishing in a new volume belongs in a section entitled "Publication". DrRNC (talk) 05:07, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

If we want to show progression, it might be better to show an image of Superman in his new costume, the one with the raised collar and no over-shorts. That is a significant redesign. I suggest this one (Superman #34).BaronBifford (talk) 06:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

It's not about his costume. The original caption for the picture didn't make mention of the costume, but rather it mentioned that it was the relaunch of Action Comics. This is about publication and Action Comics as a series, so the cover of Action Comics vol. 2 #1 absolutely belongs. An image showing his new costume would be appropriate in a section about the character's look. By the way, the image of the cover you provided has rather poor artwork and looks cartoonish. I do appreciate you looking for an image, though.

Tenebrae, I reverted the caption to discuss the relevant publishing information about the issue, rather than the costume. The caption is shorter now; I left out the writer information. DrRNC (talk) 07:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad you asked. In order to have a fair-use rationale to run the image, either the caption or article text related to the image has to give a reason for the image to be there. This isn't an article about the New 52 or about Action Comics, so the temporary change from the iconic costume — which I don't believe ever occurred in a canon story until the 1990s, and rarely since — needs to be mentioned.

I would restore the version with the explanatory text, but since you restored the old status-quo version, it might be considered edit-warring if I did so again ... although maybe not, since the version without such text either in the caption or in the article prose is a fair-use vio. So do I hope you restore the version that fits fair0use guidelines.

WPC MOS for issue dates specifies a comma after the volume number, so that being only a technical edit, I've restored the comma. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Tenebrae, thanks for the WPC MOS information. I'll look out for this in book-related articles I edit. Interesting point about the caption. The article does mention the relaunched series with the debut of this comic book. However, in regards to mentioning the costume change, the one shown on this cover was a very temporary costume and does not reflect the new Superman costume. I believe readers may think Superman's new outfit is a tee shirt and jeans. For the caption, I've put: "Action Comics vol. 2, #1 (Nov. 2011) marked the relaunch of the Superman comic book titles, as well as the rest of the DC Comics line; cover art by Rags Morales." This signifies that this comic is the relaunch of Superman's flagship series, which I believe is very relevant to the "Publication" section, as this comic book is referenced in the text. You can restore the previous text, but I would like your input on how we can mention that he has a new costume, while not leading readers to believe he now sports a tee shirt and jeans.

Do you think we should perhaps add a picture of Superman in his new costume elsewhere in the article and provide your caption about how his costume has changed? There is not a single picture of the character in his new costume. DrRNC (talk) 19:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

If you meant this one (Superman #34), I agree with you both that it's worth including, though I personally see it as a slight variation on the old design. I think we definitely should include the "blue lightning" costume he wore for I think at least a year in the 1990s, I think it was?

I'll tweak the caption as per your suggestion to include both the publishing-history information and the idea that for a short while he wore this distinctly different costume. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I added "DC universe" to the caption, since it refers to the fictional universe and makes the caption shorter in length. Information regarding the "blue lightening" Superman can be found in the Alternative versions of Superman and Superman Red/Superman Blue articles. DrRNC (talk) 20:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Can we at least shift these images to the right or the left? It's jarring to see a mix of left and right aligned images.BaronBifford (talk) 19:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Images are generally right-justified unless there are multiple images, in which case the general practice is to stagger them. Also, if it can be avoided, images don't look off the page. See WP:IMAGELOCATION. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Tenebrae. Otherwise, it would have been placed to the right. DrRNC (talk) 20:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: By the way, the picture in the link provided by BaronBifford of the Superman #34 cover, is actually not the new and current costume. That one was replaced this year with a newer outfit in Superman #38 (Feb 2015). They got rid of the segmented armor, the red striped collar, and made some other alterations. I think DC realized the costume they designed shortly after the New 52 relaunch wasn't that appealing. So if an image of his current look is to be used somewhere in the article, that one wouldn't work. This is what it looks like. DrRNC (talk) 06:54, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH

RE the cite by Tye saying S&S were not observant Jews. This is not original research, true, but it's WP:SYNTH, which is, essentially, cherry-picking cited sources to make a pro or con argument. The word "however" is a red flag in something like this.

Tye says that as adults they were not observant Jews, which one can take to bolster the point that Jewish culture did not influence them. Conversely, we could find cites saying they grew up in a Jewish household, surrounded by Jewish culture and traditions every day of their lives in their formative, growing-up years, and so of course Jewish culture would have influenced them. But saying either thing is synthesizing a pro or a con argument.

We can say in the biographical section that according to such-and-such, they were not observant Jews. But we can't say it in the literary analysis to try to counter someone else's point. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:15, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: You must clarify for me Wikipedia's defintion of synthesis. I understood it as saying one should not combine two facts to reach a conclusion not explicitly cited by the sources. I didn't write "...therefore Weinstein's conclusion is implausible." BaronBifford (talk) 14:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

@BaronBifford: Actually, that's exactly what what that addendum is saying: It's arguing against Weinstein's point. Having another religious scholar's point of view that suggests different from Weinstein is one thing. Cherry-picking a biographical fact to argue against Weinstein is impermissible. We could find a citation supporting Weinstein's point and have dueling arguments. But we're not supposed to argue con or pro. We just state what the authoritative critic says. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:37, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

S&S break

@Tenebrae: Here is the passage from Ricca (2014) that concerns S&S break at National Allied.

The Major was reading some new submissions but kept going back to the ones from Ohio. His mind wandered over the gulf from Manhattan to Cleveland—who were these boys? Because of his days in the army, he had never underestimated youth. The Major was impressed with their talent, especially Shuster’s heavily masculine art style, so he sent them a character to work on. When they got the letter, they got right to work—this was a tryout, they knew it—and submitted two strips to the Major: Henri Duval and Dr. Occult. One was drawn on brown paper and one on the back of wallpaper. They were just sketches, but the Major liked them enough to give the boys a shot.5 And just like that, all the lost promises and phantom second issues were gone: Siegel and Shuster had broken into the new industry of comics, on the back of torn butcher’s paper.

They read the letter from the Major together: “your remuneration … would not be great.”6 He was offering them $10 each, a total of $20, per page. They split it fifty-fifty. Their first published collaboration was Henri Duval, which ran for only a few episodes beginning in New Fun Comics #6 in October 1935. Duval was a Three Musketeers rip-off and was all about horses, cavaliers, and pretty ladies in pretty dresses wailing to be rescued. The genre was popular from the movies. Joe drew fast but with a searing purpose because they knew this was their big opportunity. He piled on the hair and copied out some nice carriages. Since he was left-handed, he would switch to his right to letter when he ran out of steam. When his ink ran low, he would put in a few drops of water. This made his line lighter but let it go a bit longer.7 They sent their strips back to the Major to be colored and published. School was over and things were happening fast. The Major liked what he saw but dropped Henri Duval and gave the boys work that was more in their wheelhouse. He gave them more of the Doctor.

So S&S started off with TWO characters: Dr Occult and Henri Duval, who both appeared in New Fun Comics #6.BaronBifford (talk) 14:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, you are correct. [1]. Let's add something like "the swashbuckler feature "Henri Duval" and the supernatural feature "Dr. Occult." --Tenebrae (talk) 14:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we really need to mention Dr Occult or Henri Duval or New Fun Comics 6 (perhaps on S&S biographical articles). Also we should emphasize that National Allied published comic books, not newspapers.BaronBifford (talk) 14:54, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

First, my apology for misinterpreting; I thought the point you were making was to include both. I was going to self-revert, and I see you took care of that. Thank you.

Yeah, I guess it might be overdetail for a Superman article to mention the features by name. Good call. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:03, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Syndicated newspaper strip

@Tenebrae: Please leave this line as it is: They wanted to sell Superman as a syndicated newspaper strip.

Yes, I know that syndicates syndicated only to newspapers, but I didn't know that until you told me, and I imagine many readers will not know that unless we tell them. What may seem obvious to you, a publishing professional, is not obvious to the layman.BaronBifford (talk) 15:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

We're also supposed to use common terms, which "comic strip" is. No one in the general public uses the term "newspaper strip". I can't say I've heard the term used even in trade stories, certainly not commonly. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm, now that I think more about, you may be right. What we really must make clear is that S&S started off producing work-for-hire stories in comic books, but they wanted Superman to be syndicated work over which they retained ownership. That this would mean they'd have to go to the newspapers may be a secondary point - what's important is that they would have liked to license Superman rather than sell him off.BaronBifford (talk) 15:10, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree completely. I think that comes through the way it's written, but if you want to tweak it to make it clearer, I'm certainly aboard. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:14, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Copyright subsections

The "Copyright ownership and contract disputes" subsection is further divided into 8 more subsections. No other subsection in the entire articles has its own subsections. When looking at the Contents table, the "Copyright ownership and contract disputes" looks as though it encompasses a very large part of the article because of all these subsections. They have only been in the article for less than a year and were created without any discussion on the talk page. I believe it was in the summer of this year, when one editor created all these subsections for each individual copyright dispute. What are other editors' thoughts on having all these subsections? DrRNC (talk) 05:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I think you're right — eight subsections, including a couple of stub sections, is clunky and this section could be laid out better. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd keep it as it is because it helps keep things organized. I think I'm going to expand this section anyway. Once I've finished the conception section I'll switch to researching the legal battles.BaronBifford (talk) 07:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia discourage stub sections. If all we can say about something is a couple of sentences, we surely can combine it with a larger point. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I merged the subsections, and I divided and renamed the headers per the relevance of the text. DrRNC (talk) 17:29, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2015

This edit request to Superman has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

There appears to be a typo, with the Reeve movie spelled "Supermam" instead of "Superman". 2601:648:8300:1400:31:1443:FAD3:B6C8 (talk) 07:45, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Done - by another - Arjayay (talk) 11:10, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Gaines

Ricca writes on page 148, "Gaines wrote back to Jerry and suggested — strongly — that it would be a good idea to allow Detective [Comics Inc.] to look at the very Superman proposal they had just sent to him." The primary source he cites in the accompanying footnote 12 (Siegel, "Story Behind Superman #1") — for which he truncates the title, which begins with "The" — does not support Ricca's sentence whatsoever. I've inserted into the article the actual statements that the cited source makes, so that there can be no misunderstanding and so that history will have Siegel's exact words. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Well spotted. I'm shocked that even the sources misuse their sources. I thought only us Wikipedians did that. It should be noted, though, that Siegel and Shuster have said contradictory things about Superman over the years. Either their memories failed them as they aged or they were mincing their words due to legal battles (I've noticed that the memoirs you referenced don't mention the $130 sale). The memoirs also seem incomplete.BaronBifford (talk) 08:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I think you need to study Siegel's memoirs more closely. I found this copy online. It is incomplete, and omits key details such as the contract to sign over Superman's rights. Moreover, the project that Gaines described as "entirely apart and separate from such comic books" seems to have been a newspaper tabloid feature, not a comic book, and it seems to have fallen through.BaronBifford (talk) 16:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words above.

While the memoir excerpts are incomplete, no one disputes their authenticity. Having an on-the-record statement from one of the creators themselves, in his own words, is critical to any understanding of the character's creation and history. Let's tweak it if we must, but excluding it entirely? That seems highly questionable. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Speculative conclusion

I have removed a sentence that drew an interpretive conclusion following two factual sentences. It is the last sentence below:

Siegel and Shuster sold all rights to Superman to National Allied Publications in 1938 for $130. When Superman became a great success, they tried to renegotiate this deal but were refused. They were thus forced to write Superman stories for National on a work-for-hire basis.

First, the term "forced" is completely inappropriate — Siegel & Shuster were free to accept or decline the deal; no one chained them to desks and "forced" them to work.

Secondly, we do not draw conclusions from cited facts. The first two sentences contain facts (although the company name is incorrect). The third sentence, drawing a conclusion beginning "Thus", is disallowed synthesis. I would ask the editor who has been working on this article to discuss the issue here and to not exhibit WP:OWN--Tenebrae (talk) 14:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Phrase needs clarification

@BaronBifford: Hi, BB. This sentence doesn't really make sense and I'm not sure what it's trying to say.:

Siegel had proposed creating a child spin-off of Superman, but National published the story without making any deal.

The first part says he submitted a proposal, either verbally or in writing. The second part says National published "the story". What story? Did Siegel write one with Superman as a child (and by that do we mean a teen, a pre-teen, a toddler)? If you could clarify, that would be great. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:39, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Robin the Boy Wonder

Hi all, in the Partnership section in the Infobox there is Batman, but should'nt we include Robin since in World's Finest Comics Robin is with Superman and Batman, no ? Cordially. --Danielvis08 (talk) 02:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

If you ask me, the Partnership section should be done away with. Heck, why do we even need an infobox anyway? It's mostly a huge cumbersome box of minor trivia. BaronBifford (talk) 07:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

IGN

Why are we including IGN's opinion of Superman as the "greatest" comic book hero? Is this information really that insightful? BaronBifford (talk) 18:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I personally don't think so, but IGN rankings seem to abound in WikiProject Comics. If you remove it, I myself would not restore it, but another editor might and then a discussion would have to begin if you desired to put it back ... normal procedure.

Also, did you have a chance to look at my clarification request above? --Tenebrae (talk) 19:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, I went ahead and deleted that line. Since some editors are bound to take issue with this, here is my reasoning: Describing Superman as "greatest" without qualifying that label in any way is both highly subjective and meaningless. The cited IGN opinion on the character is a paltry three paragraphs that pretty much says "Superman is awesome" and nothing else. And finally, IGN is just some website, even if a popular one. What authority does it have? Why does its opinion matter? BaronBifford (talk) 20:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Concerning the removal of the last lede paragraph

I've reverted this edit which removed the third paragraph from the lede, which summarized Superman's status as an American cultural icon as well as the ownership issues, both of which are well documented. The reason given in the edit summary was "Not a very useful paragraph" and I can't see how that paragraph in the lede is "not useful" nor how that subjective opinion is cause for removal. I think the sources and WP:SS both show that it is useful and should not be removed from the article, but I wanted to discuss it and see if there was a consensus for removal before continuing. - Aoidh (talk) 15:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I concur with keeping it. Superman has become far more than an adventure-fiction character. Like the equally fictional Uncle Sam or has become a symbol of American culture. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

"In other media" placement

Unusually for WikiProject Comics, the "In other media" section is a subsection of "Cultural impact." Since cultural impact usually refers to how something changes society or becomes part of the common vernacular, etc. (as opposed to being just a listing of fictional treatments), should not "In other media" be its own section? --Tenebrae (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I think moving it to is own section would be fine.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I've done quite a bit of research on Superman's history and I've come to see the comic books, newspaper strips, radio serials, TV shows, and movies as part of an organic whole. It makes no sense to me to relegate the information on "other media" to a separate section near the bottom of the article, as if they are just a footnote and all the meaningful development of the character happened only in the comic books. It makes no sense to me to discuss them apart, and all I want to do is insert a paragraph or two in the history section near the top of the article. BaronBifford (talk) 15:27, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

They should be dealt with by different sections because they are fundamentally different subjects. "In other media" and "merchandising" are basically detailing a licensed product while "cultural impact" is about the cultural resonance of that property. Betty Logan (talk) 16:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

You cannot lump merchandising with other media because other media are stories and merchandising is just toys. BaronBifford (talk) 16:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I am not saying that merchandising should be lumped with other media; you are by arguing they should all be lumped together under "cultural impact", and now you are contradicting your own argument! I am saying the exact opposite to that i.e. they should have their own separate sections because other media and merchandise are not exponents of "cultural impact"; they are exponents of commercial exploitation. Betty Logan (talk) 17:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

An extra article Superman (franchise) already exists - so why all this discussion about placing or naming of a chapter here? BTW, culture and commerce are related, however one values this relation. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 11:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I fail to see what relevance the existence of another article has to this discussion. We are not debating whether we should have these sections, we are determining the best way to structure the sections. And yes, the sections are related as are all the sections in the article; that doesn't mean we should make every section a distinct section, nor does it mean we should make all sections sub-sections. The fact that Superman (franchise) does not cover the cultural impact of Superman indicates that they are distinct sub-topics best left to separate sections. Betty Logan (talk) 14:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Kudos

I inadvertently had left out the phrase with "outlandish," which is an apt and well-chosen modifier. Good catch. And you made a nice, subtle edit afterward that added specificity, so my compliments on both! --Tenebrae (talk) 22:15, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Fictional character biography

@Aoidh: Explain how my edit was bad. BaronBifford (talk) 18:36, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

"Given the serial nature of comic book publishing and length of the character's existence, the details of Superman's origin, relationships, and abilities have changed significantly throughout the years." That sentence is completely relevant and accurate, and serves as a good first sentence. Even from that, right off the bat, you remove that without explanation and replace it with a version that makes it seem as if Action Comics #1 and a few others is the only source for any kind of background, when that simply isn't the case. Your last paragraph in particular seems stilted and forced, not to mention completely unsourced. From what I saw, the previous version was better in every way, which is why I reverted the edit. - Aoidh (talk) 18:44, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

@Aoidh: Now for my criticisms of the previous version.

It is too comics-centric, failing to acknowledge the contributions that the radio serials, movies, and TV shows have had on the character's development. When did Superman gain the ability to fly? When was kryptonite introduced? How was Clark's background in Smallville developed? When did crossovers become a thing? All that stuff got started in other media.

Some info is inaccurate. For instance, a "second Superman" was not "introduced" in the Silver Age. What happened is that DC Comics allowed a lot of inconsistencies to accumulate in the stories due to lack of editorial discipline.

"Hey, some of our older readers are wondering how Superman could join the Justice League when he is already a part of that Justice Society thing that we stopped using a while back."

"Oh yeah, that. They actually keep track of that shit? Ummm... say there are two Supermen on parallel Earths or something."

It mentions stories that have been retconned. Doomsday killing Superman did not represent a major transformation to the character. He died, came back to life, got his costume again, and now that event has been retconned out of current mainstream continuity and never happened in any other continuity in other media. The same is true about New Krypton. And the armor suit. And the T-shirt and jeans combo. Trivia and recentism.

Honestly, this section reads like a comic geek writing stuff off the top of his head rather than a historian who has done extensive research (do you know how much work I'm putting in to this?). BaronBifford (talk) 18:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Your edits should stand on their merits, not on "how much work I'm putting in to this." The idea that it "reads like a comic geek writing stuff off the top of his head rather than a historian who has done extensive research" doesn't hold up to scrutiny; the section you removed was well sourced and written, your edit was not. I think your discussion on WikiProject Comics spells out why you feel it is too comics-centric. - Aoidh (talk) 19:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

@Aoidh: Three lines? I think I deserve more than that. BaronBifford (talk) 19:44, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

This edit is no less problematic than before, and given the tone you've taken with other editors, I'm not particularly interested in an extended dialogue beyond seeing if there's a consensus for your edits. So far, there isn't. You haven't explained why the edits are beneficial, and there's an ongoing discussion at WikiProject Comics that very clearly and unambiguously spells out the problems with the reasoning behind your edits. I think you should continue the discussion at the WikiProject page before you continue to edit this article, as there is an ongoing discussion there. - Aoidh (talk) 20:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Aoidh. That section should remain as it was well sourced and well written. DrRNC (talk) 04:37, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@DrRNC: It's well-sourced but not well-written. It was built piecemeal over years by multiple editors each with partial knowledge, rather than one researcher who has fully studied the whole matter. Someone needs to take a flamethrower to the whole thing and rewrite it. Let me discuss the FCB section in its current state. Firstly it refers stories that have left no permanent mark on the character, such as Superman being killed by Doomsday and the New Krypton storyline and the Kents passing away. These have been retconned out. There's also a lot of recentism, like mentioning Superman's T-shirt and jeans combo which is a change that certainly won't endure. There are also some useless lines, like "His origin is again revisited in 2004." Superman's origin has been revisited so many times that fans get annoyed by it. BaronBifford (talk) 06:51, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@BaronBifford: I don't think we should remove the first paragraph in the Fictional Character Biography section that starts with "Given the serial nature..." That paragraph sets up a backdrop to understand how the character has progressed in the comics, explaining why things can seem inconsistent in his biography. I agree with you in that the stories chosen to go in this section are not exactly milestones. I don't think the focus of this section should be storylines. Noteworthy issues and storylines belong in the article Publication history of Superman. The Fictional Character Biography section should focus on his personal history and who he is as a character, not storylines. So rather than searching for which storylines to use, perhaps it would be better to start with a general breakdown of what this section should contain (i.e.: origin, childhood, superpowers, etc.) These points should be supported by storylines and particular issues, but the section needs to focus on Superman as a character first. Considering how many aspects of Superman's history have been retconned, I think it's important to still include retconned storylines, if they serve the purpose of supporting points about his biography. As for storylines that don't impact Superman's biography as a whole, I agree that we don't need to include them. DrRNC (talk) 07:41, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@DrRNC: Right. Focus on his personal history and who he is as a character, not specific storylines. Isn't that what I'm trying to do? See my Sandbox. BaronBifford (talk) 07:48, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Not a single editor has supported this change, that doesn't mean wait a few days and try to make the same edit. - Aoidh (talk) 18:45, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@Aoidh: At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics I persuaded Argento Surfer to let me make this change. You've refused to debate me on this. So what am I supposed to do now? BaronBifford (talk) 18:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Short of a diff showing that "Argento Surfer to let [you] make this change" (which I'm not seeing), that's not what a consensus is (even with a diff that's one editor's opinion, not a consensus). The editors who have commented on the edit in question have disagreed with the change. You keep saying that everyone else has "partial knowledge" and that you alone are the expert, but even if that were a valid reason to remove content in the article (it isn't), certainly no evidence of that has been shown. Collaborative editing is what makes good Wikipedia articles; if you're going to try to cut out all content that you yourself did not personally write, that's a problem. Get a consensus for your edit. Right now, you don't have one. The only reasoning you've given is "I know what I'm talking about and everyone else doesn't" and that's not a compelling reason. - Aoidh (talk) 18:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I've found the diff I'm assuming you're referring to: one editor not objecting to the change does not make a consensus when several other editors are objecting to the change. - Aoidh (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest that I and other interested editors go to User:BaronBifford/sandbox, where we can integrate what's already in the article's FCB with what BaronBifford has done there, taking what's best and most useful from both. When that's done, what say we place it here, and ask other editors to comment. There's no deadline, and any such big, substantive changes ~~to a Good Article~~ probably should be done with time and care. What does everyone think? Baron, it's your Sandbox page, so it's important to hear from you.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:09, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I've already permitted Tenebrae to play in my Sandbox, so I will allow other editors here to make edits too. BaronBifford (talk) 08:30, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

BTW this article is not a Good Article. It got Featured status way back in 2004, when Wikipedia's standards were low, and is currently rated C-class (not that I respect Wikipedia ratings anyway). This article has serious flaws. BaronBifford (talk) 09:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

My mistake. Good catch. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:12, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: How long am I going to have to wait for an answer from these people? It's like they only take an interest in an article when somebody tries to change something. BaronBifford (talk) 01:38, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, @BaronBifford:. I know ... it can frustrating that way sometimes — we're all volunteers trying to squeeze in contributions when we can, and sometimes people have time on their hands and sometimes they have to prioritize. So given that, yeah, you're right — big, wholesale changes to major articles will get a lot of attention.

I think you and I collaborated very productively on the material we've worked on so far, and other editors appear to as well, since there have been virtually no changes to that material. So I say we keep with that winning formula: You go wild on the sandbox with your sweeping vision, and I come in and tweak for grammar, style, WikiProject Comics MOS and whatever was good in the original article. That seems to work, so why tamper with success? What do you think? --Tenebrae (talk) 07:29, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Some people have little time on their hands. Other people use there time for other things like maintenance work rather than creating content. A few paragraphs up, you ask the other editors like Aoidh and DrRNC to go inspect my Sandbox and figure out what is worth integrating into the article. In other words, you are asking them to do some serious work. When I glance at their contrib records, they don't appear like the kind of people who would be inclined to do this sort of work. And you've made this article's progress contingent on that. You and Aoidh have refused to discuss the article's contents and my work in depth, you just tell me to go find consensus. Where will I find this consensus? On another talk page I seem to have convinced Argento Surfer to let me go ahead, so who must I convince now? It's nice that you at least pay attention to what I'm doing in my Sandbox, but if that stuff can never get published, what's the point? BaronBifford (talk) 08:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Argento is a good editor and if you could loop me in to that conversation that'd be helpful. As for consensus, I would say that if few people are actively involved in an article, that consensus can come down to just two people agreeing and then other editors not objecting after the fact. My suggestion: If you're cool with having me come in and tweak for grammar, MOS, etc. before making a big change, then that material would stand a better chance of being accepted. It's worked so far, so I don't see why it wouldn't continue to work. As I've said, your research is extremely good. And I know from being on both sides of it that even a good writer needs a good editor. I think we've proven that we're an excellent team that way. --Tenebrae (talk) 08:28, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

It was on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics. I don't mind you tweaking and making comments, I've always allowed you to do that. But I don't think it makes a difference to the other editors. BaronBifford (talk) 08:54, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

That sounds good. It's actually almost 4 in the morning where I am — had a family-emergency phone call at 1 a.m. that lasted an hour and then I couldn't get back to sleep but Wiki'ing has gotten me pretty tired — so it'll be a day or two before I'll be alert enough. And honestly, I think your FCB will fly it it reads well and follows MOS. You've seen that 90% of my edits to your work don't change the content. Hang in there a day or two, buddy. The article's already much, much better thanks to your work. --Tenebrae (talk) 09:01, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. BaronBifford (talk) 16:52, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I think I'm going to reiterate a major problem I see with the Fictional character biography section: it mentions specific storylines that left no permanent change to the character of Superman. It doesn't matter if a story was popular or talked about in the press, what matters is what difference it made to the Superman mythos. A case in point is the storyline where Doomsday beats Superman to death. After Superman came back to life and the storyline was wrapped up, Superman pretty much went back to being the same guy he always was. No new powers or costume change (he had a mullet for a while). And that storyline got retconned out after the Flashpoint reboot (or earlier, I have trouble keeping track of all this). The lasting legacy of that storyline is that it added Doomsday to Superman's cast of recurring villains, and Doomsday has appeared in other continuities such as in the Bruce Timm cartoon and the upcoming movie—this is certainly worth mentioning somewhere, but not in this particular section. Maybe in the Enemies section, and I wonder if Doomsday is worth mentioning even there because there is nothing particularly innovative about the character and he doesn't show up all that often in later stories.

Storylines that are worth mentioning include the episode of the radio serial where kryptonite was introduced, and a later radio episode where Superman teams up with Batman and Robin because that was Superman's first crossover story. The Fleischer serial is worth mentioning too because that's where Superman started flying. The Dean Cain TV series is worth mentioning because in that show Lois not only learns Superman's secret identity but marries him too, which completely upended a longstanding tradition; in Man of Steel, Lois discovers Clark's secret before he even becomes Superman, so that change had an influence across continuities. Jerry Siegel felt that the love triangle between Lois, Clark, and Superman was too important to the character's appeal, but those storylines proved him wrong. The New 52 reboot might be worth mentioning because that's where Superman stopped wearing red overpants - this is a design change that was copied in the Man of Steel movie and will probably stick. BaronBifford (talk) 17:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Baron. I'm awake. I'll come by and try to help where I can. I think the biggest thing that needs to be worked on — and this is something where I can be of substantive-content help — is that in order to avoid being in-universe fictography, "Fictional character biography" sections need to have secondary-party commentary. There's already some of that there, which is great. We could have even more; if you look at Spider-Man#Fictional character history, you'll see citations from books by Les Daniels, Steve Saffel, and Peter Sanderson, and articles from Newsarama.com, the New York Daily News and elsewhere.

Since FCB includes all aspects of the canon, you are absolutely correct that character history from radio show, TV, etc. belongs here.

One thing, though: We have to be careful to avoid POV in what's included. For example, story arcs and events that generated notable mainstream news coverage need to be in here. In that respect, the Doomsday story really has to be here, in that FCBs "must be writ[ten] from a real-world perspective" and "all relevant aspects must be given due weight." MOS:PLOT is a useful guideline.

Minor technical point: Per [{WP:DATED]], we can't use terms like "currently", "recently", "now", etc., for obvious reasons — a week, a month, a year from now, something "current" or "recent" when we wrote it is no longer.

OK. I'll do my pass in a separate section of the sandbox. It might take a couple of days. With regards, Tenebrae (talk) 19:26, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: I don't like mentioning a storyline simply because it sold well. Superman #75, in which Superman died, sold 3 million copies, which is extraordinary for a comic book. The 40s radio serial had 4.5 million listeners. Lois & Clark had 15 million viewers. More than 57 million people went to see the 1978 movie in North America alone. And I'm sure the latter attracted far more press coverage. If you attach significance to a story according to how many people bought it, then The Death of Superman won't even make the top 10. Yeah, I know comic book geeks make a big deal out of it, but I can tell you from personal experience that hardly anyone outside comic fandom knows who Doomsday is. The Batman v Superman movie will be the first time most people will have ever heard of him. So let's not focus on the sales of Superman's stories, but on their respective legacies. The FCB is about the character, not sales or media coverage. BaronBifford (talk) 19:52, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

The thing is, the FCB has to reflect real-world context — check out the links to MOSPLOT, etc., I provided — and whether it's sales figures or something else, the real-world context is that the Death of Superman story arc was a major news event ... which puts that part of the character's history in real-world historical context. The sales figures are one way to supporting that factual contention. Your post above is uncited original-research synthesis, and whether it's correct or whether it's not, it's irrelevant. It's not a matter of geekdom. Just the opposite: It's an objective numerical yardstick that illustrates a specific point in the FCB.

If you want, I could point you to past discussions that resulted in the removal of Fictional history of Spider-Man and similar pages that were all in-universe plot without real-world context. --Tenebrae (talk)

If media attention over a comic book story is noteworthy at all (and I think it isn't) then it should be mentioned somewhere else, like Cultural impact or Publication history. FCB is not the place. BaronBifford (talk) 22:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to point out another problem with this section: the mention of the multiverse - Earth One, Earth Two, New Earth, blah blah. This is NOT a facet of Superman's character. It is a PLOT DEVICE. The comic books use this device to categorize different depictions of Superman and his supporting cast within the comic books, because comic books are so fond of crossover stories and nostalgia trips. Saying "this is Earth-Two Superman" is functionally similar to saying "this is the Christopher Reeve Superman" or "this is the Superman from that Bruce Timm cartoon". And the differences with the character from one parallel universe to the next is usually trivial. What's more, parallel universes crop up in the TV shows too (usually in one of those stories where Superman meets an evil version of himself, like that Justice Lords episode from the cartoon), so describing the comic book system of parallel universes but ignoring those in other media is illogical. The comic book multiverse could be described in an article focusing on the Superman comics (namely, Publication history of Superman), but not the Fictional character biography section of this article. I'm not saying this information is not noteworthy, it is a matter of organization. A place for everything and everything in its place. Do not jumble things together. BaronBifford (talk) 05:53, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

While I might disagree, I'm certainly willing to go along with the idea of placing the alternate-universe Earth One, Earth Two thing in another section, as long as it's mentioned somewhere — since otherwise, having two Supermans in the same fictional continuity is very confusing. (I don't think the comparison with other media is apt, since no one expects that a character in any adaptation is going to be the same as in the source material: George R.R. Martin's characters in the Game of Thrones TV series may have differences from the characters in the books, but everyone considers the books; characters canonical.)

So, yeah, after the FCB is done, let's work on a short section explaining the different Supermans in the comic-book canon. I'll move the Earth One, etc. stuff out of the sandbox FCB and put it in another section. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd like that at some point. Maybe in another section or another article that is actually focused on the comic books. The FCB should be a just a general overview of the character. BaronBifford (talk) 07:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

For any editors interested in commenting, a third pass at the FCB is now at User:BaronBifford/sandbox#Third pass. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:42, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

"In other media" section

As I have said to BaronBifford, he cannot unilaterally decide to supersede other editors' consensus decision to have an "In other media" section, and justify adding repetitive content by changing a subhead title. I have rightfully applauded his hard work, and I have done everything I can to give it proper grammar and syntax and to ensure it stays within WikiProject Comics guidelines and Manual of Style. I urge him to discuss his issue here rather than edit-war. I can't imagine we should have to go to all the trouble of an RfC over this. Could other editors weigh in, please? --Tenebrae (talk) 20:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

The "In other media" section was located under "Cultural Impact", which made no sense to me because the franchising of Superman is not a cultural effect. So I moved it to Publication.

Generally, I don't agree with the Wikipedia tradition of separating the stuff about the comic books and the other media like movies and TV, as if the TV shows and movies are a trivial aspect of the Superman franchise. On the contrary, the TV shows and movies reach a much larger audience than the comic books. For most people, Superman is a cartoon or movie hero. Wikipedia articles on superheroes seem to be written by comic geeks for comic geeks rather than the general public. There is a lot of cross-pollination between the comic books and the movies and TV shows, so it makes no sense to discuss them apart. Superman is not strictly a comic book character. He is a fictional character who got his start in comic books, then quickly transitioned to wider variety of mediums.BaronBifford (talk) 20:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I do agree with you that "In other media" does not belong under "Cultural impact." I think we should discuss it with other editors before moving it, and I've just started a discussion about that.

I'm not sure I agree that film, TV, radio and theater all be lumped together with publishing. I do think the general reader wants to look up specific things about particular media, and separating them makes it easier to find. But do start a discussion if you feel strongly, as I've done below. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: I'll put a link to the Superman franchise article in the section. That will do nicely, won't it? BaronBifford (talk) 21:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, yeah, I think so. Once a section gets large enough for its own separate article, we generally don't keep more than "main article" link and an encapsulating paragraph on the original article's page.

My suggestion for the protocol would be: At the "In other media" section, add that main-article link and a short paragraph just stating that Superman has been adapted to radio, film, TV, whatever, and that certain elements of the Superman mythos originated in these other media. Then, integrate the paragraphs you wanted to put under "Publication" with the content that's already in "In other media" and move the whole magilla to Superman franchise media. I'll be glad to help in any way. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

"Discuss it with other editors?" What other editors? You and I are the only ones paying attention to this article. For the past few months I have been working, you are the only one who has been paying serious attention to what I'm doing and giving meaningful feedback. Everyone else seems aloof and apathetic, so I don't care much for what they think and neither should you. So don't worry too much about getting more opinions. I've noticed that other superhero articles exhibit the same calcification and other flaws that the Superman article had. I question just how serious comic article editors are in general. BaronBifford (talk) 22:02, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, honestly, once you're here for a while and more familiar with the Project, you'll find that there are many fine, hardworking editors here, with whom I've been proud to work. To name just a few, alphabetically: User:Adamstom.97, user:Argento Surfer, User:BOZ, User:Curly Turkey, User:Darkwarriorblake, User:Doczilla, User:DrRNC, User:Favre1fan93, User:Jhenderson777, User:Mtminchi08, User:NatGertler, User:Nightscream, User:NukeofEarl, User:Stoshmaster, and User:TriiipleThreat. I'm sure if you contact any of them, they would be glad help you on your editing efforts just as I've done — and just as you'll help others as you go along. There are some awfully good articles in WikiProject Comics, and these are just some of the editors responsible.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, then. Please poke them for me, I have to do some other things right now. BaronBifford (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Even easier: Just post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics. As I said, I think that moving the existing "In other media" content to Superman franchise media is a noncontroversial edit, since it follows the way spinoff pages are created. But who knows: I might be wrong and soliciting other editors' input at the Project's main talk page wouldn't be a bad a idea. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:27, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

A few things, I think the comic book portrayal of superman is independently notable and trying to merge every media portrayal of Superman into a single coherent article would be messy. Instead (I've been thinking about this for awhile), why not move this article to Superman (comics), and turn Superman into a set index for Superman (comics), Superman (franchise), Superman in film, etc. This will hopefully as be accompanied by improvements to the other articles.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

You're talking about something much broader. I only want to do something small - add to the history section a paragraph or two about the movies and TV shows. That is NOT going to destroy everything! BaronBifford (talk) 15:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

But it's not the "history" section — it's the "Publication" section. Movies, TV shows and video games are separate media and, not to get pedantic, are not "published." --Tenebrae (talk) 21:42, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

It's an interesting idea. I think we have reached a point (or passed it a while ago and we're just catching up on Wikipedia!) where some characters are so big, so well-known that they rather transcend the media they first appeared in. Superman is one, Batman is another and I'd put Spider-Man in there (for example, their cultural impact is not from the comics alone). So, while Tenebrae is right that we have a consensus to keep a comic characters appearances in other media separate from their publication history (and you will get reverted for removing it without a consensus), such rare big iconic characters may need to evolve into a different type of article about the character, without undermining existing consensus on the vast majority of comics articles.

So, along the lines of a set index we could move this to Superman (comics) but instead of a listy article (as is usual in comics set indices) we could make this a more stripped-down kind of article (like Batman (set index) or even further afield something like the automobile set index Dodge Charger) - the publication history and FCB go off to the new article Superman (comics) and replace it with a new section called... what? "Appearances"? In this we'd have a small section for each of the media, perhaps based on Tenebrae's tweaked version of BaronBifford's text with a paragraph or two for the comics, split into sections with {{main}} links to the relevant sections. We then keep the P&A, SC and CI (without the IOM section now, obviously) sections here, because they pretty much apply to all media.

Superman (franchise) could then be used for just that - we can add a "Comics" section at the top and link through to the relevant articles. Worth noting that other media franchise articles, for example, CSI (franchise) and Law & Order (franchise) are less listy and I'd like to get more prose into the Superman (franchise) article but there is a lot of territory to cover there so it might not be that easy/desirable - we could let the sub-articles be more prosey.

Anyway, just my fourpenneth, for what its worth. I'm still not back to being as active around here as I'd like to be (soon though) and will be keeping a low profile, but there are some interesting ideas knocking about here on the best way some of these articles on the biggest iconic characters might evolve in the (near?) future, so I thought I'd throw my thoughts in. Right, back to lurking, but I'll check back in on this. Emperor (talk) 15:31, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe we can do that eventually, but why don't you bureaucrats let me finish my work on this article before you push your proposals forward? If we do as you propose, Emperor, it's going to be a lot of work. Are you going to put in the sweat? I hear lots of proposals but no promises to commit their time and sweat.BaronBifford (talk) 15:48, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

There is no need to name-call or to belittle other editors — good, responsible, longtime volunteers who have committed plenty of time and sweat — as bureaucrats. And saying "let me finish my work on this article before" other editors can talk about it display an WP:OWN attitude. No one editor owns an article or should tell others what they can and can't propose and when. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:03, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Once more, BaronBifford, who is a good and conscientious editor otherwise, is exhibiting WP:OWN by reinserting "In other media" content into the "Publication" section when there is no consensus to do so, and in fact a consensus otherwise. I have worked with BaronBifford and have done everything I can to help him appreciate Wikipedia policies, guidelines and style manuals; I appreciate his efforts immensely. So I am the last person in the world who would want to take this issue to an ANI. Yet if he does it again, I'm not sure what other choice we have. He's violating WP:DISRUPTIVE, WP:OWN and WP:EDITWAR. I am asking him, as respectfully and with as much admiration possible for his work, to please stop fighting other editors. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:55, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

It sounds like Emperor and I are on the same page in regards to rearranging the topic of Superman. To BaronBifford's point, it wouldn't require that much work besides a page move and the creation of a set index. We have a couple of set indexes already like Black Widow (Marvel Comics) and Ms. Marvel, except this wouldn't be about different comic book character but rather about different media portrayals of the same character. Superman, would obviously have more detail than either of those articles, but its better than trying to force other media portrayals into section about the character's publication history. @Tenebrae: what are your thoughts?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:53, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree - we "bureaucrats" (I'm sure some of us have been called worse on here) have shed a lot of sweat (and blood and tears) working on articles that are largely designed as "wrappers" to hold information on a topic that links through to larger articles on the specific topics (as well as other examples, see Captain Marvel (Marvel Comics) and Marvel Boy).

Looking it over, I doubt it would take more than an hour to hack out the structure and get all the relevant bits into the relevant places and ensuring that the chain of edit history is maintained. The polishing might take a little longer.

As it stands I can't really get behind the current sandboxed version as it mashes the various media together into one section and that would need teasing out as the different media have largely operated independently of each other and we'll presumably see more of that with Superman if the DC Cinematic Universe gains enough momentum. They'd need to be in their own sections with each one hatnoted to the relevant pages. Emperor (talk) 04:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

BaronBifford I see you got rid of the IOM section and moved it up into PH again [2] despite the general consensus here that this isn't the way to go (and we're trying to thrash out a solution). I see Tenebrae has moved it back but you can't keep doing that as it is editing warring and trying to push through your preferred solution against consensus and that isn't how things are done on Wikipedia. If it carries on it might be necessary to kick this up the chain for resolution, which might result in sanctions and I'm sure we'd all rather have your input on this.

I'm afraid that any attempts to change the PH on this article will take a while to thrash out. As I've said above, there may need to be changes to the way we deal with articles like this (and Superman or Batman would probably be the first to qualify for such treatment), but it would be against current guidelines (although, if get a consensus, they can be updated) and, due to the importance of this article, it will create a precedent which will lead to other articles being changed (personally, I'd rather keep this limited to the few articles which are now straining against the current article format due to their cross-media ubiquity, like Batman and possibly Spider-Man). So it all needs to be thought through carefully to make sure we come up with the best solution, and this means there will be quick rush to consensus. Your ideas and patience during this period would be appreciated. Emperor (talk) 15:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Although it is back as an IOM section, the section is still under PH [3] where it was moved from further down the page [4]. I won't move back to where it came from quite yet, but I don't think it can stay where it was - I might even suggest restoring the old version in its original location until there is a consensus on this issue. Emperor (talk) 15:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, I had meant exactly to restore the status quo version, following general Wikipedia guidelines. There was never a consensus to move it, and editors not catching BaronBifford's I hate to say sneaky edit is no reason to allow a non-consensus, non-MOS version--Tenebrae (talk) 15:29, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I was thinking about moving it, but wasn't 100% sure where the status quo currently sat (or I thought I did but then wasn't so sure after your edit - I am now back to 100%).

I also agree about the edit - it isn't possible (or desirable) to police this article 24/7 to check for changes against consensus while we are trying to sort out the longer term future for this article (which sets a precedent for others) and I am minded to increase the level of protection, but would rather avoid it as it'd penalise other editors. I'll reconsider this option over the next day or so. Emperor (talk) 17:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Publication

@TriiipleThreat: Although the term is not commonly used in that context, a radio or TV broadcast or movie release is technically a publication, especially in regards to copyright law. BaronBifford (talk) 14:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

That's not what "publication" means in this common-usage context, and BaronBifford's wikilawyering is not constructive to the goals of this article or this encyclopedia. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

This just a debate over semantics. I can rename the section heading to something more pleasing, like "Media history". BaronBifford (talk) 14:32, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Which would needlessly diverge from the MOS. There is no need to shoehorn information that is unrelated to the rest of the section. Besides the information that you are trying to add is already perfectly covered by "In other media" section.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm offended that Tenebrae accused me of wikilawyering while at the same time he kept citing other Wikipedia protocols in order to push his own edits.

I read MOS and it doesn't explicitly mandate a separate In other media section, and not all articles on comic book characters use that system (see Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles). Tenebrae's objection here is a mere semantic quibble that I can easily defeat just by opening a dictionary. He is reacting out of short-sighted conservatism. BaronBifford (talk) 09:18, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

That's not really true, and you're being uncivil. I'm operating out of longstanding consensus for WikiProject:Comics' accepted standards. The consensus for this and other articles is to have an "In other media" section. Other editors agree. As for opening a dictionary, one might do that for the definition of "other media". --Tenebrae (talk) 14:00, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles is the kind of article Triiiple Threat and I were talking about above (and is probably a better example of what I, anyway, was thinking about) - we'd move Superman (comics) off to it's own page that would then be focused on his appearances in comics and this page would be more of a overview of Superman as part of a crossmedia franchise. My concern about the version you presented was that it mashed the various media appearances together, where it'd be better to separate them out into individual sections, as is done on the TMNT page. However, no consensus had been reached to change the page, so we are sticking with the standard comics character layout until then. Emperor (talk) 17:15, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Worth noting that we are now doing something similar with Joker (comics), see: Joker (character) and its talk page. It is clearly the direction some comics characters' articles are going to move in, so we need to make sure we get it right in the first few articles, as they'll be the precedents that future changes will be based on. See also: Talk:Wolverine (character)#Requested move (and then the move back discussion) - in that case just renaming it won't fix the problems being highlighted there, we need a better approach. That is why we've been talking through what needs to be done here, as it is (relatively) important, and not just for this article. Emperor (talk) 00:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I dunno. Joker (character) seems basically a disambiguation page and an extra step readers need to take when they want an encyclopedia article about the Joker. All those links are, or easily could be, in Joker (comics), and I'm not sure there's a need to have the same "Cultural impact" section in two different articles. We don't really have Captain Ahab (character) and then Captain Ahab (novel), Captain Ahab (movies) and Captain Ahab (comics). --Tenebrae (talk) 14:00, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Well the "cultural impact" section should have been removed from Joker (comics) (I'd missed that and will sort it out) as it doesn't just cover the comics character (which was one of the concerns raised in the FAC that was holding the article back). See Talk:Joker (character) and this discussion you were involved in earlier which led to this (although it largely came together after you moved on).

I'm not sure Captain Ahab is the best example, as he isn't that high a profile cross-media entity - we have Tarzan, Tarzan (comics), Tarzan (book series), Tarzan in film and other non-print media and Tarzan (Disney franchise). Clearly, Tarzan started in the book series (although I'd quibble that it was really in a magazine as part of a serialised story that was eventually collected as a book) but that isn't the top level article for the character as these days people are just as likely (more?) to come to the character through film or TV. That is what the argument boils down to in the Joker FAC, the moving of Wolverine (comics) (which solves none of the problems of focus and scope) and attempts to move Penguin (comics) too (and I'm sure various others I've missed), as well as this article (and the argument for this certainly applies to Batman). I'm afraid this change is coming and if we don't figure out a way to manage this, then we end up with clunky non-solutions like Wolverine (character).

As this seems like a wider issue, perhaps it'd be best approached on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics. Emperor (talk) 16:05, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing! Great minds...! --Tenebrae (talk) 21:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Righto, I'll marshal my thoughts and start something over there in a day or so, that way we can thrash this out properly. It is increasingly clear we can't just sort this out piecemeal between a few of us. Emperor (talk) 03:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Sooooo... how's this coming along? BaronBifford (talk) 13:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Copyright infringement lawsuits

There have been countless Superman copyright infringement lawsuits, which is to be expected for such a marketable character. We don't have space to list them all, and it's really stupid to mention some 1979 commercial as a case study. In short, mentioning these cases provides nothing insightful. BaronBifford (talk) 05:46, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Agree with you about that second paragraph. That first paragraph with pertinent bluelinks does belong there since the infringement lawsuits need to have some mention though not necessarily in their own stub section; that graf might be moved elsewhere in the article). --Tenebrae (talk) 16:50, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, why don't you explain to me why that stuff has to be included. BaronBifford (talk) 15:56, 28 May 2016 (UTC)