Untitled[edit]

As per discussion, this article has been merged with Superman. The old talk page has been archived at Talk:Superman

Middle name[edit]

The footnote suggests that the middle name of "Jerome" might be a reference to Jerry Siegel. But it doesn't suggest that the more commonly used "Joseph" might refer to Joe Shuster. Any reason why this is less likely? Daibhid C 22:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the name Clark Joseph Kent is to the comics, while Clark Jerome Kent is to the other media. Leader Vladimir

I'd like to see a citation. I don't recall ever seeing Clark's middle name in the comic books. In fact, I remember an editor's note from the late 1960s (which I will find and cite if requested) that said Clark has no middle name. WaxTadpole (talk) 18:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And regarding the name itself, Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster stated in an interview published in NEMO: the Classic Comics Library #2 (1983) that Clark Kent was named for movie actors Clark Gable and Kent Taylor (who happened to be Jerry's wife's brother-in-law), and his appearance was based on comedian Harold Lloyd. Though Jerry and Joe were both longtime pulp fans, they made no mention of Doc Savage or the Shadow. WaxTadpole (talk) 19:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Lloyd? Heh, that fits: the "glasses character" is more athletic than he looks. —Tamfang (talk) 05:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Change to acting paragraph[edit]

I've changed this paragraph:

Some fans have noted that in order for the disguise to be credible, Clark has to be at least as skilled an actor as Christopher Reeve(Or, more modernly, Brandon Routh. The actor's portrayal of Clark in the feature film series was praised for making the disguise's effectiveness credible to audiences (though not all fans embraced it as warmly). According to the 2004 limited series Superman: Birthright (which retells Superman's origin), young Clark Kent studies the Meisner technique so that he can seamlessly move between his Clark and Superman personas.

To this: Some fans have noted that in order for the disguise to be credible, Clark has to be at least as skilled an actor as Christopher Reeve. The actor's portrayal of Clark in the feature film series was praised for making the disguise's effectiveness credible to audiences (though not all fans embraced it as warmly). According to the 2004 limited series Superman: Birthright (which retells Superman's origin), young Clark Kent studies the Meisner technique so that he can seamlessly move between his Clark and Superman personas. In the 2006 feature film, Brandon Routh's performance echoes Reeve's.

My reasons are two. First, the original placement of the Brandon Routh reference disrupts the flow of thought of the paragraph, making it unclear who is being referred to in "The actor's portrayal of Clark." Second, "modernly" is not a word.

52: Stop the press[edit]

Should we add a character history featuring Clark Kent's exploits during 52 (comics)? ACS (Wikipedian) [[User talk:Ace Class Shadow]] 20:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this page exist?[edit]

No other hero has a separate page for their secret identity. Batman and Bruce Wayne are the same article, Wonder Woman and Princess Diana are the same page. This page is frivolous and should be completely merged with the Superman page. There is no pertinent reason for this page to exist on its own.

Well, at the very least, there is specific discussion on the Superman/Clark Kent identity issue. This isn't discussed in the Superman article. Superman is rather unique in the sense that he has three conflicting identities. Although if we were to continue with the thought, there should be a seperate article on Kal-El. On reflection, I second this opinion and sugest that there be a Clark Kent section of the main Superman article. It would also be my recomendation that when/if the move is made, that the Clark Kent information remain intact to help illustrate the main poin of the unique identity conflict within the character.
Almost every super hero has the same conflicts keeping their super hero and secret identity seperate. Spider-Man, Batman... the list goes on. It's simply a device used in comics. Superman's case is not that unique, most interpritations of the character have Superman as the TRUE face, and Clark Kent as the assumed "fake" identity, which is opposite of the norm, but not radically diffrent. That can be addressed on the Superman page. (Animedude 06:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

DarthAlbin 03:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because he's Superman. He is the A-list. Clark is the personification of secret identities everywhere. The first secret ID. And Smallville is a show about Clark, not Superman, anybody who says otherwise is MUD
Superman was NOT the first character with a secret identity. the concept had been in fiction for hundreds of hyears before the first comic book was printed, and even some comic heros such as The Shadow beat Superman to the punch. Superman is not that unique among the superhero patheon. (Animedude 06:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
But Superman and Clarck Kent are the same person! Might as well add an article about Kal-El, it's just stupid. And "Smallville" is about Clark aka Kal El aka Superman growing up. It's like saying that the Matrix is about Thomas Anderson but not Neo.

Why are we worried about why this page exist? Are we running out of internet? Leave it where it is, its insightful if nothing else. As to who is he really? I see it like this. "Metro-Clark" is a watered down version of the true Clark Kent, Kal-El is the original part of himself, the birth identity that all adoped children have. Its who they were, who they might have been if only but, not REALLY who they are. Superman? Superman is the TRUEST expression of who Clark Kent really is. He's a man raised in the heartland with the morals of a 5th generation farming family. In the Heartland , out among the wheat fields, you're liable to see 1 neighbor who has, helping another neighbor who doesn't. In that tradition, taken to the extreme that Clark's abundance of ability has over those of us without, considering his upbringing and where he was raised, it would only be natural for him to help when, where and how he can and Superman allows him to be all that he can to everyone he can. While Kal-El is who he was born as and "Metro-Clark" allows him a personal life and loved ones, Superman is the alias that the true Clark Kent has taken to be who he was raised to be.

The page does not need to exist. Most superheroes use the identity dilema as a plot device. Let me give yo an example, Spider-man was a normal person before getting super powers, Superman was born a super being. As such, Spider-man argably had a harder time ajusting to life as a superhero, balancing duty with personal wants. The story is much deeper than with Superman, who had superpowers all his life. Yet "Peter Parker" redirects to Spider-Man, and all this information is contained there. There is no need for this article. (Animedude 06:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
But aren't "Clark Kent" and "Peter Parker" evocative of different things? Think of "Clark Kent" and you'll first get the image of a tall straitlaced man in glasses who also happens to be Superman. Think of "Peter Parker" and it's more likely that you'll "mentally redirect" to Spider-Man. In terms of secret identities, "Clark Kent" has become a synonym, as stated in the article; Peter Parker isn't quite there yet. Captain Yesterday 17:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The articles for both personas must be sufficiently long to justify splitting them. If one is a stub and the other is long, or if both are merely mid-length (i.e., no more than 15-25kb or so), the two should be merged.
  2. There must be a minimum of information repeated on both pages. The purpose of multiple pages is to allow new information to be added that wouldn't otherwise fit; it is not to breed redundancies.
  3. Both personas must be highly noteworthy and distinct. Ideally, they should get over a million google hits each, though it is possible that exceptions might be made for less mainstream characters.
Without Clark, Superman isn't a hero. He is an all-powerfull being too far from humanity to care whether or not people ar hurt, dying, or anything else. A World War could be going on, and Superman wouldn't care. Who comes to the rescue? Superman. Why does he come to the rescue? Clark.
"Clark is who I am. Superman is What I can do." - Clark Kent —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.210.47.18 (talk • contribs) 04:43, 16 December 2007

I wasn't aware Superman had a personality, now people come and say he has two? --200.62.131.14 (talk) 15:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And that, right there, is a perfect example of why I support a cleaned-up version of this page. King Zeal (talk) 16:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the article needs a lot more citations, but I oppose a merge for two reasons: (1) "The Private Life of Clark Kent" ran as a separate series in Action Comics, Superman, and Superman Family. There were 46 installments published between 1972 and 1982 (source: www.comics.org). An attempt to create a similar series for Bruce Wayne was aborted after two installments. I'm not aware of any other superhero having a recurring feature devoted to his alter ego. (2) There were two issues of DC Comics Presents (#50 & 79) featuring team-ups of Superman and Clark Kent. Clark even had his own logo on the covers. Again, there's been no other superhero considered different enough from his alter ego to justify a cover-billed "team-up." WaxTadpole (talk) 19:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Peter Parker, the Spectacular Spider-Man – though that title soon drifted away from PP content, while Amazing Spider-Man took on more PP content, if memory serves. —Tamfang (talk) 05:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but PP was basically just another Spider-Man title. The PLoCK series was solely about Clark. The stories dealt exclusively with his assignments as a reporter and his interactions with neighbors and co-workers. Even though he used his powers in inconspicuous ways, he never changed to his Superman costume. WaxTadpole (talk) 19:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was just wondering this same question myself! As for the "certain things are covered here that aren't covered on the Superman page" argument... could the info being covered here and not there not just be added there? Having two pages for one character just seems odd?Cebr1979 (talk) 03:49, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Smallville[edit]

I've added a lot more to the Smallville section of the page. If you read through it you may agree with me on the fact that it'll need editing over time but please don't delete it or ruin it. Son of Kong 04:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I know that last comment was a long time ago, but don't post anything on Wikipedia if you do not want it edited. Anyway, this Smallville section is very long and does not focus so much on the Clark Kent identity like the rest of the article - it seems to be an ovely detailed synopsis of the series so far. This is unnecessary and can be achieved by a link to the Smallville page.

All that is relevant is some of the traits section. I may have a go at pruning this.Nda98 20:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced article needing citations[edit]

There is a considerable amount of original research in this article without citations. This needs to be rectified in order for this article to continue to exist independent of Superman.Netkinetic | T / C / @ 17:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bit of a Catch 22 - if we keep it, it's an entirely unsourced article, but if it's merged, Superman's article is damaged. - A Link to the Past (talk) 09:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look Guys, Superman is the same as Spider-Man, Batman, Captain Marvel, Plastic Man, And The Martian Manhunter, they're all equal. This page should not exist, and should not be mentioned anywhere else, And also Anakin And Darth Vader are a diferent Thing, And Kal L is not the same person, He's from a different universe, clark and superman are the same identity in the same universe. You guys are all wrong. Really. So please erase this for good, once and For All. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.116.172.70 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 19 July 2007

Just wondering...[edit]

The cop snaps, "Yeah, and I'm gonna give you a red 'S' and a black 'I' if you don't come out of that phone booth!"


68.62.227.73 02:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black i s a blck eye. the S is refering the one on supermans chest, J (talk) 17:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At a guess, "red S" refers to a spanking. —Tamfang (talk) 03:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bill Cosby used this gag in his comic routine in the 1960s. It's on one of his very early record albums, and it involves Clark Kent getting busted by the police for taking off his clothes in the phone booth. "I'm Superman, can't you see this red 'S'?" he maintains; and then the cop snaps ... etc. WHPratt (talk) 16:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That was easy. Check the article entitled Bill Cosby Is a Very Funny Fellow...Right!. It's his first album. You'll see a track called "Superman." (I listened to these all the time as a kid.) WHPratt (talk) 16:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal[edit]

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


After reviewing the discussion, I see strong points from both sides. The issues that come about in favour of merging is that both Clark Kent and Superman are the same character - true, but in two very differenct contexts. Also, there is a worry that the information is not verifiable, the non varifiable information should be discussed and removed from the article if not independant sources can be found. Against the merge, it's noted that Clark Kent was actually merged out of the Superman article in the first place because the section was growing too big - it's highly likely therefore that this would happen again. They also state that although Kent and Superman are the same people, they are in fact two very different characters. I appreciate both sides arguements here and the result of this discussion is that there is no consensus for the merge to take place. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then the solution to that problem would be simple; reduce the size of the Clark Kent section by not including every insignificant little detail. Right now, the Trivia section could go, since it shouldn't be there anyway, and the 'Which is the "real identity"?' could also go as it is completely unsourced and looks to me like nothing but speculation and OR - these two points damage quite badly the arguemnt 'there is enough information here to keep them separate'. The 'Smallville' section could also be moved to the Smallville page and we simply post a link to that page. I think this is the beginning of an adequate resolution to your problem.
Also, I don't see why Clark Kent and Superman are more deserving of separate articles than other superheroes. Please explain to me why, if you can say Clark Kent and Superman are iconically different as Kent is the 'everyman,' you can't say that Peter Parker is the 'every teenager'. Also, Clark Kent is no more synonymous with 'secret identity' than any other superhero who keeps his true identity a secret. asyndeton 15:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "who is the real identity" section isn't completely OR. Hell, that very question actually came up in a very recent issue of the Superman comic, and there is still the Kill Bill scene in which Bill calls Clark Kent the "costume", the episode of Superman: The Animated Series in which Superman says "Clark Kent is who I am", and the episode of Lois & Clark in which he says "Clark is who I am. Superman is what I can do." Dismissing the entire section as OR just isn't appropiate, I think.King Zeal 16:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Clark Kent is no more synonymous with 'secret identity' than any other superhero who keeps his true identity a secret. - Patently false. Ichormosquito 11:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly? Peter Parker has a genetic mutation that makes him stick to walls and shoot webbing from his wrists and he keeps that pretty damn secret. Bruce Banner turns into a green, destructive monster when he gets angry. He keeps that under wraps. asyndeton 11:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Superman's introduction in the radio and TV series included "...and who, disguised as Clark Kent...", which almost everyone, even non-comics fans, recognizes as part of the Superman mythology. Superman also has the distinction of being a hero whose Silver Age stories maintained a constant theme of having to defend his secret identity from snoops (namely Lois Lane). Peter Parker has almost never had to do so. And also, you're just flat out wrong about Bruce Banner. The fact that he is the Hulk is public knowledge. King Zeal 12:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention, following Civil War, the public knows about Peter being Spider-Man. In fact, Jameson sues Parker over fraud. Anakinjmt 20:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I refuse to believe that we cannot cut down the size of the Superman article. I'm sure it will be more challenging than other articles, since it is a featured article and we would want to preserve that status, but I'm still sure that it wouldn't be impossible. Maybe some of the information can be split into another article, and please don't say anything to the tune of that defeating the point of merging them, or just moved into another existing article. asyndeton 19:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, after looking over the article, a huge portion of the sections are summaries of other articles (they even list "See such-and-such-article for more info." Trimming down on even more doesn't seem too possible. The only sections that haven't been expanded into separate articles are Creation, Copyright Issues, Inspiring a Market, Merchandising, Literary Analysis, and Popularity, and frankly, none of those sections seems too big to demand their own article. Where exactly could you cut? Anakinjmt 20:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment: I was recently rewatching the Bryan Singer/Ken Burns special Look, Up in the Sky: The Amazing Story of Superman, during which the discuss Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman and the focus of Clark Kent as being different than Superman, and thus the novelty of using him as the primary focus of the show. There are distinctive aspects that do separate Clark from Superman, in addition to the size of the current Superman article, both which merit a no merge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.109.248.114 (talk) 21:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa, nice. I'd forgotten about those cases of Clark Kent and not Superman. That should help for sure. Anakinjmt 03:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC) (UTC))[reply]
Smallville is just ONE version of Clark, and he's not even Superman yet in Smallville, so how do you know he'll act the same as Superman as he does as Clark Kent? Besides, the debate alone warrants the article, I think. They will share similarities, sure, because the same being portrays both, but the debate along warrants the Clark Kent article. And, again, the Superman article would be way too long. Anakinjmt (talk) 16:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I think this article simply needs is references to Clark Kent being the penultimate example of a "secret identity" or a foppish facade. I'm pretty sure that if the Wikipedia community pools its heads together, we can find MORE than enough examples. King Zeal (talk) 16:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a question: have you read the article? Because I think a read-through of the article clearly shows the difference. Besides, this article and the Superman article are too long to be merged. Anakinjmt (talk) 23:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How would I be able to comment if I hadn't even read the article? I have and I stand by my convictions. You could create another meaningless article in Bruce Wayne which could be copiously long, but we have not as it is not practical. Sometimes you just have to cut your losses and cut down on content. Who knows, if the merge really doesn't work out, you can always restore the article. And I watch the pages I comment on, so no need to post on my talk page. Cheers, :) Spawn Man (talk) 02:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some people just see a merge tag with another article and they automatically jump to the discussion and give their reasons without reading the article. Some people also aren't watching every page that they comment on. As I've said before, the discussion on who is the real identity alone warrants the article, and adding anything of significant length to the Superman page, which is an FA, would risk the article being too long. Anakinjmt (talk) 05:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little tired of this pathetic argument 'They're both too long to be merged'. I refuse to believe, once you have cut through the cruft and unsourced info, that the relevant info could not be moved into the Superman one. asyndeton (talk) 17:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one thing everybody is forgetting to mention: The television series Smallville. In my opinion, that series justifies the article right there. Clark Kent is the main character of Smallville, not Superman, therefore, the article should remain because it is about the main character of a television series. Plenty of television characters have their own articles. The page must remain for that reason. Case closed. Johnred32 (talk) 20:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but Smallville kinda sucked. Let's not base our decisions on B-grade series, but on logic. Spawn Man (talk) 03:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. It is true that Smallville isn't exactly the end all be all of shows (I don't even watch it) and may not be the best argument. But, you mentioned the Batman/Bruce Wayne thing, but their is a major difference. The Bruce Wayne article was a short stub and was, in layman's terms, crap. Here is the article at its last revision before being blanked. The article was a stub, it was useless, it needed to be merged. This article is a B class article that is strong enough to stand on its own. Johnred32 (talk) 04:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't even know they had an actual Bruce Wayne article until just now. My point is, regardless of whatever the condition of the article that was once there, a great Bruce Wayne article could be made from the tonnes of information out there, but it's just not practical. The same should go for Superman. I'm not going to comment further here (Kinda lame really) and I stand by my opinion. Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 06:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Asyndeton, you keep saying "I refuse to believe the articles can't be cut down." If you think the Superman article can be cut down to fit the info here, then go for it. But, considering that article's status as an FA, you will run into a lot of opposition in trying to cut the article down to a manageable size that can include the info here. And the article is already pretty much a summary of other articles dealing with Superman. Trying to cut that down to fit the whole argument in is, IMO, not only next to impossible, but impractical as well (hence why I along with others believe that the length of both articles prohibits a nice, clean marge). This article should not exist for the sole reason that Smallville deals with Clark, not Superman (although, that is a good argument in the broader "who is the real identity" debate). It should exist because of the argument. I believe that the argument over who is the real identity is notable enough to have its own article, and the best place for it is in the Clark Kent article? Will there be some info here that is repeated in, say, the history of Superman article? Sure. That's going to happen. But, there is enough different material to warrant its own article. Anakinjmt (talk) 20:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting we cut down the Superman article; I'm suggesting we take anything that is noteworthy, appropriate and not fancruft from this article and put it in the Superman article, or another if there is an article in which it would be better suited. But the Superman article's featured status cannot be the sole reason for not merging. asyndeton (talk) 20:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so then how about you go through this article and do just that? You're the only one suggesting it, so you're the best person to do that. If it can be cut down to a good length, I won't have a problem with merging the two, although I suggest creating a sandbox to get a good idea of what the appropriate length would be, instead of just changing this article. Anakinjmt (talk) 21:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no interest in Superman and I'm not going spend my time trying to create an amalgamtion of the two articles that would work; I'm simply here because I don't think Superman should be any different to the dozens of other superheroes out there. asyndeton talk 20:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then I must say that it's entirely unfair that you "refuse to believe the articles can't be trimmed down" when you're not willing to make the edits yourselves. And the fact is, Superman IS different from all the other superheroes out there. He was the first one, and a lot of things of the superhero genre that are now considered staples, such as secret identities, all started with Superman. Like Alexander Luthor said during Infinite Crisis, "Everything begins with Superman." Anakinjmt (talk) 21:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. We should simply close discussion, due to the crackpot idea they're the same person. Next people will believe that flakey billionaire playboy Bruce Wayne is some tough-as-nails vigilante. 66.109.248.114 (talk) 01:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, can this discussion close with no consensus. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 20:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
No, this will end with a decision, one way or the other. This has clearly caused a large amount of interest and we are not going to pretend this never happened - which, coincidentally, would mean you getting your way - just because there are differing opinions. asyndeton talk 20:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If consensus can't be reached, consensus can't be reached, and things will stay the same. It's not "getting our way," it's a matter of there simply being no consensus, so things will stay as they are. It's been going on since October, for almost a full two months. If we can't get consensus after two months, I doubt we'll get to one in the near future. Anakinjmt (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. As Ace ETP notes, the article is wildly speculative, engages in armchair psychiatry, and lacks sources. It would be far better served integrated into the main article. As to space concerns at Superman, perhaps some review for brevity is needed there as well. Even an FA can get some pruning without much controversy if handled properly, and arguing about that instead of this is strawman in nature anyways. ThuranX (talk) 21:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Clark Kent is Superman who was born Kal-El. It doesn't make sense that there are two seperate articles about the same person just because he changes into a costume and takes off his glasses.--Pilot expert (talk) 14:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll say it again: it's not a simple matter like Bruce Wayne becoming Batman or Peter Parker becoming Spider-Man. Superman is the iconic superhero; he is the most thought of character when the word "superhero" is mentioned. If it wasn't for him, superheroes like there are today wouldn't exist; as Alexander Luthor says in Infinite Crisis, "Everything begins with Superman." Because of this, and the his longevity, there is a huge debate over who is the real identity. Especially when for decades it was thought to be Superman, and now it's thought to be Clark. I'll only say this one more time, to not seem like a broken record, but the debate alone warrants the article. I've noticed no one has responded to that, which IMO is a huge reason for keeping them separate. You take that out, and I'll vote for merge. Also, a lot of people have been saying "trim the Superman article down then" or "trim the Clark Kent article down then" to fit them. If that's what you think, and what you want to have happen, then go for it! Show us it can be done, because I personally don't see how it can be. Anakinjmt (talk) 14:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I reiterate, no consensus. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 23:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Merge: I stronly suggest merging it. People say there is a very large difference between Kent and Superman. Peter Parker and Spider-Man aren't two different articles, and Kent need not either. I think we should just cut the text off the Kent article and paste it under Early Life in the Superman article. --The Dark Lord of Wiki (talk) 17:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Really, the only reason this article should exist separately from the Superman article is for one of two reasons - A) if there are reliable third-party sources establishing Clark Kent as a notable character in his own right, or B) if there is enough relevant, reliably sourced information with real-world context to justify it branching off as a subarticle of the Superman article. Currently, I don't see either. There's lots of information sure, but most of it seems to be plot and original research; fans simply regurgitating what happens in the comics/films/shows and commenting on it themselves with personal analysis. If Clark Kent really is independantly notable as the definitive/archetypal secret identity as has been said in this discussion, then there should be sources discussing that. Sorry, but your opinion as a fan doesn't hold weight; you have to prove it. If there's so much info here that couldn't be covered on the Superman article, then that info should also be sourced and have context. It doesn't all have to be from third parties - comments from the Smallville writers about how they developed the character don't establish notability but they are relevant. This isn't a case of "Are Clark and Superman the same person?"... that's irrelevant, the issue is whether there's enough relevant, sourced information to warrant a seperate page. Based on the current article, there's not, and because of this, I'm inclined to say merge. I'm almost certain that enough sources exist out there for Clark Kent to deserve his own page, but until you find those sources and impliment them, you can't justify keeping this article.  Paul  730 01:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose Per WP:Size if the 2 articles were merged we would have an article here well over 100 KB long, which is a blantent violation of the 32 KB article size guideline. Sawblade05 (talk to me | my wiki life) 14:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose in principle. While I agree that this article is poorly cited, I don't agree that it is a topic unworthy of a separate article. I certainly don't want every comic book character to be split into separate articles for heroic identity and secret identity. However, I think we should allow for exceptions to that rule. I feel that there is enough legitimate material here to warrant an article. And I believe that Clark Kent is notable enough in his own right that we should be able to find reliable sources (preferably secondary) to either back up or replace the OR. It's not going to kill me if these two articles do end up being merged, but I think that not allowing for the possibility of a stand-alone article is a mistake. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 20:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I see Bruce Wayne mentioned in this discussion frequently. I haven't looked over the discussions that led to its merger with Batman, but I'm sure that similar arguments were presented. However, I do find it interesting that Matches Malone is still a separate article. Perhaps if we can find some scholarly resources discussing the Kill Bill question, i.e., the extent to which Clark Kent is a "made up" persona, not unlike Matches Malone, it will help to justify this article's existence. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 20:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is an exhaustive discussion that has been going for almost 3 months and is cycling with no resolve. There is clear precidence in wiki of when in doubt, do nothing, which is the case here. The coversation has pushed the talk page to 33Kib, which clearly is a reflection of how thorough a discussion this has been. No consensus. - 66.109.248.114 (talk) 19:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Do you think that just because you write 'no consensus' in bold that this is immediately going to end? asyndeton talk 19:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully. Do you think that because you take offense to my reassertion of the obvious, that I am not right? no consensus. (34Kib and growing). -66.109.248.114 (talk) 20:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
FYI you can continue to list the size of this page as long as you want but it won't stop discussion. You think once a talk page is past a certain size that no more discussion can be had? It's called archiving. asyndeton talk 20:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am fully aware of archiving. What may have been missed in my previous edits was that I am using the current size of the talk page (35Kib) to better illustrate the point that this discussion has been going on too long, with equally valid points, but not resolve ... the definition of no consesnus. - 66.109.248.114 (talk) 02:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

(re-tab) I'm inclined to agree. This debate has been going on since October 13, almost 3 months ago. I'm inclined to believe that no consensus can be reached here. And I think that citations can be found for this article. Anakinjmt (talk) 20:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably the longest running merge debate that I have continually paid attention to, so I don't actually know if there are any Wiki guidelines or policies on how much time it should be allowed to go on for. Is there any suggested maximum? asyndeton talk 21:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Fair use rationale for Image:Superman 296.jpg[edit]

Image:Superman 296.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 08:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck was decided?[edit]

Merge or not? Really I see no reason not to merge it (Its not lack of net space merging it, once merged it would weigh the same as both separated, with slight differences in weight as redundance might be avoided now and then. The importance of keeping them together is so those searchign for either data to find it in a single cohesive piece) but I read the decision was to make a merge yet I see no single merger inthis theme.Undead Herle King (talk) 05:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The question I had in this discussion[edit]

Can somebody answer it? Because the discussion closed so fast that nobody had the chance to answer. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 14:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did I ask whether or not there are reliable sources? No I didn't my question was how is Clark any more notable than other superhero's human personalities? you still haven't answered that question yet. Large number of reliable sources doesn't answer anything. How is Clark Kent any more notable than Batman's Bruce Wayne for example? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 16:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On wikipedia, notability is determined by the number of reliable sources. He was answering your question pretty directly. Wrad (talk) 16:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but I still don't get how Clark is any more notable than the others, how would it apply to Clark and not Bryne? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 16:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe he isn't more notable, you'd just have to find reliable sources for the others to prove Wayne needs his own article. Wrad (talk) 16:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there is no reason why Peter Parker won't be split off from Spider-Man if the section on him got large enough and was well sourced enough that it needs a split. The thing is the Clark Kent is probably the best known alter ego of a superhero and so it is no surprise that it is the first one to be split off but that doesn't mean it is the last. (Emperor (talk) 17:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Canon[edit]

There is a lot of lose talk about "canon" (see my comments at Talk:Canon (fiction)) and statements like "Other concepts have become the current accepted canon in most modern versions of the Superman myth" raise red flags.

Establishing what is and isn't canon is often a sport for fans and without well sourced statements that there is an actual canon and that this is part of it then it is just reporting speculation and is pretty much original research. (Emperor (talk) 17:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Clarksupescompare.jpg[edit]

The image Image:Clarksupescompare.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another identity theory[edit]

I'm not sure if this warrants inclusion, but I distinctly remembering reading one explanation about how Kent manages to be so distinguishable from Superman, based on the idea that Superman's facial structure (and perhaps his physique in general), was more defined and muscular compared to that of Kent's. I'm not sure if this is conveyed in any of the comics, or how exactly Superman would manage to pull it off, but that explanation is out there, and probably makes the most logical sense compared to the others, although that's obviously a matter of opinion. Km9000 (talk) 06:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

> The dual identity was explained a long time ago by its Jewish creators: Superman needs no disguise because he represents the Jew in society; you dont know a person is a Jew unless he reveals it. You may suspect it, but you can't know for sure. Superman is also a Noahide. The Kryptonian names are all Hebrew names; El = God etc. [Fivish UK]

I've always thought the reason most people, Lois, Jimmy, and Perry aside, don't know Clark's secret is most people only know Clark as a byline and Superman as someone seen in the sky way overhead.Ztyran (talk) 16:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Re : ===Knowledge of the secret identity=== In one memorable story from the early 1960s, Superman is expected to meet Clark Kent at some public event, and cannot avoid it. Circumstances rule out his usual tricks, e.g., he can't get a Superman robot loose, and his pal Batman can't show up disguised as Kent. But Clark does appear, and saves the day and the secret identity. What gives? Clark is subsequently revealed to be the President of the U.S., John F. Kennedy, in a rubber mask. Turns out that the Chief Executive can be trusted with the secret. (Your guess is as good as mine whether Johnson, Nixon, etc. got the same privileges.) WHPratt (talk) 06:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's canon, so I would guess so: along with getting the "the talk" about how to use the nuclear force and what'll happen if you do, I guess the President gets Superman's secret identity. (Makes sense, because he might need to contact Kent in dire emergency.) AFAIK this has canonical fact has never been reversed or withdrawn. (An interesting question, though, is who tells the new President? Is the Secret Service or CIA or FBI officer who is also entrusted with the secret? Or does Superman himself visit and do it? Probably the latter I'd guess. Herostratus (talk) 21:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, the First Lady, the Vice President, the Secret Service, the Cabinet, etc. can't be in on this, so Superman must have spirited off the Chief Executive in secret to make this work. WHPratt (talk) 01:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So, another question that would have come up more recently, would Donald Trump be entrusted with Superman's secret identity? If so, wouldn't there be a danger that he'd blackmail Superman, sell the info to Lex Luthor, or otherwise use it aggrandize himself or, even if not, blurt it out as a brag during a speech. Definitely the fact that he knows it, even if he didn't give away the actual identity. Or maybe give some hand-handed hint that can be easily figured out. But if Supes didn't entrust Trump, he's making judgements about the trustworthiness of different presidents, which kind of veers toward politics. And of course witholding from the United States info that could be important to it, i.e. how to contact him at once to stop a mistaken nuclear missile launch or alien attack or whatever. Herostratus (talk) 03:51, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mergement[edit]

I see no reson to merge,I mean it talks alot about the Superman/Clark kent identity issue. So i hope nobody tries to merge it again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.184.238.43 (talk) 13:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reshuffling of material[edit]

I wish I could have done all this in fewer intermediate edits, but it's done now.

In the previous version there was a section Debate over true identity with a subsection In other media. Much material in the separate Reeve movies section belonged in the Debate over true identity but wasn't situated in there, while material in the debate subsection In other media was not about the debate at all.
Therefore, I've made In other media a top-level section- no longer a subsection of the debate section- and put all the stuff about the films and Smallville into it. Material from those sections that belonged in the Debate over true identity section has been relocated there.

There was no discussion at all about George Reeve's very distinctive portrayal of Clark Kent in the 1950s, and I think Dean Cain could have gotten one or two more sentences than he did. Nor was there any discussion of contrast and comparison between different TV/film portrayals of Kent, which I've added to the up-promoted In other media section.

So I've reshuffled a lot of this, but hopefully in an orderly way. I couldn't figure out a good place for the Bill Cosby album stuff- it's currently not there at all. It certainly didn't belong in the Debate over true identity section, but I'm not sure where to put it.

Regards,

--WickerGuy (talk) 03:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, not bad, but I see a pretty large problem which remains. You use far too much original research to fill much of the section (such as referring to Superman as a Christ-like figure). If it's not original (and I'm sure that many people have made this comparison before), then we'll be needing sources. King Zeal (talk) 06:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The DVD commentary on the Superman movie overtly refers to the deliberate use of quasi-Biblical imagery. Perhaps I should have cited this, but I thought it was broadly recognized by the public. The DVD of the theatrical version has a commentary by two of the original three producers (the younger Salkind and Pierre Spengler). The DVD of the slightly expanded cut has a commentary by the original director and one of the (uncredited) screenwriters (Donner and Mankiewicz). I've heard both but only the first of these recently, and it's the one which spells this out. Perhaps the other one mentions it as well. I think Christopher Reeve has talked about it in interviews as well.

Furthermore a lot of commentary on the Jewish origins of Superman (Siegel and Shuster) has actually complained about the Reeve movie's quasi-Christian symbolism, given that the Man of Steel's creators were Jewish and if anything saw their hero as more Moses-like than Christ-like. There are in fact two full-length books on the Jewish origins of Superman as well as multiple articles in Jewish publications. They all assume as a given that the Reeve films incorporated quasi-Christian imagery. I could try hunting these down as references as well.

I tend to go on the assumption that if I've read something in more than five sources then it is sufficiently common knowledge as to not require citation. I could be wrong, especially of all of the sources are quite specialized.

In the case of material on George Reeves, I cited specific episodes to back me up, although Wikipedia prefers that third-party rather than primary sources be used. (Episodes of the series would be considered a primary source and therefore not fully adequate.)

Regards, --WickerGuy (talk) 07:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made a small correction in the In Other Media section. Previously, it stated that Lois in Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman had married and divorced Lex Luthor, but she in fact refused him at the altar in the S1 episode, "House of Luthor." Does descriptive information from a primary source need to be cited? Echo97 (talk) 05:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never for plot summaries. Not sure if I wrote that of it's one of the leftovers from an earlier version. I think I would have checked.--WickerGuy (talk) 05:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C-Class rated for Comics Project[edit]

As this B-Class article has yet to receive a review, it has been rated as C-Class. If you disagree and would like to request an assesment, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment and list the article. Hiding T 13:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning "Secret identity security"[edit]

Could anyone help me understand why the phrase, "Some fans have noted that in order for the disguise to be credible, Clark has to be at least as skilled an actor as Christopher Reeve" catches my eye as inappropriate? I really can't place it, it seems both like fanboyism and a statement that requires a citation to clarify who these "Some fans" are.

Thanks in advance,

Soly (talk) 20:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there is a citation, this violates WP:Weasel for exactly the second reason you mentioned.--WickerGuy (talk) 00:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use of File:Clarksupescompare.jpg[edit]

The non-free use of this image in the article is being discussed at WP:NFCR#File:Clarksupescompare.jpg. All interested editors are welcome to participate. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:47, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Clark Kent. 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:

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:46, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for standalone article[edit]

I see that Clark Kent was merged into Superman. I still believe it is possible for there to be a standalone article based on the persona. Copying my comment from here:

Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 22:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Categories