Talk:Doc Savage

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Radio Portal
This article is supported by the Radio WikiProject.

This project provides a central approach to Radio-related subjects on Wikipedia.
Please participate by editing the article attached to this page and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards. Visit the wikiproject page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
WikiProject Comics
comics
Portal
This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Help with current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project talk page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Please explain the rating here.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] French Doc Savage?

There is a book called The City of Gold and Lepers. The main character is ridiculously similar to Doc Savage (his name is Doc Ardan, he is a surgeon/inventor/explorer and he fights a mad Oriental criminal mastermind in an undiscovered city) but the book was first published in 1911. Could this have inspired Doc Savage?

Uh, probably not, as the book was published in France. There IS another early pulp character that some thing was more of an inspiration. It was reprinted in a pulp fan mag a few years back, with a cover by Steranko. Will have to pull it out of my collection. --Emb021 22:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
One of the biggest inspirations was the real life soldier-spy-adventurer-engineer-writer-etc Col. Richard Henry Savage, there is a write-up about him by Will Murrey in the two-part story 'Doom Dynasty' put out by Millenium Comics (which also features obscure 19th century villain Doctor Nikolai!). -- LamontCranston 04:45, 08 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Red Spider

This paragraph certainly doesn't belong in the intro; maybe a place can be found for it later down, but it might make more sense as its own article. The topic of the paragraph would not seem to be the character Doc Savage, but the novel The Red Spider. Anyway, I'm parking it here for now.

The Red Spider was a novel written about the Cold War with Russia in April 1948 by Lester Dent and was lost. The manuscript was located amongst Dent's papers when it was found out to exist. The story was killed in 1948 by editorial decision though both Dent and the editors liked it. It finally saw print in Bantam, number 95 in their Doc Savage series (July 1979).
I dropped it in the expanded Publication History section. Chuck Welch

[edit] Radio Episode List

To Dnyhagen: Looking at your user page you stated on September 21: "I found and removed some 220+ spam links last night, but I was at a loss how to 'annotate' them, once I'd deleted the offensive links. The 220 I found and deleted were as follows: a.) they were all posted by two anonymous sources, b). they referenced the exact same two sites (otrsite.com and freeotrshows.com) over 90 times each"

I didn't bother to check your other edits as they are in subjects which I had no interest. However, the list of Doc Savage episodes was added by a named Editor (Pepso). It links to a mere listing of episodes. That list does not violate any copyright. The content is verifiable. It on topic here. Please leave it alone.Chuck Welch 06:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The otrsite.com links, all link to a website that sells Audio CD's and .mp3 CD's. How is that not commercial or self-promoting? Here's yet another example. How about a little sanity check here? Tell us how this link can be anything other than a violation of WP's copyright proscriptions? Did anyone bother to read it? It says, in caps, and in red, and I quote, "THIS BOOK IS COPYRIGHTED AND THESE FILES MAY NOT BE LISTENED TO WITHOUT FIRST BEING PURCHASED IN PRINT FORM. BY CLICKING ON THE LINKS BELOW YOU AGREE THAT YOU ARE A LEGAL OWNER OF A VERSION OF THIS BOOK." Now help us understand the apparent logic here. The deleted WP link takes the reader to a page with 14 copyright works, and, at least three copyright images of the actual audio book. Your rationale, please? Dnyhagen 16:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Dnyhagen, I am rewriting this as it looks as though we were editing this discussion at the same time. We were discussing copyright infringment. I did not restore the second link as I feel someone else should decide if Condé Nast has had their copyright violated by the fan-produced audio book.
As for the old time radio list. (1) I don't believe the list of episode titles is either a violation of copyright or a commercial link. Of course, I am not a copyright attorney. What I am is a long time editor in this subject. I don't believe your editing of this subject is anything but an effort to eliminate a competitor's links from these pages. I do not want to take the trouble getting into an edit war with you. I'd be more than willing to ask for a consensus of editors on this link. Are you willing to look for a consensus? Chuck Welch 16:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Show me what wasn't civil--please. You impune the motives or rationale of another editor, while ignoring the validity of the argument for removing clearly inappropriate links. It's the appropriateness of all links here that are under discussion. And indeed I did address the link you raised. Dnyhagen 16:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
And of course we'll all accept consensus--however it's decided. That's the correct way to add what might be controversial links. Offering the fruits of copyright violations on a page, with nothing but a disclaimer not to touch the fruits, is clearly specious. Are we to assume that all readers of such a page have the highest morals or motives? WP's guidelines are prudent in this regard. I vote no, on both otrsite.com links and links to any page which offers copyright works by a mere right-click of the public. Period. Thanks for the clarifications. Dnyhagen 16:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
As I stated, I believe we were editing at the same time. I read a version that started with "How about a little sanity check here?" That's what I believe wasn't civil. I am sorry you feel I am impuning your rationale. I did not enter into this discussion lightly. I wanted to understand why you dropped into this subject out of the blue to remove links, but not offer content. I needed to make sure you weren't a vandal; so I read your user discussion page and history of your edits. Obviously I have not ignored your argument. I simply do not completely agree your interpretation or I wouldn't bother with this discussion. Chuck Welch 16:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Point taken, and thank you for the clarification. But as I stated below, we all--I would hope--approach editing in good faith. This occasional 'theme' amongst Wikipedia editors, of attacking the messenger, while ignoring the merits--or lack of merit--of a proposed link or deletion of a link is subterfuge, and doesn't address the issue. I would simply respectfully suggest, that all further impuning of motives, cease immediately, in favor of discussion the actual merits of a link. I assume your good faith, as I do with all other editors, even when they attack my motives or interests. I find Doc Savage interesting myself, but I'm experienced enough, and honest enough to point out whether a link is--or is not--appropriate, irrespective of my personal or professional interests. As I would hope, are all other Wikipedia editors--until they prove themselves otherwise. Thanks for the further clarification. Dnyhagen 16:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. My expience with Wikipedia is similar, I found too many "editors" who drop into a subject with an agenda. With so few firm rules, many decisions are based on interpretations. There is no way we can get away from two people occasionally reading the same policy and ending up with the different interpretations. Editing an article in Wikipedia is an experience in polishing the glass until we finally are all looking through the same clear lens. I hope this particular experience has resulted in a better article. Chuck Welch 17:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
The content does seem relevant. It is, however, a link to a commercial site selling copies of the shows; is the site violating copyright, and if so is it kosher for WP to be facilitating this via a link? Nareek 13:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Correct. Wikipedia links to 'sites', not pages of a site. Pure and simple. That's been laboriously pointed out to me time and time again here by other editors. Let's be consistent. Links link to sites. If the site is deemed inappropriate, then so is the link. No? Dnyhagen 16:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
The pages primarily lists the 1934, 1943, and 1985 episodes. The question: is the list under copyright? wikipedia:copyrights The early episodes are not for sale as they evidently were lost after the original air date. I'd be fine if we pointed to another page that lists the titles, but since there is no copyrighted work on that page why delete it? Chuck Welch 14:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
The list itself would not seem to be copyrightable, but the site is selling shows which would seem to be copyrighted without apparent permission. The relevant policy at wikipedia:copyrights is:
External sites can possibly violate copyright. Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page in question is not violating someone else's copyright. If it is, please do not link to the page. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry). Also, linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on us. If the site in question is making fair use of the material, linking is fine.
Though the copyright violation is not right there on the page we link to, I'm not sure that that's a meaningful distinction. Nareek 15:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Nareek. I took the phrase "page in question" to heart. What if we link to a page that links to a page that violates copyright? I know the page in question is not violating the copyright of the 1934 and 1943 episodes. I do not see the 1985 episodes for sale on that page. I did not look elsewhere.
I feel that the Doc Savage article is caught in an editing war by a player in the "old time radio" sites. I don't believe he has shown an interest in this topic, but is more concerned with removing links to a competitor.
My only concern is with this topic's validity and completeness. That information is on topic. It should be in this article. It'll be a shame to lose it this way.
I know I'm not a disinterested editor in this article, but neither is Dnyhagen. I appreciate your take on this. I would like to hear from the other editors interested in this subject. I am sure there is a way we can come to a consensus. Chuck Welch 16:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Since when is disinterest, or lack of interest germane here? We all assume good faith in these discussions. Interested, or not, a violation is a violation. Plain and simple. Someone's been watching Fox News a wee bit much. Attacking the messenger doesn't redeem an irredeemable link entry. Period. Dnyhagen 16:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Are the 1934 and 1943 shows copyrighted? If they are, and this page is selling them without authorization, then this would seem to be a page that "illegally distributes someone else's work" and therefore should not be linked to. If they aren't copyrighted or the site owner has authorization, then there's no problem. Nareek 16:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The 1934 and 1943 shows are not being sold on that site or anywhere. As far as is known any copies of the episodes no longer exist. The link is merely to a list of the episode titles. Chuck Welch 16:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Suggestion: to diffuse this whole list of episodes thread, why not merely list the episodes in the article? The existence of the episodes isn't a copyright violation, and a simple list of them in the article would seem to be the easiest way to resolve this. No? Dnyhagen 16:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
A good suggestion. But I feel the list should be separate. I once added a list of all the novels, but it was moved to its own article. (Rightly so I believe.) I will look at the best way to add the content. Chuck Welch 16:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm convinced that such a list within the article can be justified, with an appropriate preamble, as to its usefullness. Frankly, I'd find such a list--regarding radio programmes with a reasonably short list of episodes--extremely helpful to any reading of an encyclopedic article. Is such a list not simply a recounting of the Doc Savage creator's works? Personally, I'd find their placement in a separate article more awkward. Dnyhagen 17:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Oops, I've already added it. (It can be easily deleted if others don't want it, but the text can be easily copied to here.) I added the list of novels long ago. I later agreed with the editor who moved the list to it's own article. The list simply ruined the readability of the article. I think the list of episodes would do the same. If you'll look at the "other media" section you'll see the link I inserted to the list of episode titles.
Yes, but the link to Jerry Haendiges commercial website remains. Apart from the commercial aspect, is that link not now redundant? Thanks. Dnyhagen 18:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
My concern was with the information. I'd agree the link no longer offers information not found in the article. I wouldn't object if it was removed. Chuck Welch 21:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ownership edits

See Talk:Bran Mak Morn#Ownership edits. Nareek 12:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Excised from Cultural references

I've removed this bit here from the article:

  • It cannot but help be suspected that Sapper's Bulldog Drummond had a helping hand in the origin of Doc Savage. Over ten years before, Drummond and his gang (from WWI as were Doc's men), helped him fight super-criminals. Drummond even had the equivalent of "The Clinic" where Doc sent crooks. In the Black Gang where mysterious crime fighters wear garb very reminiscent of The Shadow, also a decade later), they turn out to be Drummond and his men who take criminals to an offshore island and give them a real good beating till they promise to give up their life of crime. The cover for The Black Gang book could be mistaken for a Shadow cover, as in black cloak and hat, a two gun figure is splashed across the cover.

Lack of punctuation and improper use of punctuation — in conjunction with an unsourced supposition that probably qualifies as original research or subjective opinion — make this very hard to read and understand. There may be something here of value, so removing it here for someone else to "fix". I can't make sense of it. 12.22.250.4 22:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I can have a bash at this, but when I'm less tired! _> MonstaPro:Talk 00:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Patricia Savage Stub

It might interest some here that Patricia Savage is a stub. Perhaps move the information into this article?

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Millmob2.jpg

Image:Millmob2.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) 17:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)