Talk:Superman/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Edit-warring editor

An edit that was removed for using fancruft terms (Convergence, Pre-52, etc.), that also violated WP:DATED ("current") and other problems keeps getting reinserted by a longtime editor who should know better than to edit-war. I have posted a note on his talk page, but so far he's not following WP:BRD and coming here to discuss it. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:24, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

In the past all edit is done in the good faith, and reverters are able to actually READ the edit before a blanket revert and accuse someone of 3RR -- If you have read it, you noticed I actually been cutting the cruft for the second time, while the third time is just adding reference. Nonetheless, I am willing to discuss what is consider fancruft, as long as the reference of the second Superman was reinsert and will replace the "new" Superman from DC:Rebirth onwards. Here's my proposal: 1) I will keep the comic title that he was reintroduce, but will add the date that it is published. 2) Need a way to explain who this superman is, if "Pre-New 52" or "Post-crisis" superman is consider fan cuff. On that note, New 52 is on the paragraph itself. 3) Able to show that this is a different superman. If this is consider confusing, blame DC for doing this.

Possible edit:
During the Convergence event on May 2015, the pre-Flashpoint version of Superman was introduced into the current New-52 universe, with his story told in Superman: Lois and Clark. As of 1 June 2016, following the Death of the New-52 Superman, this alternative Superman became the only Superman left on the New 52 universe and will carry on the Superman story in DC Rebirth.

Edit: As for the current, I AM trying to keep it current. Edit2: the "pre-flashpoint" term also appears in the DC Rebirth, and thus not fancruff. Also, you are fast in reverting but not for reading this.

George Leung (talk) 02:42, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your coming here to discuss. There was nothing here when I looked, which I'm sure was simply because you were writing the above. So let's say we're both operating in good faith.

I meant that we can't use the word "current", as in your phrase "the Pre-New 52 version Superman was re-introduced into the current New 52 universe".

"Convergence" and "pre-Flashpoint" may as well be Greek to a non-comics fan. I would recommend stick with years and specific issues.

Possible edit:

In May 2015, an alternate, earlier version of Superman was introduced in the series Superman: Lois and Clark following the death of that universe's Superman in [insert series and issue number/date].

I'm not sure the average reader, who is used to thinking of Superman as only one person/character, will need a sentence saying, "Now there's only one Superman." --Tenebrae (talk) 03:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay, let's say we are both in good faith.

Back to the edit: Yeah, this is going to be tough, because even before the DC Rebirth (as in, while the New 52 is actually printed), there are really two Superman appearing in the same universe together, and even appear together with a few issues (in fact, the Superman story ended with the appearance of both, which if one only read Superman they will be wondering how he comes about). In fact, in DC Rebirth, Superman's section started with showing Superman being killed, then two pages later showed Clark Kent (aka the pre-Flashpoint Superman) as alive. At least the Wally West article was resolved by putting the "New 52 Wally West" as Wally West II. Sigh -- it's more confusing than Cap America as Hydra agent.George Leung (talk) 03:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Wow, I could not follow that and I've been reading comics since 1967!

So if the salient thing is that for a time there were two Supermen, from alternate universes, on the same Earth, how about (and removing the cites just so we don't keep piling them up below):

[starting with existing content] In 2011, DC Comics relaunched its entire line of comic books under the rubric The New 52. In the new continuity, Clark is not married to Lois and his parents are dead.[97] In Superman vol. 2, #43 (Oct. 2015), Superman's identity is exposed to the whole world.[86][98][99] [new content here] With [insert series and issue number/date], a version of Superman from an alternate universe was introduced, and for a time Earth had two superheroes each called Superman. The alternate-universe version remained on Earth after the other died in [insert series and issue number/date].

--Tenebrae (talk) 03:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Anyway, it's about 11:30 p.m. where I am, so I'm thinking we can take this up again tomorrow? I'll be around. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Sure. I will hold off on the editing, but I think your's is the best version. George Leung (talk) 03:31, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello, if i may, just trying to help out with a 3rd person view best of both views

In 2011, DC Comics relaunched its entire line of comic books under the rubric The New 52. In the new continuity, Clark is not married to Lois and his parents are dead.[97] In Superman vol. 2, #43 (Oct. 2015), Superman's identity is exposed to the whole world.[86][98][99] In May 2015, an alternate, earlier version of Superman from the Pre-Flashpoint Universe was introduced in the series Superman: Lois and Clark and for a time Earth had two superheroes each called Superman. After the death of The New 52 Universe's Superman in [insert series and issue number/date] the alternate earlier version from the Pre-Flashpoint Universe remained on earth and will now be Superman in DC Rebirth.

Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 03:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Let's go with that, and the issue where Superman died (and not have his death reshown) is Superman #52, as seen in http://io9.gizmodo.com/superman-just-died-a-pointless-death-1778753409 As for the two Superman issue, there is a reason why people compared those two to Superman Blue/Red. George Leung (talk) 04:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

EDIT: Let us know when either Chris or me can go ahead with adding the changes. EDIT2: Just realized the best analogy is Coke Classic/New Coke -- remmeber how you have both "Coca Cola" sold along with "Coca Cola Classic"?

George Leung (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

"Pre-Flashpoint Superman" and "DC Rebirth" are not phrases anyone who isn't a comics fan would ever understand. The idea of multiple Supermen is complicated already and we need to simplify things. For the average reader, "an alternate, earlier version of Superman" gives all the salient information. How about:

In 2011, DC Comics relaunched its entire line of comic books under the rubric The New 52. In the new continuity, Clark is not married to Lois and his parents are dead.[97] In Superman vol. 2, #43 (Oct. 2015), Superman's identity is exposed to the whole world.[86][98][99] In May 2015, an alternate, earlier version of Superman was introduced in the series Superman: Lois and Clark and for a time Earth had two superheroes each called Superman. The alternate-universe version remained on Earth after the other died in Superman vol. 2, #52 (May 25, 2016).

If we say that there were two Supermen, and that "the alternate-universe version remained on Earth", then we don't need to say the remaining one "will now be Superman." Two minus one leaves one. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Added the date, and I am satisfy with the rest. Let's not confuse people any more. If I could, I would just put an analogy of the New Coke/Coke Classic in there. George Leung (talk) 19:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

We really can't, unless we have a published authority or someone like that say it; then we could quote him or her.

Since we seem to be in agreement, I'll go ahead and add this. If that's not OK with any editor, please do revert. --

Siegel and Shuster's school

We do not need to mention here that Siegel and Shuster went to Glenville in Cleveland. This is not a biography of either of the authors, but of Superman specifically. Also, sourced != relevant. How many times must we say this? BaronBifford (talk) 14:17, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Key aspects of the creators biographies at the time of the character's creation are essential to understanding the character. Not only should we note that the creators were in high school, but also they were both sons of Jewish immigrants (Shuster's family by way of Toronto), and grew up in Depression-era Cleveland. This article is meant to encyclopedic and comprehensive; content is dictated by coverage, and there is plenty of coverage to justify inclusion here. Levdr1lp / talk 14:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't see what's the need of naming their school. BaronBifford (talk) 14:49, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Why wouldn't we include it? Along with other key elements of the creators' biographies at the time of the character's creation, it informs readers who Siegel & Shuster were, the environment they grew up and lived in, and how these things influenced the character's development. Siegel & Shuster were not adult professionals working for a comic book publisher in NYC; they were shy teenagers who were fans of science fiction & adventure stories. Superman's origin story (leaving Krpton, etc.) is often claimed to have been inspired by S-&-S's very real-life experiences as the sons of poor immigrant Jews. All of this, I would argue, is essential to a comprehensive & complete understanding the character, and very much appropriate for an encyclopedic entry. I've added other key elements to the creators' biographies accordingly. Levdr1lp / talk 15:33, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with BaronBifford. Even going by the argument above, the pertinent thing is that they were high school students. I'm not sure I understand how it makes a difference whether the high school were named Glenville or Alexander Hamilton or H.S. 242. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:41, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Two editors are in favor of the status quo version, to which I've reverted, so I would ask User:Levdr1lp not to revert to his own preferred version and edit-war, but rather try to reach consensus here as per WP:BRD.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:47, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Tenebrae- It's not just a name you're removing- it's the link to the school's article. If the fact that Siegel & Shuster were high school students at the time of Superman's creation is pertinent enough to note in the article, then why not link to the school? Moreover, the virtual absence of Siegel & Shuster biographical information at the time of the character's creation (living during the Depression, living in Cleveland, being the sons of working class Jewish immigrants, etc.) seems like at face value a pretty clear failure to meet WP:DUE, particularly given the level of detail on other aspects of the subject. Levdr1lp / talk 20:48, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

The influence of Siegel and Shuster's background as Jewish immigrants is speculative. In my research I've found no strong evidence of that. You'd think that's something they would have mentioned in interviews. When historians write their own books, they have a right to indulge in such speculation but as encyclopedia writers we must stick to hard facts that are neutral and proven.

I think it might be worth noting that they were AMERICAN kids living in America, and thus influenced by American culture. But I don't think there is any peculiar about Glenville or Cleveland that significantly influenced Superman. BaronBifford (talk) 18:38, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

BaronBifford- whether you find the Jewish coverage "speculative" or not, such coverage exists and ought to be reflected to some degree in the article. Along those same lines, Siegel & Shuster's ties to Glenville/Cleveland are obviously relevant because that's where they, the creators of Superman, lived when Superman was created. I'm not sure why readers shouldn't have access to such basic, non-controversial and thoroughly verified information on the real-world time & place of the character's creation, especially in a subsection which focuses specifically on the character's creation. Levdr1lp / talk 20:48, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia readers do have access to it — in Siegel and Shuster's own articles. We certainly don't go into deep biographical detail about Bob Kane's life at Batman or Steve Gerber's at Howard the Duck. And there's cited discussion about Judaic themes already in the article, under "Literary analysis", where it belongs.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:02, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Direct access. A simple reference to the real-world time & place of Superman's creators when the character was created, as well as the creators erhnic identities, hardly constitutes "deep biographical detail". On the contrary, omitting such information in a section specifically dedicated to the character's creation fails to satisfy WP:DUE given the relative detail on other aspects of the character. Content on Depression-era & Judaic themes in the literary section alone fails to provide sufficient context. Levdr1lp / talk 21:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Other editors believe differently, and feel that framework belongs in a section on analysis. It may be a fact the creators were Jewish but it's opinion whether and how that may have influenced the creation of Superman — opinion that belongs, with appropriate citations, under "Analysis." I wish you have looked at those other articles I'd mentioned, for perspective. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:42, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Including yourself, two "other editors" have weighed in. Sometimes a fresh perspective is needed. And yes, I also considered the examples you linked to before I replied last. While there's clearly an established structure for similar topics, I don't see how the overall layout is necessarily relevant here. Providing a simple background to readers by noting when & where the character was created, as well as the most basic facts (not opinion) on the creators themselves at the time they created the character, seems obvious in a section on the character's creation. Noting that Siegel & Shuster were in high school, lived in Depression-era Cleveland, and were the sons of poor Jewish immigrants when they created Superman -- these are not "deep" biographical facts. They enhance a reader's understanding of the subject and provide essential context. I'm also not proposing that we move literary analysis content to the creation section (although it would seem odd to make refence to Depression-era & Judaic themes without noting how such themes are relevant to the character). Levdr1lp / talk 05:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I've requested input from both the Cleveland and Comics WikiProjects, as well as the Superman work group. Levdr1lp / talk 05:42, 31 May 2016(UTC)

So we (who exactly is this 'we' by the way) don't need see it necessary to mention where the creators of Superman went to school... even though Jerry Siegel, who invented the son of Jor-El (and Jor-El for that matter), while he was still attendinig said Cleveland high school (that has since been edited out of the Superman article)? And your rationale for not mentioning Glenville is underpinned as an argument for the article as being a 'biography' of Superman... not the creator? You have clearly overlooked the fact that Superman is a fictional character and literally has no literary life without his creator... i.e. Superman has no true 'biography' since a biography by nature is about an actual living being. Siegel (and to a lesser extent Shuster) are the real-life progenitors of the fictitious Superman. Siegel's and Schuster's origins and -- more to the point -- where they were attending high school at the time of Superman's creation are completely relevant to this article. Perhaps, as contributing Wikipedia editors, you would be better served by actually learning how to properly write an informative, research-based article than, say, routinley attending ComicCon and inasmuch completely forgetting where the line beteween fantasy and reality actually exists?Ryecatcher773 (talk) 06:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Thinking more about this, I think it's fine to say the were in Cleveland. That's in America, but away from the publishers in New York, forcing them to do their contract negotiations by mail. But saying he studied at Glenville feels useless to me.BaronBifford (talk) 10:10, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think specifying the school name adds much, but I don't seem the harm in adding basic, sourced information either. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Remember, sourced does not mean relevant, or even factual. I've gone through a lot of pain to remove or at least marginalize the unsubstantiated speculations of historians. An historian saying "Siegel was a Jew and some aspects of Superman remind me of Moses so maybe there's a connection there" is not something worth putting in an encyclopedia. BaronBifford (talk) 16:46, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Is the high school name unsubstantiated speculation? Argento Surfer (talk) 18:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

You are failing to see the distinction between relevance and unecessary information in your own ridiculous example of Jews and an association with Moses. The simple fact is that Siegel was in high school (the article mentions he was in high school at the time of his inventing Superman) makes it completely appropriate to mention what school he attended. And regarding your 'pain to remove or at least marginalize' has absolutely no bear whatsoever on whether it should be considered. Perhaps you should read this Wikipedia policy article at your convenience. Sorry, but you are making a poor case for leaving the mention of Siegel's and Shuster's alma mater out of the section in question. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 17:05, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, then I would ask someone to explain what difference it makes whether S&S went to Glenville High School, Garfield Heights High School, or John Marshall High School? --Tenebrae (talk) 17:49, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

The fact remains that Siegel & Shuster were attending high school at the time of Superman's creation. Argento is right in that there's no real harm in linking to the high school. Some readers might find it useful, others may not. Give readers the basic biographical facts and let them draw their own conclusions. Levdr1lp / talk 18:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

No one is saying the fact they were high schoolers isn't pertinent. Of course it is. And in their own biographies, you'd want to detail the name of the school. But in terms of the creation of Superman, the name of the high school has no impact whatsoever on the subject of the article, which is Superman.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Naming the school provides context to readers who are looking for information on the creation of Superman at the Superman article. If it's pertinent enough to note that Siegel & Shuster were in high school when they first created Superman, and apparently there's general agreement on that, then there really is no good reason *not* to identify the school. Eliminating virtually every trace of Cleveland, Glenville HS, the Great Depression, the fact the creators were both the sons of poor Jewish immigrants- all of this really does readers a disservice. If I were writing an article on a fictional comic book character, one that was created by teenagers who were aspiring to be but had not yet established themselves as professionals in the publishing world, one of the first things I'd want to know is where these kids came from. The most basic biographical facts on the creators inform us who they were at the time of their creation, and in turn this informs us about their character. Isn't it pretty much universally accepted that writers tend to write about what they know, whether consciously or not? I would think if a character were created during the creators' formative years, then that period of time would be essential to gain a complete understanding of the subject of the character. Levdr1lp / talk 19:55, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Taking your argument to the logical extreme, it's like you're asking us to throw in an entire biography of Siegel and Shuster here. If we should name their high school, why not the neighborhood they live, the synagogue they attended, their family history, blah blah blah. We have dedicated biographical articles for this. If a reader wants to understand the cultural and geographical context in which Superman was developed, can't they read those articles? BaronBifford (talk) 20:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

An "entire biography"? Not at all. One sentence, two at the most. Aside from the general agreement noting that the creators were high school students from Cleveland, I favor 2-3 other key basic facts: they lived during the Depression-era, they were the sons of working class Jewish immigrants, and possibly the name of their high school as there really does not appear to be a strong reason to exclude it. That's all. Levdr1lp / talk 20:22, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

No, it doesn't work that way. Encyclopedia articles should be concise and focused. The burden is on you to provide a strong reason why it should be included, not on me to justify why it should be excluded. BaronBifford (talk) 20:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

"It" works however consensus determines it should work within policy & guidelines. And I'm not advocating for expanding this article to the point it duplicates the same content in the Siegel & Shuster entries. Essential context at the time of the character's creation in one or two sentences- that's what I support. Levdr1lp / talk 20:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

This is how articles get bloated. BaronBifford (talk) 20:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

If you think one or two sentences providing context to the creation of the character makes this article "bloated", then I can't even imagine what you must think of the fictional character biography, powers/abilities, and supporting characters (!) sections. Let me see: noting that Siegel & Shuster grew up in Depression-era Cleveland as the sons of poor Jewish immigrants and met each other at Glenville High School and later created the subject of this article while attending that same high school- that leads to a "bloated" article, but a entire section on the character's birthday is acceptable? Levdr1lp / talk 20:52, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Believe me, I've tried hard to trim down the bloat in the FCB section. I feel like giving up on superhero articles, in fact. BaronBifford (talk) 22:05, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Again, BaronBifford: you are exhibiting serious ownership issues. You are not the sole authority on what is relevant in this article. Adding the name of Siegel's high school (which, again, he was attending at the time of Superman's creation) is adding exactly one word (or, name) to the article. Hardly what I would call a mosquito bite, let alone bloat. You are assuming a position that is defensible only from your own perspective and at this point only seem to be inetersted in arguing for the sake of arguing. If you didn't read the Wiki-Policy on ownership that I linked above, here it is again: Wikipedia:Ownership of content.

To Tenebrae: John Marshall and Garfield High Schools are not -- nor were they ever -- institutions in a Jewish neighborhood. Siegel, living in the center of Cleveland's Jewish community in the 1930s and attending a predominantly Jewish high school is salient to his creation of a character that was influenced by his Jewish cultural understanding of the world -- in case you're not up on your Hebrew, 'El' (derived from 'Elohim') means 'God', and it isn't a coincidence that Superman is the son of Jor-El. Glenville wasn't just any high school in Cleveland. It was, prior to the 1950s a high school that was very significant in Cleveland's Jewsih community, one that has graduated several prominent Jewish alumni. It's worthy of mentioning. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 23:33, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

That's all WP:SYNTH, on many levels. The average reader would never know that Glenville was in a Jewish neighborhood. It's an assumption that being in a primarily Jewish school influence S&S -- maybe an accurate assumption, maybe not, but the point is, we're not allowed to make assumptions. And as a matter of fact, yes, it could ery well be a coincidence that Jor-El's name had "El" in it. Unless you have a quote by Jerry Siegel saying yes, that's what the "El" in Jor-El meant, then any connection with Judaica is purely speculative. So before you go accusing another editor of WP:OWN because they disagree with you, perhaps you should study up on WP:NOR.

We have an entire section quoting scholars regarding their analysis of Judaic themes and influences. Wikipedia editors' opinions and speculation can't be used. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:31, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Glenville and Glenville High School both have articles on Wikipedia so the 'average reader' provided with the link to said high school, would have that information a mouse-click away. In any case, it's irrelevant to argue what the 'average reader' knows or is interested in -- this is about providing accurate information (the text: In early 1933, Cleveland high school student Jerry Siegel wrote a short story....) how does omitting the name 'Glenville' or using it in place of 'Cleveland' help inform any reader as to the most accurate information as possible? We're not talking about putting in an entire paragraph (or even a sentence) on Jews in the industry or WP:SYNTH or WP:Original Research... . we're arguing for inclusion (or in this case a solid reason for exclusion of one single word). Ryecatcher773 (talk) 14:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, if you read the Jor-El article, you'll see the name was originally "Jor-L" and was not connected to Superman. It's a recycled name, so any Hebrew connection is incidental at best. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Hewbrew doesn't use the Latin script. But in any case, I'm pretty sure there are no Judaic influences. BaronBifford (talk) 13:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Additionally, "It's interesting" is not a good reason to include a tangential fact that doesn't affect the article topic whatsoever. And it's POV speculation that going to a predominantly Jewish school affected the creation of Superman. That's just Ryecatcher773's opinion. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't claim ownership over the article so much as get irritated when people keep reintroducing points I laboriously refuted months ago (looking at you, Tenebrae). But you're right, I'm not the Lord of Wikipedia, so here I go again, I suppose. Siegel and Shuster happened to be Jewish and that makes them odd among Americans, but there is no evidence that oddity anything more than a coincidence with regards to Superman. Siegel and Shuster were not practicing Jews (they married outside of their faith). But they were huge science fiction geeks. They got their inspiration from movies and pulp magazines, such as Barsoom and Flash Gordon. This is what I learned from reading Brad Ricca's biography of Siegel and Shuster, as well as reading Siegel's Golden Age Superman stories, which exhibit no religious themes. I think people are often confused by the 1978 Superman movie, where Jor-El sends baby Superman away in a star-like ship and gives him a messianic mission - this Mario Puzo's touch, not Siegel's. BaronBifford (talk) 10:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Slow down... whom they married is irrelevant (they were kids when Superman was created). And and if you know anything about Jewish culture (which you cleartly do not), the religion and the cultural elements are not necessarily co-dependent. Many immigrant parents in the early 20th Century -- both Shuster and Siegel were children of (observant) European-Jewish immigrants-- aimed at assimilating their kids in America, often putting religious observance on the backburner. It is entirely plausible (and actually common) to grow up secular or even unobservant of the religious adherence, , and in late 19th-early 20th Century Europe, your cultural Jewish identity not only defined you, in many cases it marginalized you. Case in point: the majority of Jews today aren't overtly religious and do not belong to a congregation, let alone adhere to even the most basic of Halachic trappings (e.g. eating pork and keeping the Sabbath). And let's bear in mind the zeitgeist of the comic book industry from the 1930s onward (essentially as we know it today): it was basically invented by and sustained Jewish Americans. Short list: Max Ginzberg. Jack Leibowitz. Harry Donnenfeld. Martin Goodman. Stan Lee. I suppose they were all able to keep their cultural influence and understanding of the world out of their work as well?

But regardless, it is unimportant whether the kids we're talking about here grew up shomrei Shabbos or eating bacon sandwiches with cheese on Saturday morning, their parents chose to raise them in a predominantly Jewish neighborhood. The culture of Glenville in the 1930s was inextricably Jewish. Siegel and Shuster, regardless of their adulthood choices in life, grew up Jewish during the most antisemitic period in world history. And there are numerous examples citing Siegel's Jewish influences on his creation of Superman -- and he even says so himself it in his unpublished memoirs, which were cited in the Larry Tye's recent biography on Superman. I am posting a few of these to save you the leg work. In any case, you appear either to be in denial or unwilling to accept the fact that you are wrong.

Here's an entry from Den of Geek (which cites Siegel in an interview): http://www.denofgeek.com/us/books-comics/superman/231283/mensch-of-steel-supermans-jewish-roots

Here's a podcast version of Terry Gross's Fresh Air on NPR with Larry Tye (author of the 2012 book Superman): http://www.npr.org/2012/06/18/155278330/its-a-bird-its-a-plane-its-a-new-superman-bio

Here's an article from 2013 about the new Superman movie from The Times of Israel and the transformation from traditionally Jewish themed Superman to the Christ-like one in the new film: http://www.timesofisrael.com/man-of-steel-no-longer-man-of-shtetl/

Here's a Daily Beast article that also looks at the same subject: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/16/superman-is-jewish-the-hebrew-roots-of-america-s-greatest-superhero.html

There's plenty more where these came from. But you can believe whatever you'd like. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 14:29, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Do you know where I can read Siegel's memoir? BaronBifford (talk) 15:36, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

You can read things that were extracted from his unpublished memoirs (legal technicalities connected to the multiple lawsuits prevented them from being published) by both Larry Tye who wrote Superman: The High-Flying History of America's Most Enduring Hero (Random House, 2012) aas well as Thomas Andrae and Mel Gordon who authored Siegel and Shuster's Funnyman: The First Jewish Superhero, from the Creators of Superman (Feral House, 2010) cite Siegel and his memoirs.

Due to copyright, I can't copy the page and paste it here, but here's a paraphrasing of the quote and if you Google it you can see the book page for yourself:

What led me into creating Superman in the early thirties? … Hearing and reading of the oppression and slaughter of helpless, oppressed Jews in Nazi Germany … seeing movies depicting the horrors of privation suffered by the downtrodden … I had the great urge to help… help the downtrodden masses, somehow. How could I help them when I could barely help myself? Superman was the answer.'

The bottom line is, no matter how much evidence I provide you with, if you're choosing to deny what others have already done much scholarship on (i.e. sources citeable in a Wikipedia article), well, then there's nothing more to explain. Your own assertion (which is contrary to other published researchers on the matter) indicates that you are clearly more concerned with arguing that you are right and everyone else is wrong... although you've provided nothing to substtantiate your own argument. Either way, I'm done with this. Good luck to you. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 17:44, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh piss off. I spent months researching Superman for this article and I have to deal with crap like this. Where the fuck did you come from? Where you back at the start of year when I was poring through biographies of Siegel and Shuster as well as going through dozens of legal documents regarding the lawsuits (I've spent close to €400 on these materials)? Where were you during my debates with Tenebrae, when together we painstakingly hammered out these articles in my Sandbox? He disagreed with me on some issues but managed to form a working relationship. Now this jackass comes out of nowhere, tosses a few articles in my face that he found with a lazy Google search, and calls me a stubborn obstructive idiot just for politely disagreeing with one point. Oh I am indeed the greatest fucktard in the Universe! Forgive me, but after all the time and money I've spent I'm not bend that easily. BaronBifford (talk) 18:15, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

BaronBifford- I appreciate the work you've put in up to this point, but Wikipedia content is constantly evolving, and you have no more right to contribute than Ryecatcher773 or any other editor. Telling a fellow editor to "piss off" or calling him a "jackass" does not help promote civility and only makes reaching consensus that much more difficult. Levdr1lp / talk 22:29, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

If you appreciate my work, then show some respect for it. Ryecatcher does not. All this guy has gone is throw a handful of web articles and some weak assumptions. When I reject them, he insults me. BaronBifford (talk) 11:23, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Whether you think Ryecatcher has shown the appropriate level of "respect" for your work or not, that still does not justify name-calling or telling him to "piss off". Levdr1lp / talk 18:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Request for comment

Closing as resolved. The RfC's outcome was this edit adding Tenebrae's draft of the "Fictional character biography" section.

Cunard (talk) 04:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Editors are invited to comment on which of these two "Fictional character biography" sections better follows Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction, specifically MOS:PLOT, and which they prefer.

• Draft:Superman FCB - BaronBifford
• Draft:Superman FCB - Tenebrae

Note that the first five paragraphs of BaronBifford and paragraphs two to six of Tenebrae are highly similar. It is the remainder that is in dispute. — Tenebrae (talk) 00:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Just for the record, pages of this type are kept in either talkspace or draftspace, and may never be placed directly in mainspace. Both pages have been moved to draftspace accordingly. Bearcat (talk) 18:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments

• Both are good interpretations of the Writing About Fiction guidelines, but take different approaches. One wants to give a bare bones introduction to the essentials of the Superman story, seeing this article as largely introductory and essentialist, while the other attempts to educate about the character's history in terms of all the real-world strangeness at DC / comics in general which motivated the various changes and major stories over the years. Personally, I think it's important that the main Wiki article on Superman at least attempts to explain the weirdness of DC's multiverse in an accessible way, and covers major arcs like the wedding and the Death of Superman, from a robust/encyclopedic standpoint. So on that basis, I slightly prefer Tenebrae's version, but I do wonder if there's a third solution out there. The existing text on the article, for what it's worth, is easy to read and also fully WP:WAF-compliant.Zythe (talk) 11:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• I think I prefer Tenebrae's version as well. Both are fine, but - as Zythe noted - its important to have real-world connections as to how and why he was given the background he was. I'm actually surprised that neither one of them discuss that Superman's Kryptonian name has some real world Jewish overtones (which tracks, seeing as he was created during the 30's a period of growing anti-Semitism). Both have bits that can be tweaked, but Tenebrae's version seems to fit in with what I think would be best for the article. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I object to Tenebrae's wish to mention the multiverse (Earth One, Earth Two, etc) because I see it as a tiresome plot device that isn't really necessary to explain the character of Superman. It also is peculiar to the comics and doesn't hold any meaning with the radio serial, the TV shows, and movies. Plus DC Comics keeps revising the structure of the multiverse every ten years or so, so Tenebrae's explanation is already dated. The multiverse is worth explaining in an article or section that focuses on the comics line, but not in a general Superman article in a section that focuses on the essential nature of the character. BaronBifford (talk) 07:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• The problem here is that the Multiverse is really just a fictional device to discuss real-world publishing decisions with - such as the decision to retell Golden Age stories, or the decision to simplify continuity. It needs some mention, but I think the article would do well to avoid discussing the changeable minutiae of the history of the Multiverse.Zythe (talk) 12:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Tenebrae devotes a whole paragraph to describing the Death of Superman storyline, which is a storyline that had little long-term consequence for the character of Superman himself. He acquired no new powers or change in costume. The storyline added Doomsday and a few other characters to his supporting cast, but the FCB is not really the place to detail that sort of information. It's just about Superman himself. Furthermore, the continuity where that event happened has been retconned out. It was not something global. The destruction of Krypton, his adoption by the Kents, his close relationship with Lois Lane, his career as a journalist - these are all events that occur in almost every depiction of Superman. His death at the hands of Doomsday is not. BaronBifford (talk) 15:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

But wasn't it significant - it's been adapted numerous times, it was a best-seller, it spawned a wider supporting cast, it drew international press attention, etc.? Ultimately notability can come down to subjective measures, but I see Death of Superman as one of few "definitive" Superman stories in a long "fictional history" encompassing many histories.Zythe (talk) 17:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Concur with Zythe. The death of Superman absolutely was significant in the real world. BaronBifford seems to be concentrating on what he believes is most significant in-universe while ignoring the actual real world — where this event in the character's biography became enormous national and international news. By any measure, we cannot ignore this real-world phenomenon and still adhere to Wikipedia guidelines for writing about fiction. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Then stick it somewhere else, such as Publication history. Noteworthiness != relevance. BaronBifford (talk) 18:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

That is such a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia guidelines for writing about fiction, and WikiProject Comics guidelines based on that, that I can't respond except to remind that the FCB must be based on a real-world perspective and not in-universe fancruft. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Please tell me how my version is not based on a real-world perspective. Imposing real world perspective is what I've been struggling to do on Wikipedia articles for years now. Please tell me how the WikiProject Comics guidelines specifically mandate mentioning press coverage of a comic book story. BaronBifford (talk) 22:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Real-world perspective is press coverage and academic coverage. It is so incredibly basic that I can't believe I need to suggest you read up on Wikipedia notability guidelines. We simply cannot choose to ignore a fictional character's biographical fact that achieved national and international mainstream news coverage simply because it doesn't fit into your POV conception of what's notable from an in-universe perspective. We write FCBs based on a real-world perspective. In the real world, Superman's death was a notable biographical fact, even though it doesn't fit into your personal view based on a purely in-universe perspective of how long it lasted.

And I must say, I began this RfC with the intention of letting the community weigh in. That's why I didn't add my two cents. But you seem to not want let the community give its opinion without trying to influence it. I only came in to respond to these untoward efforts, and I'm perfectly happy to sit back and let other editors decide on the appropriate version based on their own merits. If you truly believe yours is the more appropriate version, then you likewise will let other editors simply have their say. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• Prefer Tenebrae version. In part, my preference follows the same reasoning set forth by Zythe, in that I also prefer to see the changing facets of the biography not merely stated, but explained in real-world terms. But my preference is mostly motivated by something more subjective—Tenebrae's version is simply a better "read". Each paragraph left me wanting to read the next one, which is something I didn't get from the Baron's version. I have two minor comments. First, the 1995 quote from Byrne was interesting, but struck me as something of a non sequitur. Perhaps it was originally intended to be placed earlier in the discussion (with the discussion on invulnerability and kryptonite)? Second, I haven't been following Superman much since my comic-book-reading days in the '60s. So I was astounded to learn that Krypto's gone. How sad. That was one super-smart dog. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• I much prefer the BaronBifford version, though I think parts of Tenebrae's version could be incorporated. While I can see how DC Comics politics and the multiverse convention might be significant to the character's mythos, Tenebrae's version doesn't suggest that this is the case, and in any case I think opening the section with a whole paragraph on Earth-Two, Earth-One, etc. is a huge mistake. It starts the general reader off with a concept that he is likely to find incomprehensible, without even providing the basic premise of the character first. If we need to discuss the nature of the DC multiverse here (and I'm not sold on the idea that we do), it should be dropped down to after the bits about Clark and Lois. In other words, establish the differences between depictions of Superman first, before going into how DC Comics decided to address them. Otherwise you're putting the cart in front of the horse.

Coverage of The Man of Steel miniseries is a good idea, but the long opinion-based quote and the Byrne non sequiter (both mysteriously not included in the actual The Man of Steel (comics) article) are both excesses at best.

As far as covering "The Death of Superman", I concur with BaronBifford: Notability does not equal relevance. We need to provide real-world perspective for fictional events, but providing real-world perspective on fictional events is not the same as including information on real-world events with no true relevance to the fictional subject being covered.

Also, this is a bit redundant since I don't think any of the quotations in Tenebrae's version should be kept, but the way quotations are handled isn't in keeping with WP:NPOV. The opinion-based quote from the Julian Darius article is introduced as fact, without any clarifying "Julian Darius commented that". A later quote provides a clarifying "Superman's editor at the time, Mike Carlin, recalled," but appends to it an "As" to indicate that Wikipedia is not merely reporting Carlin's statement, but endorsing it. --NukeofEarl (talk) 14:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I put a mention of Death of Superman in Publication history, mentioning only sales figures. That's as much that deserves to be said. The amount of press coverage that storyline received is hard to measure and may not be unique. BaronBifford (talk) 18:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Nothing requires it be "unique." And it is in fact nearly unique, with only press accounts of a very small number of things such as Captain America's death and Spider-Man's wedding getting anything like the press attention this received. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: The problem with press attention is that it does not really say all that much about what the storyline meant for the industry or the public. The press reports on all sorts of stupid minor crap. Right now, CNN.com is covering this stupid viral video of some airplane passenger's obtrusive ponytail. In 2014, MSNBC interrupted an interview with a Congresswoman about the Snowden leaks to report that Justin Bieber got arrested for DUI. The website FARK.com is dedicated to linking pointless news articles. Perhaps the press covered the death of Superman because it was a really, really, really, slow news week. BaronBifford (talk) 17:56, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@BaronBifford: That's not your POV decision to make. We deal in facts, not personal emotions, in building this encyclopedia, and the fact is that it got enormous news coverage. We cannot pretend that coverage didn't happen, or pretend that people won't come to an encyclopedia looking for information about this national and international news event. That coverage is the definition of notability, and your cherry-picking irrelevancies is simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Stick to this issue, please. Justin Bieber has absolutely zero to do with it, and I would have thought such at attempt at smokescreen obfuscation beneath you. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• Both of them are good, and both have advantages. One possibility is to use articles like Superman in comics, which I'm tempted to CSD, as a repository for comics-exclusive history and background. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• I prefer Tenebrae's version because, with a character with such a long publication history, there is no single hard and fast biography of Superman and this needs to be the core of such a section and it also, handily, provides its structure as it can then be written in a real world timeline as opposed to trying to create a WP:SYNTHESIS of all the various takes on this (which might border on WP:OR and certainly wouldn't tell the whole story). Emperor (talk) 04:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, I guess I lost. Go ahead and publish your version, Tenebrae. BaronBifford (talk) 09:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

It isn't about "winning" or "losing" (if that is the consensus), it is just that, as far as I'm concerned Tenebrae version captures the more fluid nature of a character's background that has largely been fleshed out in a long running, serialised work where facts can be chopped and changed at a writer or editor's whim. I would certainly be happy if this kind of thing was more common in FCBs, especially as it is written in the out-of-universe timeline which is very useful for supporting characters (who may appear in a minor role and then get more of their back story filled in at a later date).

This doesn't mean that it is somehow immutable and carved in stone - I'm sure there is plenty of room for polishing it, adding some of your material and that of others. Emperor (talk) 01:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for saying that, Emperor; I didn't think it was my place to. You're right — it's not about "winning" or "losing," and in fact, the vast bulk of both versions is largely the same, created by BaronBifford and me in a largely collegial and productive back-and-forth collaboration. Most it it is our work, Baron — done together. And I have said to you over and over, I admire your research and your hard work; the copyright-dispute article, for example, is basically all you, which me just doing copy editing and MOS stuff. The only winner, I hope and think, is the article itself.

I've had RfCs go in a different direction from what I preferred; recently, in fact, at The Smashing Pumpkins. And I still am here to contribute, and I ask you with all sincerity to please continue here; we need good editors like you. It's OK to disagree occasionally. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

It is often good to disagree, as it can help us thrash out the best possible article. If everyone agreed all of the time (not common!) then we could get a little sloppy. Can't beat a fresh pair of eyes turning up asking why we are doing something a certain way. Emperor (talk) 20:55, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Very well, I will accept Tenebrae's inclusion of the Death of Superman storyline, but I really think the first paragraph concerning the multiverse should not be there, because it is unnecessary. BaronBifford (talk) 18:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Well everything is up for debate, but I think it is something that probably needs stating upfront. We have to write for a general audience and we shouldn't assume people know about what is a subtle but potentially important distinction. It helps avoid any confusion later on in the text.

I would be open for an argument that suggests this should be included later on in the FCB when this distinction was first introduced. However, I see it is a "sub-lead" for this section that presents information that could help the reader get a grasp on the changes being discussed. Emperor (talk) 20:55, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Is everyone else onboard for replacing the existing FCB? Baron and I did use what seemed viable from the existing one. --Tenebrae (talk) 06:00, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Give it until Monday - that is then 2 weeks since the RfC was posted, a nice round number. Emperor (talk) 05:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

It's 22:30 on Monday, nearly Tuesday, so I'll make this edit now. Thank you to all editors who contributed to the discussion. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:33, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Tenebrae took my version and reintroduced all the problems I tried to fix in the original version. BaronBifford (talk) 08:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

That's inaccurate. We worked on the bulk of our two versions together, editing back and forth collaboratively in a sandbox. I also believe that the consensus of other editors was that the version with the additional material was the preferable version, i.e., without "reintroduced ... problems". Your post seems purely spiteful. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

There was a Request for Comments on two versions. The consensus was for Tenebrae's so they made the relevant changes. This is just how the process works. Unless I've misunderstood your concerns, it may be you want to do some background reading into such procedures that are in common use on here. Emperor (talk) 16:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Astonishingly, BaronBifford attempted today to make wholesale changes to the FCB to reflect his version, a version the RfC did not endorse. After his having seen and participated in the RfC and in post-RfC discussion, this was a seriously disruptive and pointy action. I left a stern but polite warning on his talk page that this sort of behavior can result in an ANI. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. As I mentioned above, if it happens again I'll boost the level of protection and then this needs to be escalated. It is against the consensus-led approach that is the only way Wikipedia can work. Emperor (talk) 20:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

BaronBifford just left me a disturbing talk-page note that indicates he plans on reintroducing his version to some extent. I left a message on his talk page asking that he discontinue his attempts at disruption and to use this talk page to discuss his issues before making substantive changes. He has done valuable work, and I truly, genuinely hope the disruption stops before admin intervention may be called for. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Well that got unnecessarily weird. Thanks for going above and beyond to try and make this work. It is a pity it hasn't gone smoothly, but that doesn't mean it wasn't worth trying. Emperor (talk) 05:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Superman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090703125114/http://www.neca.org:80/source/NECA_2840.asp to http://www.neca.org/source/NECA_2840.asp
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130112004223/http://www.screwattack.com:80/shows/originals/death-battle/death-battle-goku-vs-superman to http://www.screwattack.com/shows/originals/death-battle/death-battle-goku-vs-superman
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061213203134/http://www.ugo.com/channels/comics/features/itsabird/default.asp to http://www.ugo.com/channels/comics/features/itsabird/default.asp
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080411173530/http://www.comic-con.org/cci/cci_eisners_06rcv.shtml to http://www.comic-con.org/cci/cci_eisners_06rcv.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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} 10:13, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2016

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 16:48, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090703125114/http://www.neca.org:80/source/NECA_2840.asp to http://www.neca.org/source/NECA_2840.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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} 20:15, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Cover date vs actual publishing date

If we are going to list just one date in brackets for a comic book issue, then it should be the actual publishing date over the cover date. The actual publishing date establishes a clear chronology of events, while the cover date is not very useful. BaronBifford (talk) 11:41, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Cover dates should only be mentioned (in conjunction with publication dates) when there's something relevant about the difference, such as an unknown or disputed publication date. It should also be linked when it's mentioned, because it's not an obvious distinction for most people. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

This seems reasonable, though to avoid confusion, it might help to note the fact it's a publishing date if/when it does not match the cover date. Levdr1lp / talk 18:01, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Tenebrae has noted that cover dates are commonly used in comic book articles. Tenebrae, have there been any recent discussions on this at the Comics Wikiproject, or is there possibly a relevant project guideline? Levdr1lp / talk 18:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

It's funny — I was just posting the following when I saw someone else was editing this page, LOL! Here's what I was writing: For consistency with real-world dating of comics, cover dates are absolutely standard in WikIProject Comics and are part of its Manual of Style. All reference books, all auctions and all nonfiction prose treatment of comics in both the mainstream and niche presses use cover dates. Nothing is set in stone, but if we're going to change something so basic, that needs to have consensus at the MOS. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Good to know. Levdr1lp / talk 18:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

It's common in articles about older characters/books, but I think that's by necessity. The publication date of Fantastic Four #66 isn't readily available, so the cover date is cited in Adam Warlock. More recent books like Avenging Spider-Man use the publication date. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Is conformism so important given the generally shoddy state of comic book articles? Let me try my ideas here as an example of how good they are! BaronBifford (talk) 18:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect, "look how good my ideas are!" is not a valid argument. I don't find this particular idea good at all, for reasons I explained clearly. You certainly haven't said what makes your idea "good" other than that you personally like it. Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Comics#Uniform cover artwork crediting convention and please understand Wikipedia works on consensus. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:27, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Editors and artists

There's this line that I want to move out of the Creative management' section and move to an Art style section:

After Shuster left National, Wayne Boring took over as the principal artist on Superman.[67] He redrew Superman taller and more detailed.[68] Around 1955, Curt Swan succeeded Boring as principal artist,[69] who continued the trend towards realism.

I think Creative management should be focused on how DC editorial steered the Superman narrative. Perhaps we should delete the above line until we have developed more content for such a section. BaronBifford (talk) 14:53, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for coming here, Baron. I know everyone appreciates it. I'd like to know what other editors think, since an "Art style" section seems a good idea, yet having the artists and, I would hope, writers mentioned in "Publication history" is also good for simple chronology and is standard throughout WikiProject Comics. In my view, this is a collaborative build and a normal compromise — my personal feeling is: Develop this new section while leaving the chronological succession of artists under PH.

Also, I've noticed that the PH, though it has two sections, only has a one subhead. This needs to be addressed. I'm adding a subhead, and fellow editors obviously should feel free to edit it. But if there are two sections, it needs two subheads, whatever they are.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I can see the value of an "Art style" section. Like Tenebrae, however, I'm not sure such a section requires removing content from Publication history. Defer to chronological layout suggested by the Comics Wikiproject. Levdr1lp / talk 15:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

@BaronBifford: I truly wish I didn't have to reiterate my statement of just few minutes ago: " 'Art style' section seems a good idea, yet having the artists and, I would hope, writers mentioned in 'Publication history' is also good for simple chronology and is standard throughout WikiProject Comics." --Tenebrae (talk) 16:12, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not as easy to establish a chronology of artists as it is with editors. In any case, what I really want to do is separate the artists from the editors. I can make the Art section a subsection of Publication history - how about that? BaronBifford (talk) 16:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I dunno. I mean, given the heavy input Weisinger, Schwarz, Carlin, etc. have had, I agree that editorial succession and style is important to have upfront. Totally agree with you on that. I just don't think we can divorce the editors from the artists and writers on whom they had a direct impact. I also believe straightforward chronology is the most understandable way of describing publishing history — the expectation with any history is that it be chronological. "Art style" I think of as a section heavily based on art critics and comics historians comparing and contrasting the artists' style throughout the character's evolution. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:25, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, if I make Art a subsection of PH then it will be easier to mesh these two parts together. The overlapping information will be less awkward. BaronBifford (talk) 16:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure there would be overlapping information, or at least only minimally so. One section says, "This was the artist from this year to this year. This artist took over then. When he moved to Action Comics, so-and-so took over on Superman." The art section says, "Dr. Art Professor suggests that while Shuster's art evoked blah-blah-blah, successor Wayne Boring added blah-blah-blah. Comics historian C.O. Mics alternately suggests that..." --Tenebrae (talk) 16:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Image staggering

I actually took the trouble to read WP:IMAGELOCATION and it doesn't mandate image staggering. Is Tenebrae imposing staggering just because he likes it? BaronBifford (talk) 18:24, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I prefer staggering images as well, and I can tell you that it is generally the most agreed upon method of placing images. That's not to say it's required, but it is suggested, and given that we're trying to make this content as accessible as possible to the widest possible readership, staggering images is usually the best way to go. Depending on the number of images and the other content present (infoboxes, tables, etc.), too many images aligned left, right, or center can crowd text, or force an image intended for one section down into another. There's also something to be said for the look itself; aligning all or most images the same way is, in my view, less visually interesting. Levdr1lp / talk 18:45, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

All true. It is also basic graphic design, as basic as not mixing polka dots and stripes on a shirt. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: I've just done a little expansion in the Creation and conception section. Do you still think the two images there must stay staggered, now that there is more room for them? BaronBifford (talk) 12:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself, but in my view, it makes little difference. Levdr1lp / talk 13:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Concern over OWNish editor

I need to ask Levdr1lp and other editors on this article if they're concerned about BaronBifford ignoring past and present consensus, including an RfC, in order to try to insist on his own version of the article. Is it getting serious enough to take it to an ANI for disruptive editing. Many of his additions are helpful, but his consistently going back and changing older things he personally doesn't like but which achieved consensus is very serious. It's slow-motion edit-warring against consensus and highly WP:OWN.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:08, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Im going to have to agree with you, it looks like they think they kinda own the article in a way and you are right they are helpful to a point but some of the stuff I saw changed the last few days were questionable as to why they were changed seeing as pretty much none of them had an edit summary as to why they were done. I think it maybe getting to the point of ANI. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 19:50, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I wonder how my edits are considered disruptive when I'm the only editor doing any meaningful work on this article, and when we don't hear feedback from readers. As far as I can tell, I'm not getting in anybody's way, nor am I spoiling the experience for readers. Tenebrae's reaction is knee-jerk conservatism. While I understand that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and I can't expect to "own" an article, I am disappointed by the constant obstruction of other editors who take no intense interest in the development of this article. Every time Tenebrae gets upset with me, he solicits the opinions of editors who mostly concern themselves with other areas of Wikipedia. Levdr1lp, for instance, focuses on articles related to Cleveland, and his interest in Superman begins and ends with the fact that Siegel and Shuster were Cleveland boys. WarMachineWildThing, looking at his contrib history, is mainly interested in professional wrestling. How can these guys appreciate the work I'm trying to do? I feel like I'm a painter whose every stroke must be approved by a committee of plumbers. BaronBifford (talk) 21:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

First off I watch this page regularly and you are very incorrect, Having a Superman collection that was started for me over 40 years ago before I was born, Having had the ONLY Superman Tribute Truck that was featured on the Chris and Dana Reeve Foundation website because Christopher Reeve was on the hood, and being known as Superman by the kids in my area because of the Charity work I do, I have alot of interest in Superman. As for my recent edits I was in the wrestling business for 10yrs so yeah I have alot of intrest in it. Superman will always be by first passion so get your facts straight and don't question my passion for Superman. Secondly you continue to make edits to suit you not the article that is clear. I found no issues with how the article was written and saw no reason to make any changes until they were needed or the article was vandalized. You have not left 1 edit summary as to why you thought any of it needed changed and you have all but taken over the article for the last 24hrs or so. I don't agree with most of your edits as I felt they were Unnecessary and personally I feel that some are nothing more than your own opinion and nothing more than you taking over an article. Judging from the history over the last 48 hrs you still seem to think this your article and you have been disruptive to the stability of the Superman article itself with all the edits. If you wanted to change so much why not bring it here to discuss like everyone else on other articles?? Because all you seem to care about is your opinion. You have still not given an reasons for all the changes. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 22:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Tenebrae, WarMachineWildThing- Unfortunately, I agree that BaronBifford sometimes comes across as being entitled to his own preferred version. Worse, he will change or remove content that has already been discussed, and which is already based on at least rough consensus, while refusing to revisit the issue when another editor notices. At times he has been uncivil and lashed out when things don't go his way (telling another editor to "piss off", mocking views he doesn't agree with hidden text, etc.). Do we need to take this to ANI? I don't know if we're there yet. If Baron starts edit-warring or refuses to engage in a civil manner (as well as assume good faith), it might be necessary. Levdr1lp / talk 22:51, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Levdr1lp Agreed. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 23:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Also, it's probably worth noting that Ryecatcher773 recently thought Baron was displaying "serious ownership issues" on this same talk page. Levdr1lp / talk 23:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I concede to WarMachineWildThing that I do not leave sufficient explanations for each of my edits. I owe you guys at least that much, and it was foolish of me to expect my work to speak for itself. BaronBifford (talk) 07:12, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

See, this is part of the problem. It's not just not leaving sufficient explanations for your edits. It's slow-motion edit-warring when you change or remove things settled by consensus. Nothing is set in stone, but you can't go against consensus without coming to the talk page and gathering together a different consensus. And, please, stop claiming you're the only one who can save the article; you're beginning to sound like Donald Trump.--Tenebrae (talk) 14:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

My edit summaries today point to two continued behavioral issues with BaronBifford. Baron, I am trying to keep this from going to ANI, and you're making it difficult with sneaky reversions buried in a sea of edits, and slow-motion edit-warring. If you keep up this type of behavior, there are going to be admin consequences. Please, please, don't force other editors' hand on this. I don't want it. You don't want it. I don't know how old you are and it's none of my business but you're behaving like someone very young who hasn't learned that one cannot always get one's way. Please, Baron. I respect your work and I am honestly and sincerely trying to help you.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

CC of notice just placed on an editor's talk page

RE: this edit: With great regret, I have just posted the following warning at User talk:BaronBifford: Baron, please, please stop edit-warring to make non-consensus changes. Your actions are bordering on obsessive. If you do it again, as much as it hurts me to do so, I and these other editors will have to take this to ANI and ask for a topic ban to keep you from further disrupting this article. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Alter ego

WrathX has recently been messing with the Alter Ego entry in the infobox. It got me thinking: why do we bother with the term "alter ego" in superhero articles anyway? Superman has multiple names. He has a Kryptonian legal name, an American legal name, and an alias he uses when doing vigilante work. "Alter ego" is popularly used in comic books, but comic books are not known for being careful with the terms they use. We really should not use comic books as a source of definitions. "Alter ego" in the infobox should be replaced with something like "Other names" or "AKA". BaronBifford (talk) 02:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Reading through alter ego, I agree - it doesn't describe the situation found in most comics. This is something to discuss at Template talk:Infobox comics character. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Reboot

I'm a little hesitant to use the words "continuity" and "reboot" because I've always thought of them as jargon specific to comic books. Have these become household words? I want this article to be easily understood by the layman. BaronBifford (talk) 12:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

"Continuity" isn't specific to comics - we talk about business continuity during bad weather every winter here. I think the idea of a continuous, uninterrupted flow is easily understood in context. You can link to Continuity (fiction) if you think it needs further explanation. It's not a well written article, but it gets the point across.

"Reboot" is closer to jargon, but I think it's entered the popular lexicon with all the reboots among movie franchises, not to mention how often people reboot their computers. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:30, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Right. What term do TV writers use when planning a season's story threads? How was the dream season of Dallas described in the press? Did they use the word retcon? BaronBifford (talk) 16:48, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Page protected

An admin has protected the page from any editing for two weeks while the ANI here progresses.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:58, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Synthesis

You combined two of my sentences into one:

Siegel shared his idea with Shuster and they decided to turn it into a comic strip, believing there was more money to be made in syndicated newspaper strips than in pulp magazine stories.

You might prefer this style of writing and in most circumstances I do too, but I've had difficulty piecing together a firm chronology and cause-and-effect relationships in the events leading up to Action Comics #1, so I like to keep separate facts in separate sentences wherever I have any amount of uncertainty. I will rewrite this bit into something more clear. BaronBifford (talk) 22:27, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. The repetition of the names seemed unnecessary. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:37, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Somebody on Wikipedia (was it you?) once told me that an encyclopedia doesn't have to be Hemingway, just readable. BaronBifford (talk) 23:03, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, that doesn't sound like me. Then again, my memory isn't what it used to be! I do believe "readable" is a high achievement, though: Clear, straightforward prose with a few well-chosen words. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Also there's something to be said for using simple language. I have friends who tell me that Simple English Wikipedia teaches them more because the language is more comprehensible. When this article unlocks again I think I will go and simplify some of my wordier texts. BaronBifford (talk) 17:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I am telling you as a friend and as someone who respects your work, going in when the article unlocks without first addressing the OWN issue would be the worst thing you could do. Editors at the ANI already are talking about a topic ban, meaning you would be barred from working on Superman articles. If you go in after the article unlocks, that would likely ensure that happening. Please, go to the ANI, take the advice there about mediation / arbitration, and continue your good work. Is it too much to ask that you get along with other editors and treat them with mutual respect? --Tenebrae (talk) 17:49, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Radio, TV, and movie adaptations

@Tenebrae: Come on, lets put this in Publication history! It will flow so nicely! Your idea for extra subsection headers was good. BaronBifford (talk) 15:35, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

You may be right. My opinion differs, which is only my opinion, and so does the MOS. When this happens, the general thing to do is ask for input from other editors. If we want to adjust the MOS to include radio, TV and movie adaptations,well, you may very well be correct in the overall idea that certain characters are media franchises no matter their origins. I'm just saying you need to get other editors to agree with you so that it's not just an outlier voice saying this. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:38, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, for perspective, I think you can see that outside of reverting consensus issues, probably 85-90 percent of my edits to your edits don't involve anything about factual content but solely grammar / syntax / wordiness. I reiterate that your research and your work-ethic are topnotch. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:40, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

What's wrong with placing adaptations in the "In other media" section? Isn't Superman primarily a comic book character? I'm not convinced we need to deviate from standard organization just because it would "flow so nicely".

Side note- I appreciate that Baron is now making an effort to reach out to other editors. Let's keep it going. Levdr1lp / talk 15:51, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, I don't see why the In Other Media section has to go down there when it could fit nicely up there, especially since it is currently so short anyway. This could just be me, but I take a holistic approach to explaining the Superman mythos. You can't really explain how the Superman mythos evolved creatively and from the business side without looking at all the media adaptations as one. It is in fact absurd. Firstly, there is a lot of creative cross-pollination between the comics and other media. It was the radio show and Fleischer serial that made Superman fly, for instance. The movies and TV shows have a far, far larger audience than the comic books. For most people, Superman is a TV and movie character, not a comic book character. That's just us fanboys who think that. Warner Bros also accepts this, which is why it treats DC Comics as a creative engine for its more lucrative TV and movie enterprises. BaronBifford (talk) 16:14, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

BaronBifford- This is probably best addressed at WP:COMICS. If you don't agree with established MOS guidelines, then discuss the MOS guidelines first. Make your case, build support. I'm a member of several Wikiprojects and this is almost always the way things get done. Consistency matters. No matter how well researched your contributions are (and they are), it's just not reasonable to expect other ediors to immediately accept wholesale changes which do not conform to established guidelines. Levdr1lp / talk 16:26, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Been there, done that. Hardly anyone pays attention to what is posted there. This is where the action is. We settle this here. This is where the action is.BaronBifford (talk) 16:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

In the meantime: Thank you for this. You're seeking consensus by making a logical, step-by-step argument. While my feeling is that most people recognize Superman as "a comic-book hero", and this his seminal importance to the medium as the first archetype of the character form, is the foundation of Superman's essence, other editors may disagree with me and take your point to heart. It all comes down to discussion, and I can't applaud you enough for taking this step. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, I think you put an MOS proposal in the form of a Request for Comment, which gets promoted throughout, in this case, all media sections of Wikipedia, that your proposal would indeed have traction. See, for example, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Comics#Request for Comment: Quotes and italics. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Tenebrae and Levdr1lp, it belongs in the Other Media section. Besides I thought we've already been through this. It seems BaronBifford won't stop until he gets his way.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:40, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Can't I just shift In Other Media to Publication history? What is it doing in Cultural Impact? BaronBifford (talk) 18:46, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I think it's been very well established that "In other media" does not belong under "Publication history." And while I personally might have "In other media" as its own section rather than a subsection of "Cultural impact," I can see how it's not unreasonable to have it there.

Unrelated to this, I noticed that details about the Wonder Man and Captain Marvel lawsuits were appearing, redundantly, in two places. I've merged them in the copyright section. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Now that I have gotten through all of these, it's been very well established that "In other media" does not belong under "Publication history". While I understand your point of view on it and applaud your discussion here. I see no reason to move "In other media". Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 20:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

You guys keep saying that this has been "very well established" but I cannot recall you guys presenting any good argument for your position. Tenebrae is actually ambivalent over the placement of In Other Media; the only reason he is opposing me is that I've failed to gain consensus with everyone else and that my proposed changes are not consistent with many other articles on superheroes. It's not so much the changes that upset him, but me. I've failed to jump through the proper hoops. What reasons has anyone else offered me? This is really baffling. I have yet to hear anyone else put any critical thought into this.

In the archives of WP:COMICS, Argento Surfer thinks that describing the comics side and the TV shows and movies in one section cannot be done coherently. He THINKS and doesn't want me to try and prove him wrong. It's a bizarre position because most of the books this article references do it that way. Les Daniels and Larry Tye do not examine the comics, TV shows, and movies in isolation. They fully acknowledge and examine how they all interact with each other. This is also how other encyclopedias like Encylopedia Britannica do it. Having extensively researched Superman, his creators, his publishers, the merchandising, the movie business, everything, I can fully understand why they chose to do it that way. Where did you guys get your bizarre notion? My way happens to be their way too! I don't know where you guys got your bizarre notions, because the professional writers largely agree with me. Tenebrae, I'd rather conform to how the professionals do it then the sloppy work of Wikipedia's amateurs!

Another argument presented to me is that TV and movies aren't "published" material, but this is just a matter of semantics. The dictionaries I've consulted seem to agree with me that movies are published material, even if it's a slight stretch of the definition. US copyright law agrees with me too. When determining the lifespan of a copyrighted material, Title 17 USC makes no distinction between books, TV shows, or movies.

So I'm asking you: where did you get your bizarre notions? BaronBifford (talk) 15:40, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

They are no more "bizarre" than your own. The difference, however, is that 4 out of 5 editors in this thread do not support your proposal. I also do not agree that Tenebrae is ambivalent, based on his response here ("my opinion differs"). Levdr1lp / talk 17:48, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

This response is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ear and singing. BaronBifford (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

So you do not recognize that a majority of editors do not support your proposal? Or do you? Do you not recognize that Tenebrae (apparently) does not support your proposal? Or do you? Mock if you must, but it's not particularly constructive. Levdr1lp / talk 19:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm the only doing anything constructive on this article. BaronBifford (talk) 20:18, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's entirely true. Regardless, I hear your arguments for including other media under "Publication history". There are nonfiction prose histories that see all these media holistically and of a piece. I do understand. I'm afraid I still must agree with every other editor in this discussion that someone using an encyclopedia would expect to find information about movies, TV shows, novelizations, serials, radio shows, etc. in their own section(s), rather than buried amid "publications". In my opinion, "Publication history" is not where the average person would go to find information on these other media. Secondly, as for "very well established," I think we just need to look at the plethora of comics-character articles in which this is the longstanding established format.

I hate disagreeing with a hardworking, highly beneficial editor like you, BaronBifford. I can only say that none of us is ever 100 percent right. I'm usually on the correct side of RfCs, but there have been times when I've been proven wrong via consensus, and once or twice I've even withdrawn my own proposals when the opposing side made arguments so compelling I could see their rationale and agreed with them. No one expect perfection from any of us. It's OK to go along with the other side sometimes.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: "I'm afraid I still must agree with every other editor in this discussion that someone using an encyclopedia would expect to find information about movies, TV shows, novelizations, serials, radio shows, etc. in their own section(s), rather than buried amid "publications"""

We don't get reader feedback on this article, so you can't prove this. Given other encyclopedias don't use this style, your position is in fact implausible. BaronBifford (talk) 06:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Well ... actually, one might say the same of your position, given the same facts. I also would say reader feedback is implicit in that the consensus for years has been to have "In other media" as its own section here. And since you're mentioning "other encyclopedias," maybe examples would be in order? Encyclopedias I've seen keep disparate topics about a subject separate.

I would add that as a professional editor for more than three decades, part of the way I make a living is organizing facts into a logical and readable order, so if nothing else I'm not sure "implausible" is the right word. We have differing opinions — that doesn't make yours or mine any more implausible than the other. The other editors in this discussion also differ with you. At some point, it might be a good thing to say, "OK, I'm in the minority here, let's move on to other ways of improving the article." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tenebrae (talk • contribs) 15:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

You're an editor, but how deeply have studied the history of the Superman franchise? I don't think you have the same kind of perspective I have developed over the past nine months. BaronBifford (talk) 15:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

There's that WP:OWNBEHAVIOR, again. Levdr1lp / talk 15:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Indeed there is. BaronBifford, immersing oneself in a topic of one's interest doesn't make one a trained editor. These are apples and oranges. And, yes, comments such as yours are WP:OWN-ish and show no respect for all the other people before you and those here now who have edited the article over the years. And on a personal note, since I think you're essentially a decent person, are you sure it's healthy to be so immersed in this one thing for months? --Tenebrae (talk) 15:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

The best articles on Wikipedia tend be those written by one guy who commits lots of time and money. The worst ones tend to be the ones built piecemeal by many editors. I don't look down on the past editors who have worked on this article, but I question where they are now. Nobody was doing any substantial work on this article for a while until I come along. If I am banned, then this article will stagnate again. You, Level1dp, and all the others will neglect it again. BaronBifford (talk) 18:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

With real respect and admiration for what you do and the time you put in, I respectfully disagree that "The best articles on Wikipedia tend be those written by one guy who commits lots of time and money." The largely excellent Marvel Cinematic Universe articles, for instance, are the work of several editors working collaboratively. I'm also not sure I would call an article with the amount of information this now contains as "stagnating" without extensive further work. If I may ask, and you're certainly under no obligation to answer, but what is it about this article that's causing such particular devotion? This seems perhaps a bit overly important to you in a personal way. I only ask since knowing the answer may help us all work toward a more collaborative approach. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:41, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

There's a difference between collaboration and obstruction. I tried to get you to collaborate with me one time. I got you to buy a few books. But for the most you just tweaked the grammar and punctuation of my work, and rarely contributed any insights. Mostly now you're just obstructing me. You say you are trying to protect me from getting banned, but it's seems like it's you who is leading the charge against me. BaronBifford (talk) 18:45, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

If that's what you see, I genuinely feel bad for you. I think I collaborating significantly, if Talk:Superman#Request for comment is any indication. And I would have thought that respecting your substantive contributions and giving you room, helping the article by editing grammar and punctuation — a significant collaborative contribution — would not be used as a criticism against me. I'm sorry you can't step back and observe your persistent behaviors with any perspective. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I can. In the past, I backed down every time other editors opposed my changes. Months later, I would check up on the article in question and see that no progress was made. Editors are happy to object to changes they find a little uncomfortable, but fixing the serious problems articles have would take WORK. Most editors don't want to work. Too many just want to play politics. Or they're like you: bouncing from one article to the next, never focusing their energy. After all these years, I'm fed up. Fed up with hearing my professors joke about how shit Wikipedia is. Now I'm cracking my knuckles and getting some shit done. Of course I will unnerve some people, but I can accept that. I go three steps forward, they push me one step back — that's progress in my book. BaronBifford (talk) 19:37, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I haven't read all this, but I just noticed my name mentioned above and the context is missing. The full discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Archive 49#Superman "In other media", and saying I didn't "want [you] to try and prove [me] wrong" is a gross mischaracterization. I read through your proposal, and I feel like I discussed my concerns clearly and coherently. Just because you failed to sway my opinion does not mean I didn't give you a chance to do so. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

@BaronBifford: You know, I have always tried to be so polite to you, and acknowledge both the good and the bad in your Wikipedia participation. Yet you really are very insulting to other people and I'm not sure why. You mention "professors" so I take it you're a college student. Unless you're an older person attending night school or have gone back after years in the workplace, this means you're relatively young. So the type of hubris you display is understandable but unrealistic when you're speaking with people who have had years of experience in life and, in my case, journalism. The rest of the world isn't all "stupid grownups." Some of us know things.

On a personal note about my own Wikipedia work, I've created well over a hundred articles in 11 years and more than 100,000 edits, so to suggest I "never [focus] my energy" is quite a remarkable accusation. It might surprise you, but a trained, veteran journalist/editor, just like many other professionals, is able to focus in bursts from one thing to the next and, as you put it, "[get] shit done." But I can see that the reasoned arguments of literally every other editor with whom you've spoken on this talk page aren't going to sway someone who's convinced of his or her perfection ... why, by the way, isn't really indicated in your verbose and repetitive writing style, so you might want to think about that. Unfortunately, I haven't seen a lot of self-reflection or respectful consideration of others here from you.

I absolutely did not want this to go to an ANI. I would strongly suggest you refrain from making major changes to this article while discussion takes place, since that wouldn't help and could hurt your case. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

So now Wikipedia is shit and articles should only be written by one person who commits time and money?? I'm sorry but what money have you contributed to the Superman article?? Wikipedia is about working with others to contribute together not take over articles. Those comments pretty much confirmed my concerns. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 22:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Now that you make me think about it, I have not spent much money on this specific article, actually. Most of the money I've spent went into administrative fees to look at court records when I worked on the Superman ownership disputes article (PACER.gov is scandalously overpriced). You are correct that time and money do not buy me sovereignty over this article. Rather, I am championing the perspective I developed through that work, which I don't think you are giving enough consideration. The opposition I confront here feels like a knee-jerk response. So many people cannot accept that as the knowledge in an article develops, the structure of its content must mutate. Once upon a time, I considered Superman as just a comic book character, that the TV cartoons were just sideshows. That was my geekdom talking. I was obsessed with the fictional continuity of the comics, and I didn't consider the TV shows and movies important because their continuities were smaller and divorced. But then I studied the history of Superman in detail, as well as the history of plenty of other comic superheroes. I studied the creators and the businessmen behind the franchise. I learned of the web of money, power, and creativity that flowed in between all the nodes. After that, I looked at the Wikipedia articles for comic book characters with disgust. So many of them are just long tedious synopses of the characters' comic book continuity that did not even make sense in light of all the reboots. They had some info about authors and editors and corporate politics, but they were thin, like an afterthought. So I'm pushing for a more comprehensive, more efficient, and more holistic style of writing.

And I have great difficulty doing this because so few editors on Wikipedia have traveled this road.BaronBifford (talk) 09:59, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

A holistic approach would make it harder for people to look up just the film / TV / videogame material. A holistic approach works with an essay or with book prose. We have to adjust our style to what most benefits the reader and makes information-gathering easier on the reader. That makes separate sections much more practical and useful. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:52, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Well OK, but why then must the film/TV/game material go down near the bottom of the article? Why can't I put that as a subsection of Publication history? BaronBifford (talk) 18:17, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

It could be Comic books and strips -> TV and film adaptations -> Creative Management -> Aesthetic style. BaronBifford (talk) 18:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Or it could be in "In other media" as we have it at every other comics article and which the editors in this very discussion have preferred. A movie or a radio show is not a publication in any generally accepted sense. And I really don't want to repeat points that have been gone over time and again. It's not fair to expect other people to keep giving you the same answers because you refuse to accept those answers.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:22, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 7 August 2016

Delete from the Footnotes the reference 60Y34: Daniels 1995, p. 34, due to this reference is not used in the text

Thanks! Arussom (talk) 21:12, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Arussom (talk) 21:12, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

• Cant be done presently Page is full protected until the 12th, only admins have permission to make edits. As far as I know no edits will be done until after August 12th when the protect expires. I suggest waiting the remaining 4 days and preform the edit then.Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 02:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Breitbart, Fairbanks, Lloyd

Instead of that cover to the book of A Princess of Mars we should have photos of Siegmund Breitbart, Douglas Fairbanks, and Harold Lloyd. Much more informative. BaronBifford (talk) 10:42, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:38, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

So long as the images are freely licensed, I don't have a problem (though I'm not sure how the images themselves are any more relevant than the "Reign of the Superman" illustration under discussion below). Levdr1lp / talk 08:52, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Remove Reign of the Superman image

The Reign of the Superman is not really a precursor to the Superman we know. They share a name, but that's it. "Superman" was actually a very common adjective 80 years ago. Let's remove that image.BaronBifford (talk) 21:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Which image exactly are we talking about? Or am I misunderstanding your use of image?? Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 00:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

He's talking about this one: File:Reign_of_the_Superman.jpg Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷

Ahhh somehow I missed it.I don't have an issue with regards to removing it.Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 02:46, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with removing the image. It clearly enhances one's understanding of the character's initial development; the image is free, so there's no concern with WP:NFCCP; and it's obviously relevant in a section covering the creation and conception of the "Superman" character (WP:PERTINENCE). Also, to say the name "was actually a very common adjective 80 years ago" -- assuming that assertion is true -- does not strike me as particularly relevant to this discussion unless there were other characters using the Superman name at the time of the Siegel-Shuster character's creation. That said, I could support a cropped version of the fanzine illustration as this article covers the Superman character specifically, whereas "The Reign of the Superman" is about the short story overall. Levdr1lp / talk 08:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I also believe the image belongs in. That said, I am so gratified to see editors working collaboratively, hand-in-hand, improving the article with well-defined edit summaries. I can't tell you how good it makes me feel to see such slow, careful and "your edit plus my edit equals our edit" better-than-the-sum-of-its-parts editing. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:19, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I've been out most of the day and was going through my notifications and as I was reading the other responses I realized when I was posting my original response from my Droid it auto competed and added don't. I have struck this out as "I have issues with regards to removing the image" is what it should have read. My apologies on this error. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 00:40, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Note

If an editor is consistently edit warring against multiple editors please bring it to my attention. A block will likely be handed out this time rather than using page protection. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:36, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

COIE

I want to rewrite a paragraph concerning the post-Crisis reboot to this:

Schwartz retired from DC Comics in 1986, and was succeeded by Mike Carlin as editor on the Superman comics. Writer John Byrne was hired to reboot the Superman books, as part of a simultaneous continuity reboot of most of DC Comics' books (see Crisis on Infinite Earths). He scaled down Superman's powers, which writers had slowly re-strengthened, and revised many supporting characters, such as making Lex Luthor a billionaire industrialist rather than a mad scientist, and making Supergirl an artificial shapeshifting organism because DC wanted Superman to be the sole surviving Kryptonian.

It feels a little more efficient, and it mention the Crisis. BaronBifford (talk) 10:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

There's no need to WP:Overlink Reboot (fiction). Do you know who specifically at DC wanted Superman to be the only Kryptonian? It's fine if not, but just naming the company seems vague. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

That said, this overall seems a very good paragraph, and I thank BaronBifford for working with his fellow editors. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:59, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

And I guess I spoke too soon: Two days later, BaronBifford resorted to the same WP:OWN issue, with undiscussed wholesale removal of content, addition of contentious content, and no discussion beforehand on talk page. If this behavior continues, so must the ANI. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Why don't you explain your reversions? I thought I didn't do anything you had previously objected to. BaronBifford (talk) 16:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Come on, don't be stubborn. BaronBifford (talk) 16:47, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

DC Comics since 1940

DC Comics since 1940 has been popularly known that way because of the DC logo printed on the covers since that date. I think it is acceptable in many contexts to use the nickname instead of the contemporary name of the company. In the Superman ownership disputes article I use the proper name in context because that article goes into legal specifics and thus it is appropriate to be pedantic. BaronBifford (talk) 19:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

First, the word you want is "contemporaneous." Second, "proper" was proper. This is an encyclopedia and not a mass-market magazine — we use the accurate name of the company at its various stages, which for National/DC is especially important since it's so convoluted. Accuracy brings clarity and preciseness, which are what an encyclopedia strives for. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Superman logo

Somebody wants the Superman logo to appear in a paragraph concerning merchandising. What good does it do there? What good does it do anywhere in the article? The caption is not even accurate. In most Superman stories, the symbol is NOT Kal-El's family crest. BaronBifford (talk) 19:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Honestly I think it should be some type of Superman merchandise there not the logo. I have an extensive collection I can supply a picture for it. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 20:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Do it. BaronBifford (talk) 21:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I certainly think having an image of some merchandise there is fine. I would also suggest that the logo belongs since, as the caption notes, it is iconic, and when a logo becomes that iconic it surely belongs in the article. Secondly, I would imagine most licensed merchandise would include that trademarked logo, so I don't believe it's dissonant to have it here. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

If everyone is agreed on it I'll upload a pic of some of my collection for the merchandise section once the lock down is lifted.Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 23:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Why not upload some pics to Imgur and show them to us? I'm eager to see what you've got. BaronBifford (talk) 13:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Siegel memoir

In Creation and conception there is this quote from Siegel which I assume comes from a memoir or something, except the website in the reference has gone down and I can't verify this. I tried to replace this block with some more accurate and better-referenced prose. BaronBifford (talk) 16:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

If you're talking about the blockquote, those pages seem to be archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20151222103124/http://www.superman-through-the-ages.com/t/story_behind_superman_1/?page=5 and elsewhere. I can install the archive links, which would be a technical, non-controversial edit.

And this kind of talk-page discussion is exactly the kind of thing that the other editors and I were hoping to have you do, rather than making 20 edits including undiscussed removal of content and at least one contentious addition. It is exhausting trying to work with you ... and I;m saying this as your biggest support here.--Tenebrae (talk) 16:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

BaronBifford, can I ask for the next month you refrain from ad-hoc editing of the article and use the talk page to suggest changes and make the change if one other editor agrees with you and see how that works out? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

@BaronBifford: You're likely going to face a block unless you engage in these discussions and acknowledge them. Mkdw^talk 17:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: Thank God for archive sites. How about I reduced that blockquote to a reference blurb, like I've done in other parts? It's not exactly an elegant piece of text. BaronBifford (talk) 17:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Copyright expiration

I'd like to specify that in 2033 it will be Action Comics #1 that will go public domain, not Superman per se. This is important, because it may not be possible for authors to use powers such as heat vision or flight until the works in which said powers appeared go public domain themselves. BaronBifford (talk) 19:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I concur. That makes complete sense to me. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. BaronBifford (talk) 19:44, 22 August 2016 (UTC)