Talk:Superman/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Humor Publishing would not have bought Superman

Jerry and Joe tried to sell Superman to Humor Publishing because they read the book Detective Dan. Dan Dunn later went on to appear in syndicated newspaper strips, which meant that his creator, Norman Marsh, retained ownership of the character. Marsh abruptly left the strip in 1942, though it seemed to be voluntary and not over a dispute with his publishers. The strip ended with his death in 1943. This is important to note. Humor allowed its authors to retain ownership, Detective did not (this may be conjecture; I can't find evidence of any lawsuits over Dan Dunn). Alternatively, Jerry and Joe did not know what Humor's policy was, and planned to inquire about that later if Humor showed interest in Superman. BaronBifford (talk) 10:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure your line of reasoning (because Norman Marsh's character appeared in a syndicated newspaper strip, Norman Marsh had therefore retained ownership) is valid. Stan Lee wrote the syndicated Spider-Man strip for a long time, but he certainly doesn't have rights to the character. It's possible Marsh did, but I'd want to see the copyright info on one of the syndicated strips or some other source. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:26, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

The cover of Detective Dan says "Copyright 1933 Norman W. Marsh". BaronBifford (talk) 13:16, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Just because Humor allowed one owner to retain copyright doesn't mean it was a company policy. Indeed, everyone was just feeling things out back then, so there likely were no company policies in the early to mid 1930s. In any case, the above is all OR conjecture, and given that Humor never bought Superman, this seems like extraneous detail better suited to a book.--Tenebrae (talk) 16:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

It still shows there was a possibility of retaining ownership. This explains why Siegel and Shuster eagerly approached Humor, whereas with National they held on to Superman for the first three years they worked there. The previous characters they created for National, such as Slam Bradley and Doctor Occult, they had to sell them lock-stock-and-barrel to National. BaronBifford (talk) 17:25, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I believe it's speculation and overdetail. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Alright, but I want to rewrite this sentence:

"Although Humor Publishing was not a syndicate, Siegel and Shuster had read one of its books, Detective Dan, and felt they could match its quality."

to:

"Humor Publishing had that year published a comic book, Detective Dan, and felt they could match its quality." BaronBifford (talk) 15:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

You're missing a Siegel & Shuster in that sentence, aren't you? Hiding T 22:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Saturday Evening Post

I came across a 1941 article from the Saturday Evening Post, which suggests that Siegel and Shuster sold off Superman to National because they gave up on Superman ever being a success (they had been rejected by pretty much everyone in the country). They sold Superman so that they could finally have him published in some form. After five years of work I guess they wanted to see their baby off. BaronBifford (talk) 17:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

That certainly sounds notable to me, but perhaps Levdr1lp, Chris "WarMachineWildThing" or others should weigh in as well. There's no deadline.

Regarding the Siegel blockquote, I'm not sure its elegance matters. I believe it's important to leave in the main body of text since it is a direct, first-person, straight-from-the-horse's-mouth recollection of a pivotal event in pop-culture history. Perhaps other editors might feel differently, so I hope they weigh in. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I've just seen NeilN's post above. If you're amenable to that admin suggestion, I certainly am, and I hope fellow editors on this page will help take on some of this work. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, there are a ton of direct quotes from Siegel and Shuster elsewhere in the article, such as the bit about Harold Lloyd. This way works well, I think. BaronBifford (talk) 19:16, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I've seen the article before and I could've sworn it was in the article already, I'm apparently mistaken. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 20:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

OK. I am flabbergasted that BaronBifford would make a change I specifically advised against and then claim "merging Tenebrae's and my content". I just don't know what to do with anymore. I have tried and tried to work with him, but he continues to do whatever he wants in spite of other editors. An admin has protected the article again ... and BaronBifford needs to accept that it is his doing. He seems incapable of working collegially with other editors. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeesh, I sensed I was on a shorter leash, I didn't realize that I had been tied to a post as well! I actually did invite you to comment on this. I still would like to hear your ideas. BaronBifford (talk) 18:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Of course I'll comment. No one's been more supportive of your work quality than I. It dismays me so much that no one can seem to get through to you about your behavior. And I would not characterize it as your being "tied to a post" when the issue is you not telling the truth in your edit-summary. Every one of us has the obligation to be honest. Yes, you invited me to comment — and then ignored the comment while falsely claiming I agreed with you.

As it stands, you're not formally banned from the article but admins are directing you to seek consensus on the talk page before making any edits to it. And my sense of it is that they don't want you to place those edits after your untruthful edit-summary, but to let other editors place them if there is consensus. If you continue to exhibit the behavior you've exhibited so far, you not only will be formally topic-banned, but possibly blocked from editing Wikipedia for some length of time. I certainly don't want that, but you're behavior is making things very difficult. I can tell you from what I read at the ANI that the next time, admins won't block the article from being edited but will block you.

In any case: My point remains that this direct, first-hand account by one of the creators describing a pivotal event in pop-culture history should be in the body of the article and not relegated to a footnote. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Of course, you have been supportive. You've praised my work ethic and have acknowledged my good faith. That you are a strong stickler for Wikipedia's rules and protocols does not change this. Do not mistake my irritation for resentment. So let's get back to work. Since I can't edit the article there is nothing else for me to do but (sigh) improve my behavior.

If you look at other parts of the article, I have included quotes from Siegel in references. One example is an interview in which S & S explain the influence of Harold Lloyd. A second is Siegel mentioning the difficulties of Fu Manchu as a reason to make Superman a hero. A third is when Siegel says that the first prototype of Superman had no costume. Quoting Siegel's own words is not really that different from quoting a secondary source's text, which is what you've taught me to do in references. Take a close look at those examples I've mentioned. Do they not work there?

Another reason that I'm reluctant to show Siegel's words in the main body of text is that these were spoken or written decades after the fact. Siegel and Shuster's memories were not perfectly reliable, plus they were worried about lawsuits so they had to watch their words. I've struggled to corroborate their words across multiple interviews and memoirs with that of other writers and figures. If I write my own sentences, I can home in on a more reliable truth to present to the reader. BaronBifford (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your kind words; I do. Mutual respect is a big component of collaboration.

Other editors may disagree with me, and they're free to comment, but I think the way Superman got into the hands of the world is a pivotal moment in American cultural history and deserves a firsthand account. I understand S&S, like anyone, may have told their story with different details at different points. When that happens, we need to give the differing accounts rather than doing original research by synthesizing different sources into "a more reliable truth." Using that sort of professional-historian judgment is not something we can do ... because who knows if our amateur analyses are reliable truth or not? For an example of what I mean, see Stan Lee#Notes. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Maybe I should write my own Superman history book (under a different name), then cite that in the article to justify my edits. There are no qualifications required to be a historian, particular a comic book historian. Any git can write about comic books. I'll publish my own history book, which will make me a professional comic book historian, and my work will become a secondary source. Then you'd have to give me respect, no matter what snot I sneeze onto my pages. BaronBifford (talk) 13:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I've restored Siegel and Shuster's rationale for selling Superman to Detective (they gave up, basically). I have not removed the passage from Siegel's memoirs until I settle the debate with Tenebrae. BaronBifford (talk) 20:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: Let me re-insert the rationale for selling Superman! I have a source for it, and I've chatted with Brad Ricca and he concurs with this conclusion. BaronBifford (talk) 18:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Warning

Once the cycle of edit war => protect => edit war => protect... has continued for six months of full protection, I am going to file a request for Arbitration about this dispute. This will probably result in BaronBifford being sanctioned most severely, but could result in remedies against everyone participating in the edit war. So, when the protection of this article expires, STOP EDIT WARRING! DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:51, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

It takes two to edit war. BaronBifford (talk) 08:29, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

No it takes one editor who doesn't care what other editors think. If you really wanna get technical it's one vs all at this point. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 05:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

NOTE: The below is a sockpuppet of BaronBiford and Kurzon:

BaronBifford should either accept Wikipedia customs or go write his own book. Stg7 (talk) 06:51, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Humor Publishing agent

I have read some speculation that the Humor Publishing agent that Siegel and Shuster met with in Cleveland in 1933 was in fact Norman Marsh, the author of Detective Dan. Can anyone suggest where I can find evidence proving or refuting this? BaronBifford (talk) 13:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Fairbanks

We should mention that Douglas Fairbanks inspired not only Superman's posture, but also the devil-may-care attitude he has in the Golden Age books. BaronBifford (talk) 13:59, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Andrae (1983)

I found a scan of the original book in which the 1983 interview with Tom Andrae appeared (https://www.scribd.com/document/322057953/siegel-and-shuster-interview-andrae-1983). The web archive link that was in the reference before this was incomplete (what sloppy work!). I've already added a few quotes to the references, without changing the main text.

Interestingly, there is a passage in the interview that suggests that the Clark Kent persona and the love triangle was conceived in 1934, not in the 1933 comic that S&S submitted to Humor Publishing. Since only the cover of that submission survives, we can't go to the source to confirm this. I will confer with Brad Ricca and a few other historians to figure out the truth (and of course I won't make any changes to the main text without committee approval). BaronBifford (talk) 13:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

NOTE: The below is a sockpuppet of BaronBiford and Kurzon:

This sounds like original research so no. Stg7 (talk) 11:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

"Proto-comic books"

@Tenebrae: You insist that the books that Humor Publishing released in 1933, such as Detective Dan, were not real comic books but "proto-comic books". How did you decide this? Are you comparing them to American comic books exclusively, or did you consider European and Japanese comic books? Because I think a Frenchman would have looked at Detective Dan and said "that is a comic book". It may not have been the same model as DC or Marvel, but those companies don't define what a comic book is. BaronBifford (talk) 10:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

It has a three-tone cover, black-and-white interior pages and measured 9.5" x 12", per its GCD listing. The size alone means it's not a comic book in the traditional sense, as does what another source says was its cardboard cover. Without taking an hour or two to research it and going just from memory, I believe European "comic books" were hardcover "comic albums", and manga are manga, not traditional comic books — they're comics magazines and books, but are no more comic books that are such comics magazines as Creepy and Eerie.

That said, no one's wedded to "proto-comic book." We can say "comics magazine" if you want. What do other editors think? --Tenebrae (talk) 16:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: This seems like some rather dubious semantic gymnastics you're engaging in, especially since you're talking about countries that do not speak English. In Japan, manga is simply their word for comics. Action Comics is referred to as "American manga" in Japan.

I'm reading a scanned copy of Detective Dan. It's almost all comics. At the end there is one seven-page story in prose. Is this enough to qualify it as a magazine? Really, it's a book that is 80% comics.

I want to call it a comic book. I don't know out of where Tenebrae has pulled his strict definition of what a comic book is. BaronBifford (talk) 20:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

You absolutely refuse to compromise. I just don't get it. I've already given an alternate term, "comics magazine," since you didn't feel "proto-comic book" was right. This was a publication published at bigger dimensions than comic books and with a cardboard cover. It is neither the size nor format of what are generally considered "comic books." And it's not my "strict definition": Comics historians solidly call New Fun Comics #1 (Feb. 1935) the first American comic-book with all original material rather than comic-strip reprints. Yet the earlier Detective Dan: Secret Operative 48 (1933) had all original material, and historians do not call it the first American comic-book to do so. Why is that? Because that earlier publication is a proto-comic book, an evolutionary step toward the comic book as we know it. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:22, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the term "manga": Bookstores and comic-book shops and libraries generally stock "magna" in its own section. It is its own separate category from other kinds of comics. So what you insultingly call "rather dubious semantic gymnastics" is, in fact, a reflection of how manga is actually, factually categorized in the real world. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:25, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

No, this does change my argument. If stores place the mangas in a different section, it is because they have a style and format different from American books and graphic novels. This is just categorization. The American superhero books go here, the alternative comics books go there, the Donald Duck books go down there, the French imports go over there, and the Japanese import go right in the front by the giant Naruto cardboard cutout. They're all comic books. You're trying to restrict the term to a very specific format and content, which makes no sense to me. BaronBifford (talk) 19:10, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: I have found several books that call Detective Dan a comic book:

https://books.google.be/books?id=gW36Qs3rLB0C&pg=PA40&dq=detective+dan+comic+book&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiMhY2Qg9POAhUBGRQKHXaaCXEQ6AEIGzAA#v=onepage&q=detective%20dan%20comic%20book&f=false https://books.google.be/books?id=8aH3H7DC6BQC&pg=PA5&dq=detective+dan+comic+book&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiMhY2Qg9POAhUBGRQKHXaaCXEQ6AEIMjAE#v=onepage&q=detective%20dan%20comic%20book&f=false https://books.google.be/books?id=bymmUqU7_S8C&pg=PA255&dq=detective+dan+comic+book&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiMhY2Qg9POAhUBGRQKHXaaCXEQ6AEIVDAJ#v=onepage&q=detective%20dan%20comic%20book&f=false https://books.google.be/books?id=A-exXwYTg0oC&pg=PA22&dq=detective+dan+comic+book&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiMhY2Qg9POAhUBGRQKHXaaCXEQ6AEIRDAH#v=onepage&q=detective%20dan%20comic%20book&f=false https://books.google.be/books?id=CaUNAQAAMAAJ&q=detective+dan+comic+book&dq=detective+dan+comic+book&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjwg6bmhtPOAhXBL8AKHY5mBrE4ChDoAQhAMAc

Daniels (1998) p 17: "Publishers released a large comic book, with black-and- white interior pages, called Detective Dan"

It is clear that comics historians do not solidly call New Fun Comics the first comic book. BaronBifford (talk) 08:18, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

No one said they call New Fun the first comic book, but the first one with all-original material. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: From http://comicattack.net/archives/24398 :

"Now, I’d like to make a distinction here, between comic strips published in newspapers, and comic books sold at newsstands. The strips in newspapers came first, and up till now, comic books contained reprints of newspaper strips. That all changed in 1933 however, with the first comic book sold at newsstands with all original material. Detective Dan, Secret Operative No. 48 by Norman Marsh, was the first of its kind. It was a one shot, with a cardboard cover if you can believe it. It’s said that the name Detective Comics was inspired by Detective Dan, Secret Operative No. 48. I love that name, its got to be one of the coolest titles for a comic I’ve seen, so no wonder it had an impact on a later book. It contained all original, never before published artwork. Incidentally, there are examples of this comic still in existence, like the one pictured below, that sold at auction about a year ago for a surprisingly low price."

Since I have plenty of references to validate my position, I could go ahead and make the change. However, I still want to get you on board. I understand you're not feeling well lately, so I'll wait. BaronBifford (talk) 17:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

NOTE: The below is a sockpuppet of BaronBiford and Kurzon:
Actually, what we think of as comic books are in fact comic magazines because they are periodicals, as opposed to trade paperbacks and graphic novels. Perhaps we should call Action Comics a Comics magazine instead of a comic book. Stg7 (talk) 07:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I trust you're joking and that you do believe "comic books" exist.

@BaronBifford: That blockquote from from a site called ComicAttack.net is written by "Eli," no last name. A semi-anonymous self-published site is not a reliable source. Look, I promise this weekend when I have more time I'll pull out my reference books and go over the New Fun history again. Because if Wikipedia is going to say something that flies in the face of comic-book history, we need to have more than just fringe claims about Detective Dan, Secret Operative No. 48. This would be a change not just to a couple of words in this article, but in every Wikipedia article about early comic-book history. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

NOTE: The below is a sockpuppet of BaronBiford and Kurzon:
Honestly BaronBifford's position here seems reasonable. Stg7 (talk) 04:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC) Stg7 (talk) 04:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Today's Detective Dan-related edit

I tried to address the Detective Dan / proto-comic book v. comic book issue today with this edit and the summary "To avoid issues over the term "proto-comic book" and use a more general, less-controversial term".

BaronBifford, who is blocked from editing because of sockpuppetry and OWN issues, wrote on his talk page in response:

Mentioning Detective Dan is important, I think, because Siegel and Shuster decided they could match the quality of the work they saw in it. Look at any scan you can find on the web - some of the art is exquisite. The Superman story they submitted to Humor was done in book format to emulate Detective Dan, whereas up to then they were doing strips, and when the negotiations fell through they went back to experimenting with the strip format. Really, I'd sooner ask that you keep "proto-comic book" in the article than remove "Detective Dan". A semantic quibble is not as bad as removing a key fact.

I replied on his talk page:

OK, I'll keep researching the Detective Dan thing and try to find some wording that addresses both our concerns. In the meantime, I think it's probably best to leave what's there since while it may not be as detailed about the panel structure of the comic, the facts are all correct and non-contentious as far as they go. I'll even put your first paragraph above onto the talk page so that other editors can comment.

Fellow Superman-article editors, I ask for your comments. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

BaronBifford ad hoc editing

BaronBifford said on User talk:Mkdw:

Though I firmly stand by my work, in the interests of convivial relations for the next month I will not make any edit on the Superman article without first running it past other editors. BaronBifford (talk) 19:49, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Yet he made edits after that without doing as he said — and before admin Euryalus has rendered a decision on the ANI.

I'm not going to revert them since other editors have edited in the interim as well and because these seems like non-contentious edits. I would ask BaronBifford to please respect Wikipedia's mediation process as regards ANIs and to refrain from further editing until an admin decision is made, I would note that on his Sandbox of his planned edits for the article he already includes one exceptionally contentious edit for which there is no consensus. -- Tenebrae (talk) 21:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

NOTE: The below is a sockpuppet of BaronBiford and Kurzon:

The siegel quote hardly seem essential. Plus it is from a primary source and wikipedia is supposed to reference secondary sources. Stg7 (talk) 09:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Notice

It has turned out that BaronBifford was a sockpuppet of the indefinitely blocked Kurzon and that Stg7 was a subsequent dock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kurzon/Archive. All are now indefinitely blocked, and editors on this page should be vigilant since this sockpuppet editor seems like he may be a recidivist. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

As well, for reference, here is the link to the earlier admin action at BaronBifford's ANI over his WP:OWN behavior: [1]. -- Tenebrae (talk) 17:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I knew I smelled dirty socks. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 19:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Removal of section

I don't have particularly strong views regarding Superman#Age and birthday, but I'd at least prefer some kind of discussion take place before a whole section with sourcing gets removed. Levdr1lp / talk 17:53, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Superman has been portrayed at all ages: child (Superboy), young adult, middle age, grey sides, old man, future cyborg, etc. How insightful is such a section, really?

Also, everyone must learn that just because a paragraph has sources doesn't mean it is correct or important. I can find a source to prove that jet fuel can melt steel beams, or that Lyndon Johnson liked to hold meetings while sitting on the toilet. BaronBifford (talk) 17:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, apparently someone thought the content was important enough or correct enough to include. I simply prefer a discussion take place before a whole section with sourcing gets removed. Levdr1lp / talk 18:04, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

It was added by User:Audiodude. BaronBifford (talk) 18:37, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it appears he did. Levdr1lp / talk 18:46, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

If you read the comment on that edit, I added the section here because it was out of place in the mentioned article, Powers and abilities of Superman --audiodude (talk) 05:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Incidentally, this is probably the strangest choice for an infobox image I've ever seen. Levdr1lp / talk 18:52, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

The original Superman.jpg got deleted. Then some guy uploaded this photo of an Indian mountain town and for some reason named it Superman.jpg. BaronBifford (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. I didn't notice the upload date (or the caption). Levdr1lp / talk 19:20, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Given how iconic a character Superman is — indeed, like Uncle Sam, he's a symbol of America — sourced discussion of his age seems appropriate. Since this speaks to the idea that there is, despite how we think of the character, no single definitive Superman, having this section prevents journalists and others from stating any particular age as fact. As well, that this has been a stable section for more than three years is indicative of consensus. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

It's indicative of apathy. BaronBifford (talk) 05:10, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Tenebrae that there's something to be said for relative stability. A kind of consensus-by-default. Removing this sourced section also feels seems somewhat arbitrary. Levdr1lp / talk 08:33, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

This is a rather lazy take. You people acknowledge that these articles stagnate and need work but as soon as somebody tries to improve it you have this knee-jerk conservative response. What exactly do you think you guys do for Wikipedia? BaronBifford (talk) 10:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I guess you're free to characterize my view as "lazy," though I'm not sure it adds much constructive to this discussion. As for what I contribute, I do what I can, when I can. It's a volunteer effort (though I like to think I'm fairly active). Levdr1lp / talk 12:57, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh sure, you're active on any article related to Cleveland, which is the only reason you took any notice of this article. You detected that this article failed to mention in the first paragraph of the lede that Siegel and Shuster were Cleveland boys — what an outrageous oversight! That is where your analysis of this article began and ended. You haven't put any dedicated effort into research or refining the content of this article, or an other superhero article. The superhero articles of Wikipedia are generally shit, because they are written by fanboys who don't care for presentation, thorough research, or the perspective of the layman.BaronBifford (talk) 13:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not aware of a minimum amount of "dedicated effort" required to edit this article. Baron, you don't own the Superman article. You don't own other comic book articles. Now, please, try to maintain some civility and stay on topic. Levdr1lp / talk 18:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Truly, there is no call for such hubristic comments as BaronBifford is giving. There are many excellent superhero articles, some of which have risen to GA status. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:05, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Triangle numbers of Superman during DC One Million

Hello, DC used triangle numbers (sometimes also shield numbers) for the comics of Superman in the period from 1991 to 2002 (later again from 2008 to 2010, but this is not important now). In this time the story of DC One Million took place (1998). What were the triangle numbers of these five issues (#1.000.000 of Man of Steel, Superman, Action Comics, Adventures of Superman and Man of Tomorrow)? Thanks for your help and best whishes, --Urgelein (talk) 19:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Another BaronBifford sockpuppet?

I have asked that an SPI be opened regarding User:JungLiao, whose pattern of editing and whose sudden appearance on Sept. 1, days after BaronBifford was blocked, suggests that BaronBifford was returned.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, to much similarity in edits, especially when they are pretty much identical. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 02:36, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2016 the super man orgin that we know was created in 1940s

204.29.71.132 (talk) 14:29, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

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) 14:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Never lies?

In the Superman (1978) film, Superman says he never lies[0]. I'm not sure if this is canonical or meant to be absolute but I thought Superman was notable for being especially truthful and his great incorruptibility and inhuman capacity for perfect character was one of the reasons he is "super". There's an interesting discussion here too[1]. If anyone can provide a better citation, please consider updating the article with more detail on Superman's profoundly strict ethics.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pR7qKsCy3w

[1] https://www.quora.com/Can-Superman-tell-a-lie Niedzielski (talk) 23:07, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

He's untruthful every time he tells someone where Clark Kent was during a Superman adventure... Argento Surfer (talk) 12:37, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Dishonest wives?

I'm not sure how "dishonest wives" can be among "villains" such as gangsters corrupt politicians and domestic abusers. Could the editor explain what he means? --Tenebrae (talk) 21:00, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Trivial material

In January 2013, Superman was featured in ScrewAttack's web series Death Battle, where he fought a hypothetical battle with the character Son Goku and won. A rematch was staged in July 2015, with Superman winning again. Superman was voiced during the battle simulations by the voice actor ItsJustSomeRandomGuy.[197] He was then featured in another hypothetical battle with the character Saitama from One-Punch Man in One Minute Melee hosted by Hyun's Dojo, where the battle ends in a win for Saitama, ending with Superman losing the battle after he exhausted himself by using the Super Flare against Saitama, which did not harm the latter the slightest.[198] Such a battle however, was already hosted by Mightyraccoon a few months before, where Saitama kills Superman with his Serious Punch and effectively wins the battle.[199]

This material is currently at the end of the Musical references, parodies, and homages subsection. The "sources" are all links directly to the content and provide no indication of why these particular parodies are notable. Seemed like obvious trivia to me, but my removal was reverted by @Betty Logan: with a comment to discuss it first. So... does anyone care to persuade me this is notable? Argento Surfer (talk) 19:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I don't have a problem with removing the paragraph you cite above. If you had limited yourself to just removing that I would not have reverted you, but you removed susbtantially more than that. For example, you also removed the second to last paragraph in that section which discusses Steven T. Seagle's and Brad Fraser's work, and also the use of Superman in an AIDS campaign. What exactly is your problem with that paragraph? Personally I find that interesting and some of that stuff is sourced to high quality sources such as The Independent (a British broadsheet newspaper) and a book written by an assistant professor of English and Film at Oklahoma City University. If reliable sources deem the material relevant in relation to Superman then on what grounds exactly are you removing it? Per WP:NOTEWORTHY, notability is not acceptable grounds on its own for removing content from articles because notability is an article creation guideline, not an article content guideline. Betty Logan (talk) 20:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Ooooooohhhh.... I didn't realize I highlighted that paragraph as well. Your revert makes a lot more sense to me now. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Section 3.2 Copyright infringement lawsuits in Superman

Hello all,

For the "citation needed" about that Captain Marvel outsolds Superman for some years, I would like to ask if it's a good source please -> [2] Thanks. --Danielvis08 (talk) 01:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

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 https://web.archive.org/web/20150904021335/http://www.publaw.com/article/protection-of-graphic-characters/ to http://www.publaw.com/article/protection-of-graphic-characters/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161008215921/http://www.thespeedingbullet.com/daily/ep01_15/episode1_1.jpg to http://www.thespeedingbullet.com/daily/ep01_15/episode1_1.jpg
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160306164334/http://www.thespeedingbullet.com/daily/ep01_15/ep1.html to http://www.thespeedingbullet.com/daily/ep01_15/ep1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070521063254/http://www.sptimes.com/2003/09/25/Worldandnation/Obituaries_of_note.shtml to http://www.sptimes.com/2003/09/25/Worldandnation/Obituaries_of_note.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Bill Dunn

To make it clear that the villain from the Reign of the Superman was not our Superman, we should mention his name. Please change the line in the first paragraph to "The titular character is a vagrant named Bill Dunn who gains vast psychic powers" 2A02:2788:1008:50C:15EE:ABB3:5F78:F603 (talk) 10:43, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I think "Siegel developed a new character, also named Superman" is clear enough. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:19, 23 August 2017 (UTC)