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)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2018

Several actors have played Superman in motion pictures and TV series including Bud Collyer, Kirk Alyn, George Reeves, Christopher Reeve, Dean Cain, Tim Daly, Tom Welling, Brandon Routh, Henry Cavill, Tyler Hoechlin, and Vince F. 129.9.75.191 (talk) 20:14, 26 January 2018 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:23, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I think the IP's asking for "Vince F." to be added to the last sentence in the lead, but I don't know who that is or what show/film he acted in. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:52, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2018

Please add after ""Kal-El", resembles the Hebrew words קל-אל, which can be taken to mean "voice of God".[227] Larry Tye suggests that this "Voice of God" is an allusion to Moses' role as a prophet." the sentenceSavethecheerleader1 (talk) 06:41, 27 January 2018 (UTC) ""Kal-El", however, is more literally כל-אל in Hebrew, which means "all God"; i.e., "all of God" or "all [that is] God"" Savethecheerleader1 (talk) 06:39, 27 January 2018 (UTC) Savethecheerleader1 (talk) 06:39, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ToThAc (talk) 22:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Help with a spin off article

I am currently updating the List of Superman creators so it looks like the one used for Batman's (List of Batman creators). Listing which writers and artist worked on which titles and created which characters etc. Can some Superman fans help.

Today's edit

I have restored the status quo version before today's edits, for grammatical, syntactical and cite-format reasons discussed on the previous editor's Sandbox page and Sandbox talk page, and I have invited BaronBifford, per WP:BRD, to discuss the issue here.

Conversely, I have offered to place my tweaked version of his work here — a version that does not change the content of his research, but just the grammar, syntax and cite formatting — and then further edits can be made from that baseline. --Tenebrae (talk)

Superman is invulnerability

invulnerability ability Mohamadwolf (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2018

208.54.80.172 (talk) 17:41, 20 April 2018 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NiciVampireHeart 17:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposed change to Creation and conception

I want to replace the first two paragraphs with this:

“ The development of Superman began in 1933, when Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster were 17 years old and classmates in high school in Cleveland, Ohio. Siegel was an aspiring fiction writer and Shuster was an aspiring illustrator. Both dreamed of becoming published authors.1 Siegel self-published a fanzine called Science Fiction: The Advance Guard of Future Civilization, which he patterned after pulp science fiction magazines. In January 1933, Siegel wrote a short story titled The Reign of the Superman, which he published in the third issue of his fanzine. The titular character is a vagrant named Bill Dunn who gains vast psychic powers from an experimental drug and uses them maliciously for profit and amusement, only to lose them and become a vagrant again, ashamed that he will be remembered only as a villain. The story was illustrated by Shuster, who depicted Dunn as a leering bald man.

Siegel's fanzine did not sell well, so Siegel and Shuster shifted to making comic strips, with dreams of being published in a newspaper (comics magazines of the sort that Superman eventually appeared in did not exist in 1933). Syndicated newspaper strips offered more lucrative and stable work than pulp magazines. The art standards were also lower, making them more accessible to the inexperienced Shuster. Siegel observed that comic strips with villainous protagonists such as Fu Manchu struggled to find an audience, but strips with heroic leads such as Tarzan tended to thrive. So Siegel reinvented Superman as a hero. Apart from the name, this second prototype of Superman was completely different from the villainous Bill Dunn. He had no fantastic abilities and wore no fancy costume. He was just a muscular man who wore a T-shirt and trousers. In later years, Siegel and Shuster compared him to Slam Bradley, a character they created in 1936.

”

Again, you're throwing a lot at other editors all at once. I hope this isn't a deliberate attempt to overwhelm us with walls of text, because I really don't know why else, when we haven't reached consensus on the first proposed, you would throw two more at us before we've done so. In any event, no consensus discussion on this has begun.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:14, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I have been drafting this edit for a while now. Check my Sandbox. This is not something I can roll off on a whim just to mess with you. Because of your misgivings, I have to feed my changes to you piecemeal for committee approval. Have you ever tried doing a term paper or a report in this fashion? It doesn't make for quality results, even if you ignore the glacial pace at which this article develops. Have a little empathy for me. Looking at your contribs list, you seem to be the kind of guy who prefers to police the edits of other editors, but you're not accustomed to dealing with the kind of volume I put out.

In any case, I will keep my word to not make major changes to this article without community approval. None of these proposed edits will go live until I have you on board. Your bad feelings towards me are understandable, and I guess I owe you my patience. Kurzon (talk) 17:44, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Tenebrae, when Kurzon linked to his sandbox and asked for opinions on his version of the article, you said that was unreasonable. Now he's putting it here section by section and (as far as I can see) he's showing no signs of impatience, but you seem to think this is also unreasonable. Perhaps you should be more clear about the manner you think these changes should be rolled out... Argento Surfer (talk) 18:35, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

One at a time. That's all. Just one at a time. I don't think that's unreasonable to ask given the time-consuming amount of research each of these proposals requires. For the Gaines sentence alone, there were WP:PRIMARY and two book sources to find, digest and report on. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:56, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: How long would you like me to wait? Kurzon (talk) 14:44, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Until we get the first thing done that we're discussing. I can't speak for anyone else, but I have a job and am volunteering as much of my time as I can. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:20, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

So that we're all the same page as we get to this, here are the extant two paragraphs, for comparison and contrast with the proposed version above. I imagine we'll wind up with something that combines these two:

“ In January 1933, Cleveland high school student Jerry Siegel wrote a short story, illustrated by his friend and classmate Joe Shuster, titled "The Reign of the Superman", which Siegel self-published in his fanzine, Science Fiction. The titular character is a vagrant who gains vast psychic powers from an experimental drug and uses them maliciously for profit and amusement, only to lose them and become a vagrant again, ashamed that he will be remembered only as a villain. Siegel's fanzine did not sell well. Siegel and Shuster shifted to making comic strips, which they self-published in a book they called Popular Comics. The pair dreamed of becoming professional authors and believed that syndicated newspaper strips offered more lucrative and stable work than pulp magazines. The art quality standards were also lower, making them more accessible to the inexperienced Shuster.

In early 1933 or in 1934, Siegel developed a new character, also named Superman, but now a heroic character, which Siegel felt would be more marketable. This first prototype of Superman had no fantastic abilities and wore casual clothing. Siegel and Shuster often compared this version to Slam Bradley, a comics character they created in 1936.

”

Detective Dan

I want to clarify in Creation and conception that Detective Dan was interesting because it contained original stories instead of reprints, that it was to be the first of a serial, and that the creator of the strip (Norman Marsh) retained the copyright (it's marked so on the cover). This is probably what interested Siegel and Shuster. It seemed to offer the same conditions as newspaper syndicates. I can't find a direct quote from Siegel or Shuster to support this, but Bruce Scivally seems to agree with it:

"Detective Dan was little more than a Dick Tracy clone, but here, for the first time, in a series of black-and-white illustrations, was a comic magazine with an original character appearing in all-new stories. This was a dramatic departure from other comic magazines, which simply reprinted panels from the Sunday newspaper comic strips. When he saw Detective Dan, Siegel thought that he and Shuster could come up with an even more exciting comic book character."

I think we should give some reason why Detective Dan is relevant. Otherwise, why mention it at all? Kurzon (talk) 18:41, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

How about this:

Detective Dan was the first magazine dedicated to original comic stories, as opposed to reprints of newspaper strips. Another thing that might have interested Siegel and Shuster is that the author of Detective Dan held the copyright.

There's enough citations in the literature to support the first sentence. The sentence is a bit more speculative, but I think it's reasonable as long as we qualify it as such. Kurzon (talk) 18:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (responding to your 18:41, 19 May 2018 post) Agree that Detective Dan is superfluous in this context. I would end the sentence after "Chicago," remove footnotes 15 and 16, and add footnote 17. What do you think? --Tenebrae (talk) 18:59, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

@Argento Surfer: Nah, I want Detective Dan to be mentioned. I would like another editor to give an opinion. Kurzon (talk) 19:00, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

One reason I want to mention Detective Dan and its qualities is that I want to explain why Siegel and Shuster were reluctant to sell Superman to National, despite having tried to sell it to Humor. The difference? Copyright ownership. A second reason is that it is insightful to mention that Siegel and Shuster were witnessing the invention of the modern superhero comic magazine. They solicited the newspaper syndicates first not over copyright issues but because the newspapers were the only ones printing comic strips... until Detective Dan came along. Kurzon (talk) 19:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

This seems like WP:SYNTH, and I know you have a pet theory about Detective Dan's place in history that no book I've ever seen by any comics scholar or historian agrees with. Might there be an RS source talking about S&S wanting to go with Humor because they could retain copyright? --Tenebrae (talk) 20:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I've heard of Detective Dan, but I can't say I'm overly familiar with it. Let me review my resources and get back to you. It may take a day or two. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I have only one book that mentions Detective Dan (Jones' Men of Tomorrow), and it almost seems dismissive about the importance put on Detective Dan by others. Based on this, I agree with Tenebrae and suggest omitting it entirely. However, I want to note that Men of Tomorrow is the only Superman-centric book I have - the others are either general histories or specific toward other topics. Kurzon, if you have other sources I'd be happy to review them (as best I'm able). Argento Surfer (talk) 13:10, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

And there is nothing whatsoever about Detective Dan or Dan Dunn in Les Daniels' DC Comics: Sixty Years of the World's Favorite Comic Book Heroes.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Alright, I give in. I will do what Tenebrae suggested: eliminate any mention of Detective Dan. Kurzon (talk) 20:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

How about, in lieu of mentioning Detective Dan, we write that "Humor Publishing was at the time the only publisher producing comic books with original stories"? It's not a critical detail but I think it would be interesting to describe the context of Siegel's times. Kurzon (talk) 20:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

If we can find a source for it, I'd be ok with including that in a note. Not sure it's worth including inline. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Done. Kurzon (talk) 16:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposed change to Influences

I want to replace the first paragraph in Influences with this:

Siegel and Shuster read pulp science-fiction and adventure magazines. Many stories featured characters with extraordinary powers such as telepathy, clairvoyance, and superhuman strength. An influence Siegel explicitly cited was John Carter of Mars, the protagonist of A Princess of Mars by Edgar Rice Burroughs. John Carter is a human who was displaced to Mars, where the low gravity makes him stronger than the natives and allows him to leap great distances. The novel may have also inspired the name of Superman's birthplace: the capital city of Mars is called "Helium", and Superman's birthworld is named like the element krypton. From the stories of Doc Savage, Siegel likely found the inspiration for the Fortress of Solitude and Superman's alternate moniker "Man of Steel" (Savage is "the Man of Bronze").

While it is widely assumed that the 1930 Philip Wylie novel Gladiator, featuring a protagonist, Hugo Danner, with similar powers, was an inspiration for Superman, Siegel denied this. Siegel also denied taking any inspiration from the Phantom, a superhero with a similar costume that came out in 1936.

Again, give other editors a few days. There is no deadline, and you are throwing a lot of involved requests to us in rapid succession. We're need to finish dealing with passages in the section "Proposed change" first. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:48, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Here is the extent text, for comparison and review:

Siegel and Shuster read pulp science-fiction and adventure magazines, and many stories featured characters with extraordinary powers such as telepathy, clairvoyance, and superhuman strength. An influence was Edgar Rice Burroughs' John Carter of Mars, a human who was displaced to Mars, where the low gravity makes him stronger than the natives and allows him to leap great distances, which were essentially the same kind of powers Superman had on Earth in the early days of the comic. While it is widely assumed that the 1930 Philip Wylie novel Gladiator, featuring a protagonist, Hugo Danner, with similar powers, was an inspiration for Superman, Siegel denied this.

• I would tweak the wording of the extant first sentence as follows (in boldface). The sentence provides a complete thought, with setup and conclusion, and so should remain a single sentence: "Siegel and Shuster read pulp science-fiction and adventure magazines, in which stories sometimes featured characters with extraordinary powers such as telepathy, clairvoyance, and superhuman strength."

• I don't think there's any need to go into such overdetail about the first story in which Edgar Rice Burroughs' John Carter of Mars appeared. Both terms are bluelinked for anyone needing detail beyond what the extant context provies.

• Agree with User:Kurzon that the phrase "which were essentially the same kind of powers Superman had on Earth in the early days of the comic" is unnecessary.

• I'd like to see the exact quote from which this "may have" speculation comes from: "The novel may have also inspired the name of Superman's birthplace...."

• We cannot say Siegel "likely found the inspiration for the Fortress of Solitude and Superman's alternate moniker" when all Siegel himself says is that he read Doc Savage stories but "so long ago that I can't really answer that question" of whether Doc Savage inspired those things. The idea of a hero having a private sanctum and a nickname is hardly exclusive to Doc Savage.

• We would need a cite for "Siegel also denied taking any inspiration from the Phantom." Also, the Phantom's single-color unitard, without a cape and with a mask, is nothing whatsoever like Superman's costume.

--Tenebrae (talk) 17:40, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Much of the Influences section is speculative anyway. A lot of it comes from Brad Ricca noticing convenient coincidences in Siegel and Shuster's childhood. While I think the connection between Doc Savage and Superman is a little tenuous, it's not out of order for this section. Kurzon (talk) 05:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like virtually everything in the "Influences" section quotes S&S directly. The only thing that looks like speculation is this, and I think we'd need to see Ricca's exact statement. Unless he's quoting from S&S, this is just Ricca's personal speculation and needs to go. (Pulp-action heroes wearing capes ought to be citeable, though.)

The emblem on his chest may have been inspired by the uniforms of athletic teams. Many pulp action heroes such as swashbucklers wore capes. Superman's face was based on Johnny Weissmuller's.[18]

--Tenebrae (talk) 17:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, that's means I did a better job on that section than I thought :). Well, I personally think that while the evidence isn't iron-clad, it's good enough to include the Doc Savage connection with some qualifiers. Kurzon (talk) 19:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

No, that is only one person's possibly WP:FRINGE speculation. Without Siegel or Shuster confirming Doc Savage was an influence — and not just reflective of a popular idea already in the culture — then we can't include it.

I'll look for my copy of the Ricca book in my too-small-for-my-books place, but in the meantime, if you have a copy readily available, would you dig up what Ricca says to support the blockquoted three sentences just above?--Tenebrae (talk) 17:28, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

--Tenebrae (talk) 17:28, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Here you go:

• "That fashion statement—a gold-shielded symbol on a shirt—was also seen in sports uniforms from football to the Olympics."
• "19 The cape was born of many sources: weightlifters, swashbucklers, and perhaps the cover of the 1929 Glenville yearbook, where it was combined with a single initial."
• "The overall physical look of Superman himself is from Johnny Weissmuller, whose face Joe swiped from movie magazines and news articles."

Kurzon (talk) 17:39, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. If it's alright with you and any other editors weighing in, are we agreed that we should add these quotes to that footnotes? Are they consecutive sentences, or do we need ellipses between any of them? I'll keep looking for my hardcover of Ricca so we can add page numbers. (I believe you have a digital version without page numbers?) --Tenebrae (talk) 16:19, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm also going throw in this quote from Ricca: "The features of the original costume are rooted in Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers, who wore full sci-fi space suits with emblems on their chests." I didn't include this in the article because I actually looked up images of the old Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers comics from the 1930s and did not see any chest logos that are comparable to Superman. I don't know where Ricca got this notion, and I have no direct quote from Siegel or Shuster. Kurzon (talk) 16:26, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

From what you say, we probably should not include that quote. I agree with your initial instinct.

Also, since we haven't heard from anyone else about this suggestion in nearly a week, what do you think about, in addition to adding those three quotes you found on 17 May 2018, that we adjust this passage:

"and many stories featured characters with extraordinary powers such as telepathy, clairvoyance, and superhuman strength."

to:

"in which stories sometimes featured characters with extraordinary powers such as telepathy, clairvoyance, and superhuman strength."

Let me know what you think, and I'd be happy to make either the one change (adding the three quotes in a footnote) or both (that and the adjustment immediately above). Then we can move on to the your next proposal.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Tomorrow it will be one week since comments were requested on removing the quote as per Kurzon's research, and almost two weeks since comment requested on the passage change directly. If no objection, by tomorrow then, I'll make these changes and we can perhaps move on to the next section on this talk page. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:22, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Portraits of Siegel and Shuster

We should replace the image of Reign of the Superman with portraits of Siegel and Shuster. Kurzon (talk) 16:56, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I, for one, certainly agree Siegel & Shuster's images should be here. Their early conceptions of Superman, including Reign of the Superman, are also important to include. There's no reason not to find room for all, even if they're not in the same section. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:56, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, there's not much room left, and Reign of the Superman isn't really all that important to the development of Superman if you look at the details. Kurzon (talk) 18:24, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, what do you think of it now? I suppose if you don't like it you can jam the Reign_of_the_Superman.jpg there. Kurzon (talk) 16:56, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Ugh, I really don't like how it looks now. I think the Reign_of_the_Superman pic really should go. Do any other editors agree? It's really more of a footnote to the Superman history, if you really think about it. Aside from the name, they started completely from scratch when they made the heroic Superman. Kurzon (talk) 20:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I think it belongs; it's an important document/image in the creators' development of the character. What do other editors think? --Tenebrae (talk) 17:22, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

There's something to be said for neat presentation. Kurzon (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Of course we agree on the importance of neat presentation. I think, as a longtime newspaper and magazine professional, that it looks fine and is informative. Is this really what you want to concentrate on when we're working on the Influences section? --Tenebrae (talk) 19:13, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@TriiipleThreat: What do you think about removing the Reign_of_the_Superman.jpg pic? I argued that it is trivial enough to omit. Tenebrae disagrees. If we delete, it can reduce image clutter.Kurzon (talk) 12:43, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I have no experience with using them, but maybe a gallery would be an effective way to include the relevant images without overcrowding the text? Argento Surfer (talk) 12:43, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I was thinking we should get rid of File:Siegel Shuster Superman 1933 concept.png. I think Reign of the Superman is historically more significant its Sigel and Shuster's earliest use of the name Superman and entrance in the super power (although vastly different) genre. As for the concept image, every writer/artist comes up with a concept as part of the character's development, it wasn't published and is non-free.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

It was their first Superman, but aside from the name he's got nothing in common with the Superman we know. They scrapped everything but the name. He wasn't called Clark Kent, his name was Bill Dunn. There was no Daily Planet or Lois Lane. As for the name "Superman", the word "superman" was commonplace in those days, so it was not even their clever idea. That's why I feel the true beginning of Superman was that 1933 submission. Kurzon (talk) 13:43, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

It seems to me the idea of Superman (a super powered individual called Superman) sprung from "Reign", while the concept image is just a link between Reign and Action Comics #1. In evolutionary terms Reign would be Australopithecus, while the concept image is more of a Neanderthal. Yes, they more closely resemble modern humans but they are not the earliest known ancestor. I am not an anthropologist so please forgive my crude example but I think you get the point.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:55, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

What I really love about the 1933 Humor cover is that we how the word "Superman" in that recognizable lettering style. You see that and you just go "ooh". That's why I want it to stay. Kurzon (talk) 09:34, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I like TriiipleThreat's recent image edit. And I will say that "Reign" and that unused cover appear together in numerous books about the history of Superman, so historians do seem to find them equally relevant.

On another note, I've dug out my copy of Ricca, so I can add page numbers, and while looking for it, I also ran across my copy of Les Daniels' Superman: The Complete History" (Chronicle Books, 1998). --Tenebrae (talk) 18:18, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, I've added some of the Ricca page numbers, and his own original sources where applicable. More to do, but that's enough for now. More maybe tomorrow. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:38, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Stacked images

I appreciate TriiipleThreat's efforts on the images, and must note that stacking three images that way is not what any graphic artist would consider good layout. While images normally go flush right, the MOS allows staggering of images for reasons including such stacking and to avoid images looking off the page. Now that the longtime status quo has been restored, I think it's proper, as per WP:BRD, that editors come to this talk page to discuss image placement and try to reach consensus. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:10, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment. Too be honest, I'm really not that invested in this page, so I'll just leave it to those that are. I just saw a situation that I thought that I could improve upon. It should be noted that MOS:IMAGELOCATION suggests to "avoid sand­wich­ing text between two images that face each other; or be­tween an image and infobox, navigation template, or similar. If multiple related images are being placed on the right, then the {{multiple image}} template may be useful..." and since the MOS doesn't mention stacking, I assume its the lesser of two evils. Anyway, carry on!--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for being understanding. And, yeah, it would have been bad to sandwich texts between two images — what we in the business call creating a "gutter" — and I'm glad we avoid that here. As long as we're speaking, I just want to compliment you on your work. You've been killin' it, especially with your smart, excellent edits on MCU pages. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:48, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposed change

I want to modify the Creation and conception section. Please review my proposed edit in my Sandbox. Feel free to make comments. Kurzon (talk) 21:30, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

You cannot reasonably expect other editors to have to go through your Sandbox and comb your 26,000-character preferred version word-by-word and compare it to the extant. If you have a specific edit, say it here and gain consensus from other editors. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:40, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I want to change the last paragraph to this:

Siegel and Shuster entered the comics field professionally in 1935, when they were hired by the comic book publishing firm National Allied Publications, for whom they produced detective and adventure stories such as Doctor Occult and Slam Bradley. They still lived in Cleveland at this time, and submitted their work by mail. National liked Superman and wanted to publish him, but Siegel and Shuster refused because National demanded that Siegel and Shuster sell them the copyright to Superman. Siegel and Shuster still wanted a newspaper syndication deal. But no syndicate ever took interest in Superman, and it seems by 1938, Siegel and Shuster had simply given up, because in March of that year they finally sold Superman to Detective Comics Inc. (an affiliate of National owned by the same people). They sold Superman for $130 (adjusted for inflation: $2,800), relinquishing all rights.

Please give other editors a day or two to go through this and compare it with extant version. There's a lot here. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:48, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I eliminated references to Gaines because, upon reviewing the sources, I decided he had a trivial role if any in bringing Superman to print. It seems everyone was trying to take credit for discovering Superman. Kurzon (talk) 18:19, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

The proposed change seems fine to me, although I feel the last sentence is missing some context. $10 per page and the sale of copyright was standard practice at the time. That kind of background might be better suited for a footnote, but it should be included somewhere. It should also mention that part of the contract stipulated S&S would be the sole supplier of additional Superman material. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

The contract of sale mentioned no such stipulation. Was that in other contract? Kurzon (talk) 18:52, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Possibly. I've read that they had an arrangement similar to Bob Kane's, but I can't recall the source at the moment. It's included on Jerry Siegel's page, and appears to be sourced to this book. It mentions a 5 year deal (p 29, end of 2nd paragraph), but I can't locate the details. This article mentions a 10-year contract. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:38, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I also recommend removing either "at least" or "finally" from the last sentence. One modifier is enough. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Compared to the extant version, the first sentence of the proposed version has excessive detail not specifically about Superman and better suited to Siegel's and Shuster's own articles. Yhe fact, for example, that they were doing non-superhero features is pertinent; the specific names of those features is notable for Siegel's and Shuster's articles, but make no difference whatsoever to the history of Superman. Same with the fact they lived in Cleveland and did business by mail.

Kurzon says he decided Gaines "had a trivial role if any in bringing Superman to print. Brad Ricca in 2014's . Super Boys: The Amazing Adventures of Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster – the Creators of Superman says different: "The facts are that it was Harry [Donenfeld] who signed [Siegel and Shuster], at Gaines's direction." Additionally, Siegel himself, on page 5 of his unpublished memoirs, calls the Gaines connection "a break-through" [spelling sic.].

This also isn't a history of DC Comics or Malcolm Wheeler-Nicholson. In terms of Superman, all that's necessary to identify the company is "Detective Comics (which had recently bought out National Allied)," as in the extant version. The proposed version manages to be both wordier and less precise: Read DC Comics and you'll see it's a gross oversimplification to say, "Wheeler-Nicholson went bankrupt in late 1937 and sold his share of the business to his partners."

We don't need to say "Donenfeld and Liebowitz offered to publish Superman" and that they "demanded" anything — a highly non-neutral, POV word — when we can just get to the point succinctly: "In March 1938, Siegel and Shuster sold all rights to the character to Detective Comics, Inc."

Why use the wordier phrasing "...Siegel and Shuster had given up on Superman ever being a great success" when we can say the same thing in fewer words: "...they had resigned themselves that Superman would never be a success." And what's with the unquantifiable, POV adjective "great"? Success is success.

The proposed version contains the WP:DATED vio "today." (I do think we ought to add that template that automatically updates for inflation, since $2,300 is as of when?

(I agree with Argento Surfer that we don't need "finally" or "at least" etc. in the final sentence. I would also dd "Inc." to the first mention Detective Comics to help clearly differentiate between the company and the later same-name comic-book series.)

The proposal has several clearly identifiable issues. The extant version suffices. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:57, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

It's true that "demanded" is somewhat loaded, but I think the idea is worth including. Maybe "required" would be more neutral, along with the context that such requirements were common in the field. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

If is was common practice, then we don't really need to state that, any more than we state a thousand common practices in any business-related article. To me, the most neutral thing is to state the simple fact "In March 1938, Siegel and Shuster sold all rights to the character to Detective Comics, Inc." I supposed a well-cited footnote about common practices might be warranted, but certainly, to me, not in prose. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

A footnote is fine. I mentioned that earlier but didn't repeat it here. It seems relevant since this particular standard is no longer the most common among publishers, was rather unique to comics anyway, and is often portrayed as an unfair shake by an evil corporation and two Midwestern kids. Surely you've read that it was sold for "only" $130, or a "mere" $130. You rarely see it was sold for "double their normal page rate". Argento Surfer (talk) 12:56, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

The reason I propose eliminating references to Gaines is an interview I read in Alter Ego #88 with the son of Malcolm Wheeler-Nicholson:

Douglas Wheeler-Nicholson: That is such [crap]! That is unbelievable! At the same time I have read that story, I’ve read the story that Donenfeld, of all people, went to M.C. Gaines and said, “I need an idea for this new magazine.” Well, I know Action Comics was developed by the old man as a vehicle for “Superman”! It’s just nonsense!

Furthermore, in an unpublished memoir by Jerry Siegel (cited in this article), Siegel does not credit Gaines for "recommending" Superman. In Ricca's book, Gaines only suggested to S&S sending their material to Donenfeld; Gaines did not recommend Superman to Donenfeld. Because of the ambiguity between all the sources I consulted, I decided to remove references to Gaines, and only write what all sources agree on. Gaines had a trivial role in bringing Superman to print. Kurzon (talk) 05:11, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I may be thinking of the same article, but I've also read that Gaines' contribution was puffed up by his family after his death. I believe it's more lore than truth. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:56, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I suspect Douglas Wheeler-Nicholson was also puffing up his father's contribution. If you read Siegel's memoir, it seems he delayed selling Superman to National because he wanted to sell it to a syndicate instead. There is not indication that Wheeler-Nicholson was stalled by "financial difficulties". It doesn't even make sense. He could afford to publish Slam Bradley and Doctor Occult but not Superman? I have revised my edit. Kurzon (talk) 14:13, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Argento Surfer: I don't want to mention that the $130 was for $10 per page, because the contract doesn't make it clear. In fact, it was so unclear that it had to be settled in court. In the 1947 lawsuit, Siegel and Shuster argued that $130 was too little consideration for Superman's copyright, but the judge decided that the $130 wasn't even for the copyright, but for the 13 pages. This is a detail that can be explained in the Copyright battles section. Kurzon (talk) 15:52, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm ok with that. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Douglas Wheeler-Nicholson is neither a historian nor a disinterested party, so his claims are far subordinate to those of objective historians.

I've looked in multiple sources re: Gaines, which I report here.

Siegel's unpublished memoir says:

In 1937, a break-through occurred.

M.C. Gaines of McClure Newspaper Syndicate wrote to Joe and me on November 30, 1937, "Some time ago you sent us samples of a number of feature you were working on -- a number of which you subsequently sold to Major Nicholson the publisher of…. It so happens that we are printing these books and have occasion each month to examine closely the material you are furnishing to Major Nicholson. …[W]e are looking for several good features…. If you have anything ready along these lines, we would appreciate your sending them to us….

I resubmitted "Superman" to him… Gaines wrote and asked me for permission for him to send "Superman" and other strips I had submitted to him over to Detective Comics, Inc. [Tenebrae emphasis] … I consented.

Vin Sullivan, editor of Detective Comics, Inc., had "Superman" in hand as of January 10, 1938, according to the memoir.

Les Daniels in DC Comics: Sixty Years of the World's Favorite Comic Book Heroes (1995, Bulfinch, ISBN 978-0821220764) credits Gaines, although for an ironic reason:

[Siegel & Shuster] began to sell comic book stories to DC, but held Superman back while they made the rounds of the newspaper syndictes. The strips were on the desk of Sheldon Mayer, an editor at the McClure Syndicate, who had been unable to convince his boss, M.C. Gaines, that Superman might fly. When DC's Jack Liewowitz called Gaines, searching for material to put in his new Action Comis, the strips were sent to DC editor Vin Sullivan. (p. 21)

This agrees with the statements in Shuster's memoirs that Gaines had "Superman" and asked permission to submit it to Detective Comics, Inc. / DC.

Nicky Wright, in The Classic Era of American Comics (2000, Contemporary Books, ISBN 978-0-8092-9966-9), also credits Gaines:

Sullivan was ... desperate for a lead story to meet the fast-approaching deadline for sending the new Action Comics to the printer. Pulling the strips from his portfolio, Gaines showed Sullivan Superman. That was it. Vincent liked the character as much as Mayer and he wanted to buy Superman for the first issue. (p. 30

Obviously, I agree with Kurzon and Argento Surfer that if the court documents say $130 for 13 pages but don't specifically $10 a page, then we should just say $130. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:54, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

So what more do you want, at this point? Can I publish my edit? Kurzon (talk) 07:20, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, that's right. I forgot: You also do deliberate WP:ICANTHEARYOU. There is no consensus whatsoever for your proposed changes, and your armchair analysis of Gaines' role is directly contradicted by Siegel himself and two historians. The only thing for which there is consensus is that we include a footnote about standard publishing practices if we find a reliable-source citation ... and that means an actual historian, and not some latter-day comic-book website.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:18, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Do either of you have Seal of Approval? It looks like there's relevant material on page 61, but the preview doesn't provide enough to be useful. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't, though I see it's available on Amazon for about $16. I just bought something high-priced and can't make a lot of discretionary expenditures right now, but I should be able to order in next month. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:54, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

It was serialized in some Alter Ego issues a few years ago. I don't have all of them, but I'll look to see if I have that portion. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:05, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Cool! I have a bunch of issues and will try to look that up as well. Good digging! --Tenebrae (talk) 17:49, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: What I want to delete is the suggestion that Gaines recommended Superman to Donenfeld. This is something I doubt now, because of inconsistencies between sources. I don't dispute that Gaines asked Siegel for permission to show the Superman material he had. But if that's all Gaines did, then it's a really trivial point. Kurzon (talk) 19:44, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Again with WP:ICANTHEARYOU. I quoted two different historians, Les Daniels and Nicky Wright, above, discussing Gaines' direct involvement and recommendation. Why are you deliberating acting as if I did not state these things? --Tenebrae (talk) 19:50, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Man, you don't assume good faith, do you? OK, I've re-read Ricca's book, and I've got some passages of interest:

“ Jerry sent the proposal to McClure several times but had no luck. Gaines wrote back to Jerry and suggested—strongly—that it would be a good idea to allow Detective to look at the very Superman proposal they had just sent to him [...] No records are known to survive that document exactly what went on behind the scenes on the deal to publish Superman. Or they are locked away or were held only in half-trusted handshakes. The existing letters state that Gaines encouraged [Jerry and Joe] to take Superman over to Detective, which was where they were working anyway. ”

Kurzon (talk) 20:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I think it's important to remember that you and I spent months last year, and I think the year before, attempting to collaborate when you were Baron Bifford. "Faith" is what exists in the absence of fact and experience. Given the facts and experience, my trepidation about your own good faith seems justified. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:12, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

He's acknowledging you, he just doesn't feel that the quotes from the two historians make Gaines worthy of mentioning here. The question isn't whether or not Gaines was involved, but if his involvement is worth mentioning. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:05, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Two well-regarded historians feel it's worth mentioning, and Ricca, whose more recent book than theirs did not have the benefit of new interviews with surviving participants, only says when it comes to Gaines, "I don't know." I haven't heard any actual reason to exclude Gaines other than "Well, in my personal opinion he wasn't important." Two WP:RS historians say different. Wright even places Gaines in the DC office showing Sullivan the strips. In all honesty, explain to me how that is not significant? --Tenebrae (talk) 20:12, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Those historians wrote full length books and included everything they had. This is a section of an article that shouldn't top 10,000 words. By my count, it's currently about 9,700. Gaines was not a creator or a publisher, and his role had very little impact on the character. This is akin to name-dropping the assistant editor who shows the editor a nice proposal. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:18, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Neither of the historians minimize Gaines' role to that of an "assistant." He was an important executive with McClure and his word carried weight. He's also part of the chain of possession. Gaines was the conduit who physically got the Superman strips from Siegel & Shuster to Detective Comics, Inc. It's impossible to draw a straight line from the creators to DC if there's an inexplicable hole in the middle of it.

If we're deadlocked, maybe we'd better call for an RfC. Gaines' is too significant a historical figure here for a discussion among just three editors to erase from this page's history. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:28, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Impossible to draw a straight line? They were working for DC. And if you think the chain is essential, then Vin Sullivan and Shelly Mayor need to be mentioned too. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:44, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I agree. I'm looking at the extant version and I'm perplexed that with all the back-and-forth we did last year that Mayer and Sullivan aren't there.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I suspect they were left out because they're tangential, just like Gaines. Looking at the two quotes you put in above, Gaines is mentioned but he's not held out as a key element of the character. If you check p122 of Gerard Jones' book, Gaines comes off as incidental - "Shelly found samples..in Gaines's stack." Argento Surfer (talk) 23:54, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Echoing Argento, if Malcolm Wheeler-Nicholson knew about Superman and offered to publish him, then others at National/Detective probably knew about Superman too. They wouldn't need Gaines to tell them. Maybe Gaines gave the boys a nudge, but is he really a critical piece of the puzzle? Kurzon (talk) 20:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

"probably knew". "They wouldn't need..." "Maybe Gaines". Don't you see this is all personal, POV speculation? I'm under the impression you believe your views are better than those of the historians. I have to ask: Are you a trained historian or biographer? Have you published? I'm asking in all seriousness if this is so, and, if it is, would you feel comfortable going public and telling us your background. If you're Brad Ricca, for instance, and you feel comfortable saying so — and I wouldn't blame you if not; I need anonymity because of my employer — then tell us and we can proceed from there with this pertinent information. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

You are so delightful to work with. /s Christ, I work my ass off for these articles. Kurzon (talk) 04:28, 4 May 2018 (UTC) OK, here's another passage of interest from Ricca:

“ The reality is that Superman wasn’t discovered; everyone on the East Coast already knew about it by 1937. They knew about it plenty; they just didn’t like it enough to commit. Humor Publishing, Star-Spangled Comics, and the Major had all expressed varying levels of interest, but none of them went the actual distance. ”

Kurzon (talk) 12:13, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

"Everyone" clearly is hyperbole. I'm unfamiliar with Humor Publishing and Star-Spangled Comics turning it down, and and if other editors think those turndowns are significant, then, of course, let's mention them. It's unclear to me what a couple of other publishers turning it down has to do with the chain of events that actually led to its publication.

And we all work our butts off contributing to Wikipedia — me with more than 143,00 edits in nearly 13 years ... honestly and without sockpuppetry. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

In response to my good and longtime colleague Argento Surfer, Nicky Wright places Gaines specifically in Sullivan's office showing him the strips. That's actually kind of much, much more than a tangential "mention." And even Ricca, whom Kurzon cites frequently, says Donenfeld signed Siegel and Shuster "at Gaines's direction". At his direction. That's not tangential. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:49, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Mike Benton also puts more emphasis on Mayer than Gaines in his book. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the importance of the verb choices here. We can do an RfC if you'd like, but this might be too specialized of a question to get much useful input. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:05, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

You're probably right about it being too specialized. Let me try a compromise version that just mentions them in passing for the sake of accuracy and historical inclusiveness. What do we think of:

Siegel and Shuster entered the comics field professionally in 1935, producing detective and adventure stories for the New York-based comic-book publisher National Allied Publications. Although National expressed interest in Superman, Siegel and Shuster wanted to sell it as a syndicated comic strip. While unable to do so, their efforts brought the strip to the attention of Sheldon Mayer and Max Gaines at McClure Newspaper Syndicate. When publisher Detective Comics, Inc., which had recently bought out National Allied, needed material for its upcoming new title Action Comics, the syndicate showed the strip to Detective editor Vin Sullivan, who had the strip in hand as of January 10, 1938. In March 1938, Siegel and Shuster sold all rights to the character to Detective Comics, Inc. for $130, the equivalent of $2,800 when adjusted for inflation. It was the company's policy to buy the full rights to the characters it published. By this time, Siegel and Shuster had resigned themselves that Superman would never be a success, and with this deal they would at least see their character finally published.

--Tenebrae (talk) 20:10, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I made a couple minor tweaks - a stray parenthesis and a missing word. I'm ok with this presentation. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:21, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Cool! Let's wait for User:Kurzon, and if it works for him, we can move to the next item, "Proposed change to Influences." --Tenebrae (talk) 20:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I think we ought to mention in the last paragraph that National as common policy insisted on buying the full rights to all the characters it published. That's why Siegel and Shuster held out for 3 years. Why do you disagree? Kurzon (talk) 20:39, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

It's the second to last sentence, ref #9. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:49, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

All right, I'll go with this for now. I hear there's a biography of Malcolm Wheeler-Nicholson in the works. If that book has any new insights, or corroborates my personal take on the facts, we can always update this paragraph later. Kurzon (talk) 20:53, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Great. I'll replace the extent with this consensus version. I don't have time today to work on the "Influences" part, but that's next unless there's a desire to do the next section first. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:24, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I want to rewrite this line:

Although National expressed interest in Superman, Siegel and Shuster wanted to sell it as a syndicated comic strip.

to this:

Although National expressed interest in Superman, Siegel and Shuster relented because National's insisted on buying the rights to all the characters it published, whereas Siegel and Shuster wanted to retain it.

I think this point should be mentioned earlier in the paragraph. Kurzon (talk) 09:50, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I think you mean "resisted" after the first instance of "Siegel and Shuster." Also, if we're saying they resisted because National insisted on buying all the rights, then it's redundant to also say they resisted because they wanted to retain the rights. Say one or the other. Redundant to say both. Also, we use straight quote marks and apostrophes, not curly ones. And we can trim some wordiness. Suggest this: "Although National expressed interest in Superman, Siegel and Shuster resisted because the publisher insisted on buying all rights to new characters." What do you think? --Tenebrae (talk) 20:13, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed and done. Kurzon (talk) 05:29, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Influences

I've been thinking that we should break off the Influences subsection as a separate section of its own. I'd like to expand it to include influences beyond Siegel and Shuster. For instance, Mario Puzo deliberately introduced Christian themes to the mythos in the 1978 movie, and those messianic themes keep popping up in later stories. We can also note how the Comics Code Authority forced Superman to become more law-abiding. Kurzon (talk) 12:02, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Lede trimming

I want to get rid of the fourth paragraph in the lede, the one that begins with "Superman's appearance is distinctive and iconic..." It's dumb. Firstly, the visual description it gives of Superman is made redundant by the image in the infobox. Then after that is two lines of silly fluff. Geez, can we delete this useless paragraph?

Also, I think the second and third paragraph, which give a short bio of Superman, should be condensed into just one.Kurzon (talk) 17:57, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Humor Publishing books

@Tenebrae: I reviewed this line that I wrote from Creation and conception:

"Humor had just published a number of comic books containing all-original stories as opposed to reprints of newspaper strips, which was a novelty at the time."

The books in question were "Detective Dan", "Ace King", and "Bob Scully". I looked up their copyright dates in the federal catalogs. "Ace King" was copyrighted on Oct 16, well after Siegel and Shuster met with Humor. I couldn't find the date for "Bob Scully". As far as I can tell, only "Detective Dan" is relevant. Seeing as this was my mistake, I took the liberty of correcting it. Kurzon (talk) 14:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Expanding Siegel and Shuster's background

@TriiipleThreat, Argento Surfer, and Tenebrae: Let's do some work on the first paragraph of Creation and conception, because the first sentence feels awkward to me. I want to rewrite it to this:

"Superman was created by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster. They first met each other in 1932 as classmates at Glenville High School in Cleveland, and bonded over their mutual love of movies, pulp magazines, and science fiction. Siegel aspired to become a writer, and Shuster aspired to become an illustrator. Siegel wrote for his school newspaper, The Torch, and self-published a fanzine called Science Fiction: The Advanced Guard of Future Civilization. His friend Shuster often provided illustrations for his work.

In January 1933, Siegel wrote a short story, illustrated by Shuster, titled "The Reign of the Superman", which Siegel self-published in his fanzine. The titular character is a vagrant named Bill Dunn who gains vast psychic powers from an experimental drug and uses them maliciously for profit and amusement, only to lose them and become a vagrant again, ashamed that he will be remembered only as a villain."

Awaiting remarks. Kurzon (talk) 19:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Keaton Superman

I want to expand the summary of Keaton's strips, to highlight a few key elements that were conceived at this stage.

"Siegel solicited multiple artists[22][25] and in 1934 Russell Keaton,[25] who worked on the Buck Rogers comic strip, responded. In the script the Siegel gave Keaton, the Superman character further evolves: In the distant future, when Earth is on the verge of exploding due to "giant cataclysms", the last surviving man sends his baby son back in time to the year 1935. The time-machine appears on a road where it is discovered by motorists Sam and Molly Kent. They leave the boy to an orphanage. The staff struggle to control the boy because he has superhuman strength and impenetrable skin. The Kents adopt the boy and name him Clark, and teach him that he must use his powers for good.[26][27] Keaton produced nine sample strips based on Siegel's treatment, but the newspaper syndicates rejected the Keaton and Siegel's work, so Keaton abandoned the project.[28]"

Awaiting remarks. Kurzon (talk) 10:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Image problems

I added a scan of a strip by Russell Keaton to Creation and conception and it caused an odd positioning bug with the images of Fairbanks and Lloyd. The only way I could fix this bug was to removed the Reign_of_the_Superman.jpg image. What's going on? Kurzon (talk) 05:20, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

• I've removed the Keaton scan and added the Reign of Superman image back until we get a work around and a consensus on the Keaton image. Personally I think it reproduces too small in the article to be of any use. Hiding T 06:27, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

@Hiding: I want that strip in because it is the first appearance of the ship that brought Superman to Earth (actually a time-machine here but it looks like a ship). It's a more significant milestone than Reign of the Superman. What if I just used one panel? Kurzon (talk) 09:34, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• You'd need a source to state it's more significant. Wikipedia image policy is that less is more of they are used under fair use. I'm also not sure we're allowed to use unpublished, copyright images. Hiding T 15:08, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

@Hiding: Since when do we need sources to choose images? Nobody asked me for sources to justify the other images. I've always included images that just made sense to me (and which other editors agreed with). Kurzon (talk) 08:13, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

While not strictly followed on most articles, the articles recognized as high-quality have pretty strict rules on using copyrighted images. Essentially, there needs to be an absolute, indisputable need for the image. The more non-free images there are, the stronger the rationale has to be for each image. I've been told on some articles that four is excessive. Personally, I think this is a disservice to readers, but I try to adhere to concerns because these are real legal issues that I have made zero effort to understand beyond the shallowest of levels.

Gaines connection (again)

I came across this affidavit written by Siegel in 1969. It is more reliable than his memoir as it was written earlier, is more complete, and Siegel would have risked a perjury charge if he lied. Kurzon (talk) 03:22, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

You know how Gaines wrote to Siegel asking if he could show Vin Sullivan the Superman strips? That happened in early 1938. Siegel's unpublished memoir says he met with DC in Dec 1937 and agreed to put Superman in Action Comics then. Also, remember that interview with Douglas Wheeler-Nicholson from Alter Ego? Douglas said that Donenfeld and Liebowitz were already aware of Superman, and that Malcolm conceived Action Comics as a vehicle for Superman.

The impression I got from this affidavit is that Siegel was trying to get a syndication deal with McClure for a new newspaper that McClure was planning, but McClure cancelled the plan (this is corroborated in Siegel's memoir). Gaines then suggested that Siegel go ahead at make a deal with National/Detective. Gaines did not recommend Superman to National; National was already negotiating with Siegel on that. In December 1937, Siegel had visited Detective Comics and agreed to give them some sample Superman strips for Action Comics (this is corroborated by Siegel's memoir). All Gaines did was say "McClure doesn't want Superman, so you might as well just take up Detective's offer, because nobody else will and Superman is too cool an idea to waste". It all fits.

Another line of interest explains why Siegel and Shuster refused Wheeler-Nicholson's offer to publish Superman:

"Our experience with him had been such that we did not consider him the publisher to entrust with the property and his proposal was rejected."

Ricca writes that Wheeler-Nicholson was not a competent businessman and had trouble meeting his financial obligations. While I personally believe that Siegel and Shuster refused because they did not want to sell off Superman, I have no citation that properly supports that. It seems that the reason Siegel and Shuster finally accepted National's offer is that they had more faith in Donenfeld and Liebowitz, who had just kicked out Wheeler-Nicholson.

Here is my proposed rewrite of the last paragraph of Creation and conception:

"In 1935, Siegel and Shuster found work with National Allied Publications, a comic magazine publishing company in New York owned by Malcolm Wheeler-Nicholson, for whom they produced various detective and adventure stories. Wheeler-Nicholson offered to publish Superman, but Siegel and Shuster refused because they had insufficient confidence in the way Wheeler-Nicholson handled his business. They solicited newspaper syndicates for a few more years, without success. In late 1937, Wheeler-Nicholson went bankrupt and sold his business to his partners Harry Donenfeld and Jack Liebowitz. In December 1937, Donenfeld and Liebowitz offered to publish Superman in an upcoming magazine to be titled Action Comics. This time, Siegel and Shuster agreed. They put together 13 pages of strips and submitted them. On March 1, 1938, Siegel and Shuster signed a contract of sale in which they sold those pages and the copyright for Superman for $130. Superman was finally published in April 1938, in the first issue of Action Comics."

Editors, feel free to modify the above text with any ideas you want. Kurzon (talk) 12:08, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@TriiipleThreat: @Argento Surfer: What do you guys think of my work? (Tenebrae is busy with RL) Kurzon (talk) 19:10, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@TriiipleThreat, Argento Surfer, and Tenebrae: Hey if nobody is going to respond, I'll assume that nobody cares and I'll just go ahead. Kurzon (talk) 06:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I added a mention of the McClure Syndicate. I think it's trivial, but all the historians keep mentioning it, so we might as well too. Kurzon (talk) 10:45, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

The Jewish connection

Some years ago I argued for removing mentions of Jewish influences on Superman because the evidence is circumstantial. I have found a scholar who agrees with me: Martin Lund, who published a book devoted to the subject: Reconstructing the Man of Steel. I have added a line in Cultural impact giving his take. Thoughts?Kurzon (talk) 10:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I think the line you added is more appropriate than full removal. Omitting the material entirely might lead some readers to think it was an unintentional oversight. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:45, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@Argento Surfer: I agree with you that the Jewish connection should be addressed because so many writers keep proposing it. However, I don't think it should go under Cultural impact. Perhaps we should break off the Literary analysis subsection into its own section. What do you think? Kurzon (talk) 06:39, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm ambivalent. Normally, I'd say Literary analysis should be a subsection of Critical reception, but the CR subsection here is really weak. I don't see a problem with separating Literary analysis from cultural impact, since those two don't really have much in common. I'm not sure Watchmen is an apples to apples comparison, but it's FA class and has similar content in different sections (Art and composition / Themes and Legacy). Argento Surfer (talk) 13:09, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

The Watchmen article went FA 12 years ago, when Wikipedia's standards were less mature. You should not use it as a yardstick anymore.

Since you're OK with it, I will split off Literary analysis. Thanks for your feedback. Kurzon (talk) 13:36, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

In Siegel's memoir, he mentions that Samson was an influence, though he didn't connect it to Judaism in general. He also mentioned Hercules. Kurzon (talk) 12:23, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Captain Marvel

My next goal will be writing about the Captain Marvel infringement lawsuits. Kurzon (talk) 13:13, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Superman/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Adamstom.97 (talk · contribs) 04:54, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm taking this one! This is clearly an important article, and one that has gone through a bit of history in terms of quality assessment apparently. I'll have a good read through this and the related talk pages and get on to the review as soon as I can. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:54, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Third party comment: As noted in the FAR, the 'Critical reception and popularity' section still needs work. I don't see how it currently passes GA criteria 1b regarding list incorporation. It should be converted to prose. A 'children' type list may be generated from similar types, but it should be describing what about (or why) the character generates such popularity. According to the reception, what do critics see as strengths or weaknesses of the character? (and the Smallville item should be deleted from the list as the awards are not regarding the character, but rather for acting, editing, music, etc.) Similarly, I think the 'In other media' has too many one-sentence paragraphs — I think there is a valid 'children'-type list in there that could better implement the summary style of Superman (franchise) per criteria 3b. maclean (talk) 06:19, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree that In other media is still a work in progress. I am trying to obtain audience and revenue statistics for these shows. Kurzon (talk) 08:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

As for Critical reception and popularity, I think we should delete it all. The awards mention in the bullet list are not all that insightful for describing the full scope of Superman's prestige and popularity. Something more useful would be sales statistics and revenues. For that, I plan to add such statistics in Publishing history and In other media because it's next to impossible to get a simple and accurate overview of the whole franchise. Kurzon (talk) 09:06, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in getting to this. Unfortunately, I do not believe that this article is up to the standard of GA and it looks like the improvements suggested during the FARs have not been implemented. There is still a lot of unsourced content in the article which needs to be sorted out. I am also concerned with the critical response section as it is one of the most important sections for most articles and needs to be much better than it currently is. Additionally, the article just does not appear to be stable. I suggest all the editors who are currently working on the article and discussing issues at the talk page ensure that these problems I have raised here be dealt with, and that they are all happy with the state of the article, before re-nominating it for GA. This is an important article, and it makes me sad that I cannot promote it to GA, but I am going to have to fail this review. Good luck with improving the article and getting it promoted in the future! - adamstom97 (talk) 07:12, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: I did not expect this article to pass GA review. I applied for GA review in order to get feedback on this article, because the other editors who monitor this article haven't been giving any. I hope that, with this review, these other editors will see the flaws in the article for what they are and give me license to fix them. Kurzon (talk) 08:31, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I recommend that you do not do that again. You should only nominate an article for GA if you believe that it meets the criteria already. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:01, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I have deleted Critical reception and popularity because of the criticisms here. Kurzon (talk) 07:36, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

@Kurzon:, though I have not done the background research (and it is that that should guide the article development), here is some feedback. The critical response is important but should be included as part of a History section and what this article calls "Cultural impact" section. The "In other media" section should implement a Summary style of Superman (franchise) with a paragraph format to discuss the character's licensing rights and appearances. This section is currently plagued by sentences acting as paragraphs and paragraphs acting as sub-sections or lists. The "Fictography" section is another area that needs attention (some of this sounds like it should be part of a History section related to Editors and creative teams); it reads like a list of facts. I like the concept of this section, but its contents need to be grouped thematically into paragraphs and presented in a coherent manner (e.g. chronologically, narrative, theme-by-theme, etc.). The "Literary analysis" section (it could be re-named) is getting to the point where it could be split off into its own article and a summary style used here. There has been a lot on non-fictionl and scholarly analysis written about the character and more can be included here. maclean (talk) 04:08, 26 July 2018 (UTC)