Talk:The Shadow (fictional character)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Shadow (fictional character) article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Your changes will be visible immediately.

Does anyone know what the radio drama linked in the "Listen to" section has to do with The Shadow? As far as I can tell it's just a random soap opera type deal with nothing to do crime fighting or anything. Gnos 23:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, someone mention his armament too.

(Most have assumed this power was hypnotism, while some have argued for Qi.)

actually, the shadow has said repeatedly to his qarry that he clouded there minds with hypnotism.

For a period of 6 or 7 or 8 years, I'm not entirely sure which, The Shadow Magazine was actually published twice a month. Which is why the numbers don't quite match up in regards to (sic) '325 stories a month for 20 years'. So at the height of his popularity The Shadow had a weekly radio show, two monthly pulp-fiction magazines, a monthly comic-book and a weekly comic-strip.

Contents

[edit] Dunninger as role model

Mentalist Joseph Dunninger, friend of magician Harry Houdini and of The Shadow author Gibson, is said to have been a model for The Shadow (and is named as such in de.wikipedia.org). Shouldn't we fit this piece of information in somehwere? Gwyndon 03:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright issues

Someone should write something up about the copyright issues surrounding the Shadow (and Doc Savage) pulps--how they were assumed to be in the public domain and have been made available on-line, except that they really were renewed and so aren't, and now the main site making them available on-line is being sued by Conde Nast, the copyright owner.

The information to be found in the story and reader comments here would be a good place to start. --Robotech_Master 14:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree 100%. Ownership is a FACT relevant to the characters and should be included in their enclyclopedia entry. 69.182.106.50 19:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] hiding and nearly invisible

In part, that new incarnation was born of necessity; radio's time constraint made it difficult to describe the Shadow hiding and nearly invisible.

This sentence wants a bit of editing for coherency. What is the last clause supposed to say? "made it difficult to describe the Shadow's ability to hide so he would be nearly invisible"? --68.158.65.87 23:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Signature line

This article gives the Intro line as "Who know what evil lurks in the hearts of men". This is the line from the recent movie. The actual line from the classic radio shows is "Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of MAN" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.54.198.159 (talk • contribs)

Well, Google claims only 183 sites used the "man" version, but ~36,800 for "men," including a few commercial sites selling recordings of the original radio program [1] [2] [3] [4]
I wouldn't have said anything, but there's a recording from the intro. Sounds like "men" to me.
Oh, sign posts on talk pages. You can do this automatically with four tildes (~). JordeeBec 16:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ownership edits

See Talk:Bran Mak Morn#Ownership edits. Nareek 12:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orson Welles?

im new to this, but a man and a fan of the shadow told me that orson welles was NOT the first shadow. his uncle worked on the show...... i dont know how to change it, but im just letting you know, if you wish to be accurate.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.49.22.136 (talk) 18:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1994 Movie Pinball and Video Game

Removed the subsections on the 1994 movie pinball game and video games from this page and put them in the page devoted to the movie 64.134.145.99 16:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "resembled" vs. "disgusied himself as"

It was remarked in several Shadow tales that Allard had a close physical resemblance to Cranston, making "resembled" more accurate than the clumsy phrase "disguised himself as" (besides, ending phrases with prepositions is bad style).Rabidwolfe 01:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Which tales mention this? According to "The Shadow Unmasks," Allard claims to have adopted Cranston's appearance, using those very words. The Shadow was a master of disguise, and therefore able to transform himself into Cranston. "The Shadow Unmasks" describes the two of them, and there is little similarity(72.144.183.221 07:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC))
I have no dog or god in this fight. Haven't read all the pulps and only listened to a handful of radio shows. I do know the movie novelization, which heavily references the pulps, has a sentence that says Kent Allard and Lamont Cranston looked so much alike, Allard needed no disguise, or something like that/words to that effect. Perhaps that is where the confusion is coming from? I doubt the movie novelization is "canon" as far as this article goes. I tried a compromise phrase that is also stylistically better than the above offerings. 129.116.141.238 14:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
But by switching it back to "resembled," it's misleading, since it makes it sounds like Allard naturally resembled Cranston, which the pulps make clear is not the case. And the movie novelization is indeed not canonical, especially as far as the pulps are concerned. "Resembled" may be stylistically better, but it is inaccurate.(72.144.172.6 15:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC))
The pulp "Crime Over Miami" can be read as saying that the Shadow looks like Cranston, since it has the Shadow in daylight, looking just like Cranston. Of course, it uses the verb "disguise", so I doubt that's what it is. However, "Dictator of Crime" contains the following passage -

"Kent Allard reminded Margo of Lamont Cranston. When she tried to reason out the resemblance, Margo decided, smilingly, that it was because the two were so different. Allard's face was thinner than Cranston's; in a sense, it was almost gaunt. His eyes were set, rather than steady. His motions, though deliberate, were done with a precision, whereas Cranston's were leisurely to the point of indolence . . . argo didn't begin to realize that one background could be dropped at will, and the other taken up. Few people could have done it, however, though The Shadow did. He'd found, though, that people would compare Allard with Cranston, as Margo was doing at present. It didn't matter, because the longer the comparison continued, the more they would argue themselves into deciding that the two were different . . . Thus, Allard and Cranston, twinned at first impression, veered from each other, never to be reunited in any person's mind." That seems to imply there is a basic resemblannce, as "Allard and Cranston" are "twinned at first impression" even if they don't look exactly alike. "Resembled" seems accurate enough. 128.83.209.73 16:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Suppositions aside, "The Shadow Unmasks" contradicts this, though. Cranston's face is frequently described merely as masklike throughout the pulps, while Allard's, when we first meet him, is "thin, bronzed." Also, no other pulps make reference to a similarity between Allard and Cranston that I am aware of. Besides, if Allard's true face resembled Cranston's, the villains who saw his true face in the stories mentioned in the article ("The Black Master," "The Shadow's Shadow") would have said something to that effect, not remark that The Shadow had no face of his own. So that's several points contradicting the "Dictator of Crime" account and giving credence to the possibility that Allard's resemblance to Cranston was the product of Allard's talents for disguise. It could be that in "Dictator of Crime," Allard's appearance was retconned to resemble Cranston, especially in the period where the writers were emulating the radio show. Such retcons happened frequently, either deliberately or possibly by mistake.(72.144.198.7 14:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC))
The pulps contradict each other all the time. The quote above seems to prove that there is a case to be made for resemble. You need to get over it. You lost the debate. (Also, I'm using different public access computers. I'm the same guy who provided the quote above and some of the other posts above, despite the differing IP addresses. I really should get a Wikipedia accout. As should this other guy who thinks Allard and Cranston look nothing alike.) 128.83.34.194 18:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


Uhm, whatever. I've decided that this isn't THAT big of a deal. However, before any changes are made to that section again, I'd like to hear from some other people besides unregistered IP addresses. Rabidwolfe 18:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Golden Vulture

The part about the Golden Vulture shows point of view saying that Gibson "butchered" the script and "feared Dent's skill as a writer". Matthew Ilseman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.196.152.192 (talk) 03:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The content about "The Golden Vulture" seems pretty trivial, dealing only with one book of the series, and more interesting to Doc Savage fans than to encyclopedia readers looking for The Shadow. Also, it does have POV. It needs to be sourced or discarded. Pending that decision, I'm removing it to here for future reference:

Fans of Doc Savage who read "The Golden Vulture" (July 15, 1938) are disappointed as it is a run-of-the-mill Shadow story. This is said to be because Gibson, fearing that because of Dent's obvious skill as a story writer he could be called on to do more and more stories until he took over The Shadow, butchered the story, cutting out important and exciting elements from it. This is possible because it was far from Dent's normal standard and because Dent did no more Shadow stories. [citation needed]

Zaslav 04:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

In the Nostalgia Ventures reprint of The Golden Vulture there is an introductory article that talks about the reasons for why Gibson edited The Golden Vulture. The story had been sitting for five years so Gibson had to update the story to fit the current Shadow mythos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.142.101.38 (talk) 00:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No one true Shadow

This is a minor peeve on my part, that I thought I'd at least mention, though I'm not sure it's all that easy to deal with. I think there's a tendency on the part of fans of "The Shadow" to fixate on one incarnation or the other as The Real Shadow, but if you actually look at the history of the character, it evolves very gradually bouncing back and forth though different media. If you take the current introduction of this page literally, you're supposed to regard Walter Gibson as the creator of the Shadow; but really he was back-filling narrative into an existing piece of schtick: the name and voice that announced (and narrated?) the original "Street and Smith" radio series (which I don't think any of us have ever heard -- as far as I know, no recordings survive). In the early Gibson stories threre's even this silly business about how The Shadow himself is the guy who does the radio broadcasts playing The Shadow. You might object that a name and a voice isn't enough to define "character", but Gibson's version doesn't really have all that much depth to it, either -- there the Shadow is a name and a voice and a black cloak. He stays a "man of mystery", which is to say we know very little about what he thinks, where he came from, or even what he looks like under his many disguises. -- Doom 04:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Kenneth Strickfaden

Kenneth Strickfaden page has been started. He is one of the special effects artists responsible for The Shadow. Rogerfgay (talk) 16:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:TheShadowComic01.jpg

Image:TheShadowComic01.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) 06:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Old Requested Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus for move. 199.125.109.104 (talk) 05:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The next two discussions on "the" and "rename" belong to this debate. Rabidwolfe (talk) 23:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Title ("The")

Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name), this article's title really ought to be changed. I would suggest Shadow (character) because the Shadow has been in so many media. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Given the structure of the article, and the various "Naming conventions" guidelines, I agree the article needs either a name change or a re-writ to focus on the show. The name change seems the easier route at this point. — J Greb 01:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
The character's name has never been stated without the definite article preceeding it: unlike the guise of Bruce Wayne who is sometimes referred to as "Batman" and sometimes as "The Batman", the guise of Kent Allard (in the pulps) and Lamont Cranston (on the radio) is never "Shadow", but always "The Shadow". The article title is exactly as it should be. -- Davidkevin 15:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
In the pulps, as the original, printed source material, and in verifiable secondary refrence works is it always "The Shadow", regardless of where it falls in the sentence, when referring to the character? Never "the Shadow"? — J Greb 22:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
While the 't' in "the" may or may not always be capitalized, the point is that the definite article is always used. A character may say "That was Batman," or may say "That was The Batman," or "That was Green Lantern, or "That was the Green Lantern," but always would say either "That was the Shadow" or "That was The Shadow." -- Davidkevin 15:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
WP:NCD 1 & 2 apply here. -- Davidkevin 16:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually WP:NCD point 1 is exactly why I asked the question. Based on the answer you gave, "the" in this case is not always capitalized in running text when discussing the character. As such the convention would be to drop it from the article title.
As to point 2... If this article was primarily about the pulps, radio show, and/or films, then an argument could, and should, be made that the title of the article is reflective of the title of a work. As the article stands though, the lead start off by defining it as a character article.
That's why I originally commented that either the article name needs to change, as proposed, or the article needs to be rewritten so that the lead section, and the overall tone, focuses on the works not the character.
— J Greb 18:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
The fact that you're so insistent on making this change causes me to infer that you're fairly ignorant about the character. Wikipedia rules are to facilitate accuracy, not impede it. The character, the radio program, the pulp magazine, have all always been "the Shadow", capitalized or not. Nobody in any of the stories, radio or print, ever calls him "Shadow" without the definite article, no fan I've ever met in 35 years of fannish activity has ever called him "Shadow" without the definite article, and the title of the magazine is The Shadow Magazine (as compared to, for example, Doc Savage Magazine from the same publisher). -- Davidkevin 03:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Bad assumption. Very, very bad assumption.
Just because someone looks at the guidelines, how they are applied, and how this article is presented does not mean that they lack knowledge or understanding about the subject.
I said it was an inference, based on your insistence on disincluding the "The" in the name, as it seems to me that anyone who knows anything about the character would know it's required. I don't claim infallibility, and no offense was intended. -- Davidkevin 02:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to try an be as clear on this as I can: this article states, at the top in it's lead, that it is about the Shadow as a character.
The guidelines seem crystal clear that in the case of an article about and titled for a character, "the" gets dropped from the character's name.
They are also just as clear that if an article is about and titled for a work, and "The" is part of the work's title, "The" is to be part of the article's title.
Since this article presents itself as about the character, one of three things should be done:
*Changing the title of the article to follow the convention of the guidelines;
*Edit the article's lead to make it clear that the article is about a work or body of works;
or
*A good, solid reason needs to be shown as to why this article is an exception to the guidelines.
Looking at those options, I'd rather see the lead tweaked to move the primary focus off of the character. That seems the least disruptive way to address the discrepancy.
— J Greb 04:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Change the lead. David is correct that "The" is a vital part of the name and J Greb is correct about the guidelines. While this could be a case for Ignore all rules, adjusting the lead should satisfy everybody. CovenantD 06:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Changing the lead works for me. -- Davidkevin 02:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Rename

This is per official Wikipedia policy at WP:NAME#Avoid the definite article ("the") and the indefinite article ("a"/"an") at the beginning of the page name. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I completely disagree. I won't move the article back just yet, but I'm planning on it. Why? Well, the Wiki policy states:If the definite or indefinite article would be capitalized in running text, then include it at the beginning of the page name - This is true of The Shadow. I've looked in several of the pulps and reprint novels, and nearly 100% of the time, the "The" is capitalized. As in "He heard the laugh of The Shadow" or "Quietly, The Shadow disappeared" Or even "You may call me The Shadow." His name is not "Shadow" - the "The" is part of the entire name. His name is "The Shadow." Therefore, since the "The" would be capitalized in running text as per the Wiki guidelines, this name change is unfortunate and wrong. If you want page scans I can give them to you. I'll wait a few days to see what other editors say, but unless there's a really good reason, this page should be "The Shadow" and not merely "Shadow." Rabidwolfe (talk) 16:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I was just about to comment along the same lines as Rabidwolfe. If someone was looking for this article, they would not search for "Shadow", but rather "The Shadow". As you stated, "The" is part of the character's name. The inclusion of the word "The" here aids a reader in finding this article more quickly because "The Shadow" is the acurate name of the character, series, feature film, ect. Hewinsj (talk) 16:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
At the very least it should be changed to "The Shadow (fictional character)". Simply calling the article "Shadow" makes no sense. I would personally prefer that the article is moved back. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Agree, put back the article "The". Wikipedia guidelines are not commandments, and must be tempered with common sense. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 02:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Rabidwolfe, Hewinsj, Adam and Chris. The article title should be either "The Shadow" or "The Shadow (fictional character)" -- Flask (talk) 06:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay - unless there's a really good reason given between now and then, I plan on moving the article tomorrow evening. Rabidwolfe (talk) 21:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
And - DONE! Rabidwolfe (talk) 03:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This opens a big can of worms. Fans of other characters could argue that "The" is integral to "The Joker," "The Spirit," "The Flash," etc., etc. I'm unclear as to the rationale for why "The Shadow" is any different, and which provides a compelling and unique justification for going against MOS. Anyone? --Tenebrae (talk) 04:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

You should really read the above comments. It's because in "The Shadow", (per wikipedia guidelines) the definite or indefinite article would be capitalized in running text . . . then include it at the beginning of the page name. I refer you to my comment above for more discussion. This opens no can of worms. It is quite well established his name is "The Shadow" - not "Shadow." Rabidwolfe (talk) 17:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Of course I read the comments here. I'm not sure you read my question. As I asked, what makes "The Shadow" any different or deserving of special treatment as compared do The Joker, The Hulk, The Spirit, The Flash, The Phantom, The Phantom Lady, The Heap, The Black Widow, The Green Hornet, The Lone Ranger, etc., etc.
There's no justification for this, other than that fans want to have it their way, for the character they like, and the guidelines be damned. I asked why "The Shadow" deserves any special treatment as opposed to The Joker, The Hulk, The Spirit, Flash, The Phantom, The Phantom Lady, The Heap, The Black Widow, The Green Hornet, The Lone Ranger, etc., etc., and got no response but a solipsism that says essentially, "Because I said so."
As regards User:Kintetsubuffalo a.k.a. Chris (クリス • フィッチ)'s remark about "common sense," I wish we wouldn't try to use an old, discredited debate-club trick in which one attempts to undermine another person's argument by coloring one's personal opinion as "common sense" when it's simply one person's opinion.
We don't break guidelines and policies without a thorough hearing first, not afterward. That means an WP:RfC at the very least. I'm reverting this article's title to policy format and calling for an RfC. Can we really argue that that isn't the proper way to do this, when no compelling reason has been given why The Shadow is any different than all the rest? --Tenebrae (talk) 21:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Don't change the name until you have some sort of RfC done. I have given several good reasons why the name should not change, but you keep ignoring them. Here are some more: The Joker, The Hulk, The Spirit, Flash, The Phantom, The Phantom Lady, The Heap, The Black Widow, The Green Hornet, The Lone Ranger, are all, quite often, referred to as "Phantom" or "Flash" or "Black Widow" or "Hulk" without the definite article ("Phantom! Watch out!" or "Hulk smash" or "Hello, Flash.") Quite often, in fact. THE SAME IS NOT TRUE FOR "THE SHADOW." "THE" is part of his name, and, per Wiki guidelines, the definite or indefinite article would be capitalized in running text. You tell me why this article should be an exception to that rule. "The Shadow" is the name of the character. This has nothing to do with a bunch of whiny fans wanting an exception to their character, and everything to do with a some overzealous wiki-ites who apply the rules in cases they don't apply. (It's like the few times I am told that there is a blanket rule that bans links to any and all fan sites. There is no such rule - just some rules that eliminate 99% of fan sites. Same thing here. This rule will eliminate 99% of definite articles in the names of fictional characters - but not in this case. The "The" is as part of his name as "James" is in "James T. Kirk). I keep quoting the actual Wiki rules, Tenebrae just keeps summarizing them (inaccurately). Rabidwolfe (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you feel the need to refer to anyone who disagrees with you as "overzealous wiki-ites"; I certainly never used the phrase "whiny fans." I do often find that people resort to insults when their arguments are not necessarily supportable by objective facts.
Of course people sometimes use the short form to refer to someone. But just because someone may call him "Jim" on occasion doesn't mean he's not James T. Kirk. Yes, the barely literate (version of) the Hulk may refer to himself without the definite article — but General Ross, Rick Jones, Stan Lee, Jack Kirby, etc. all refer to him as "The Hulk."
Aside from the Hulk, your argument is based on greeting: "Phantom! Watch out!"; "Hello, Flash." But the ivory poachers don't say, "Phantom will get us if we're not careful," and the police commissioner doesn't say, "This looks like a job for Flash."
"The Punisher" is the name of that character. Yet as the convention standard states

Avoid the definite article ("the") and the indefinite article ("a"/"an") at the beginning of the page name

Convention: If the definite or indefinite article would be capitalized in running text, then include it at the beginning of the page name. This would be the case for the title of a work such as a novel. Otherwise, do not include it at the beginning of the page name.

Examples: "Netherlands" instead of "The Netherlands", or "Punisher" instead of "The Punisher".

Yes, it's The Shadow. Just like it's The Punisher. There's no objective difference. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I apologize for "overzealous" but the "whiny" comes from comments by others than you - some of the other commentators have been rather snarky about "the fans". As for the names. Let's look at the wiki guidelines again a "the" is okay of it the definite or indefinite article would be capitalized in running text. In the case of novels written about the Hulk or the Flash and even in comics where not every letter is capitalized, the "the" is not capitalized in running text. Yet in every novel about The Shadow, the "The" is capitalized in running text. The "the" in "the Black Widow" or "the Phantom" is also never capitalized. Yet, the "The" in "The Shadow" nearly always is. So there is a difference there, and a clear objective difference. (and it's usually "the Punisher.") Rabidwolfe (talk) 23:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
And you still didn't address my Gaiman point. Even if I were to agree (which I'm not) that the Wiki rule in this case meant the "The" should go, keep in mind Wiki also states the rules should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. Rabidwolfe (talk) 23:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the gracious and conciliatory words; I'm sorry others may have gotten snarky. I'm not sure I understand the Gaiman point; I couldn't find "Gaiman" elsewhere on this page with a search command. Couple of housecleaning notes: I quoted "The Punisher" with cap t since that's what's on the Wiki convention page; and while in many cases overwhelming consensus can help define "common sense," what's common sense to one person may not be so to another, and consensus does seem divided in these two sections. In any event, I appreciate your being "Rabidwolfe" but not living up to that name!  :-)  --Tenebrae (talk) 00:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Funny - the Gaiman point vanished. Probably in a cross posting or something. Anyway, that point was that the protagonist of Gaiman's American Gods is called "Shadow" and that therefore the article Shadow (fictional character) should redirect to the American Gods article. I think the Wiki rules do allow for the "The" to be okay if otherwise there would be two articles with different meanings and one having the article would clear up confusion or something. As for the Rabidwolfe - I'm not usually "rabid" - it just comes from one time someone mangled my real name ("Ivan Wolfe") while announcing me, and afterwards people told me they thought he had announced a "rabid wolf" was about to speak. Rabidwolfe (talk) 00:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Funny indeed! I was just speaking to an attorney on, clearly, a fuzzy phone line, and thought he said he was going to "fight the Germans." He was actually going to "file for adjournment." As he replied when I remarked on this, "No, I pick my battles!"
But you bring up what seems a pertinent, objective point: If there already exists a fictional character called "Shadow", then "Shadow (fictional character)" would not work for the old pulp-novel character. But then "Shadow (fictional character)" would not work for the Gaiman character either, and having both "Shadow (fictional character)" and "The Shadow (fictional character)" just begs confusion.
I'm wondering if "Shadow (pulp fiction)" and "Shadow (novel character)" might be any clearer. Perhaps not, but it's a start.
The other possibility is that, given the generic quality of the name and the character's appearance in one novel, is that Gaiman's Shadow not have an article or a redirect to American Gods. There are literally tens (hundreds?) of thousands of novels, each with a protagonist, and not every one gets an article or a redirect.
The other concern I have is about running text when it concerns a pop-culture character. Because of the nature of comics strips, and of comics books until the last few years, text is rendered in all-caps. Fans of the Phantom or the Lone Ranger, say, may argue that those characters' article should be rendered "The Phantom" or "The Lone Ranger" because of that typographical ambiguity. It just seems like we're inviting edit wars for everything from "The Atom" to "The Zombie". Are we really sure the general public wouldn't know who was meant by "Shadow (pulp fiction)", say? --Tenebrae (talk) 00:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Those are some good points that I need to consider. But not tonight. I must get back to my dissertation. I'll think about these points and get back in a day or two. Rabidwolfe (talk) 01:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
If it helps, there was a footnote in a book I read recently (Serials: Suspense and Drama by Installment by Raymond Stedman) that actually states that The Shadow was always referred to with the definite article. I will try to find it and post it here, as an external reference may help in deciding this point. As an aside, some of the other character articles mentioned already do have the definite article in the title where appropriate, such as The Lone Ranger and The Green Hornet. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Note in specific response to the above: The Lone Ranger article is about the radio show, of which "The Lone Ranger" is the title. ("The Lone Ranger is an American, long-running, old-time radio and early television show....") As for The Green Hornet, on Wikipedia we don't generally point to other articles to bolster a point since many articles are, for example, misformatted.
I'm just very worried about the floodgates opening and everyone insisting their their fan-favorite "deserves" a "The."--Tenebrae (talk) 05:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Quick question. So if his name is "The Shadow" and not "Shadow" why would you call the article "Shadow"? Wouldn't that just confuse people that come to wikipedia to learn about "The Shadow"? Hewinsj (talk) 15:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
The rule states: if a word without a definite article would have a general meaning, while the same word has a specific and identifiable meaning, understood by all, if adding the article, and if there is justification to have separate articles for both meanings, the specific meaning can be explained on a separate page, with a page title including the article. There is an article Shadow that without a definite article has a general meaning and The Shadow has a specific and identifiable meaning AND there is justification to have separate articles for both meanings - that seems to fit the rules. 129.116.141.238 (talk) 16:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
The specific example given at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name) (separate page from Wikipedia:Naming conventions) is

"crown" means the headgear worn by a monarch, other high dignitaries, divinities etcetera; while "The Crown" is a term used to indicate the government authority and the property of that government in a monarchy.

In this case, "The Crown" is a conceptual term that doesn't exist in any other form, and not simply some character's name. Following 129.116.141.238's logic, we'd have to title articles "The Joker" (since Joker exists and the Batman archvillain has a specific and identifiable meaning), "The Flash" (since Flash exists, and the famous superhero who had his own live-action TV show has a specific and identifiable meaning), "The Phantom" (since Phantom exists, and the long-runnign comic-strip character has a specific and identifiable meaning), and so on and so on and so on — in essence, negating the convention completely. Partisans for any one of these characters can make the very same claim as for "The Shadow". And where are we then? I've seen edit wars erupt between fans and general-interest Wikipedians over this, and this will, I believe, only add fuel to the fire.
I'm wondering if, at this point, it might not be a bad idea to ask a couple of admins to offer direction on interpreting policy.
At least then, if an admin says to make an exception just for The Shadow, then we can point to that exception to cut short edit wars that may erupt at Joker, Flash, Atom, Phantom, Hulk, etc. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the quote is "The definite article in The Shadow's name was always capitalized in the pulp adventures" from page 154 of Serials: Suspense and Drama by Installment by Raymond William Stedman. I have added this as a reference to the article itself as well. (Does it make a difference that both the pulp magazine and the radio show were titled "The Shadow"?) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 14:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Re: the latter question, no — but that citation is great, and I think we're mostly there.
With only the citation itself, fans of, for example, the Joker or of the Phantom, may argue that a capped "The" was implied in the all-caps name rendered in comics lettering for decades. If we can get an admin to "sign off" by rendering a policy opinion about this case, that will then forestall what I can just see is going to be a cascade of similar claims for other characters. (Trust me — this deduction comes from experience.) Anyone want to volunteer to seek an admin or two? I can do it, but I'm thinking it might be better if it were someone else. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Still running behind, but cases like A Clockwork Orange, The Saint, or The Old Man and the Sea are permitted under the definite article rule. Why shouldn't The Shadow be included in this permitted exception to the rule? Hewinsj (talk) 18:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Those are the formal, complete titles of novels, movies, etc. This article is about the character, not the radio show, the pulp magazine, the movie, etc. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
This article seems to cover the whole franchise from a real world perspective, including the character(s), radio show, tv show, films, and novels. The only thing that has been spun off to it's own article is the movie from the 90s. Should the name of the article be changed to "The Shadow" since it covers so much more than just the character? Hewinsj (talk) 19:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I can't speak for anyone else, but that sounds like a great idea. As with The Lone Ranger, recasting the intro to refer to the formal-name title of the series would solve a lot of these issues. Kudos to Hewinsj for what sounds like a very good suggestion that, IMHO, addresses everybody's concerns! What think others in this discussion? --Tenebrae (talk) 19:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that works, as we would still need an article for "The Shadow" character himself, and then we would have another debate over the naming of that article.
On that topic, here are some more recent examples I have. In the 1994 novelization of The Shadow movie (by James Luceno), "The" is always capitalized. For example, on page 123: "The muscles of The Shadow's hand" and "his cloak unfurling in the wind, The Shadow's right arm was fully extended." Page 32: "He leaned toward The Shadow." Now, let's compare that with the 2004 novel The Flash: Stop Motion from Pocket Star Books and written by Mark Schultz. Here is the first sentence of that book: "The scarlet clad form of the Flash rocketed straight. . . " And on the last page: "Wally West was the Flash."
Some more examples: The Shadow Laughs! novel from 1969 (published by Bantam Books) has the same thing: "But The Shadow had also gone" on page 99, for example. Now, look at the 2005 novelization of Crisis on Infinite Earths by Marv Wolfman and published by iBooks: "Just like the Flash" - page 1. "Who was the Monitor?" - page 32. "drive the Joker to the ground." - page 53. I could cite things like these from super hero novels all day long. It's fairly clear that in cases like Punisher, Joker, Flash, etc. that the definete article is not capitalized - yet with The Shadow it is. I don't think creating two articles, one for the phenomenon and one for the character will solve the problem. Rabidwolfe (talk) 01:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Why would we need to make a character article for The Shadow? This article is 90% real world information on the franchise, and 10% information on the character's development and other characters from the series. Is there enough material to make one? Hewinsj (talk) 02:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I think The Lone Ranger works as an example of how the phenomenon and the characters can comfortably exist in the same article. It would seem to be the simplest solution in terms of long-term ripples.
That said, I really do admire, appreciate, and, for whatever it's worth, I'm impressed with Rabidwolfe finding and citing those concrete examples re: the Flash and the Joker. Maybe those will be enough to keep partisans of the Spirit, the Phantom, etc., from demanding the same special treatment. I don't know. I'm more convinced than ever that we need a couple of outside, disinterested admin voices to render a policy opinion. That way when partisans of other, similar characters lobby for their favorites, we can point to the admin opinion and hopefully cut short any edit wars and the like.
It can't hurt to ask a couple of admins to comment. So many good arguments appear on both sides here that, really, I can't see any reason not to ask for an outside person's policy opinion. What think we?--Tenebrae (talk) 03:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I've laid out the two points that I feel are important (that the article covers the whole subject of The Shadow including but not limited to the character, and that in this case the definite article could be viewed as a part of the name of the franchise, as with The Saint, or The Lone Ranger). If you don't mind entering the request, go right ahead. Hewinsj (talk) 17:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
So was a decision reached on this? I'm still for changing it back to "The Shadow" but there has been no discussion since the beginning of the month. Hewinsj (talk) 06:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Why not go for Shadow (character)? Can we conclude with this page title since it's available? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
But why would we do that? This article is about the series, not just the character. It could be reverted to The Shadow because that is the proper name of the radio show/franchise. Hewinsj (talk) 06:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh. But if this is about the series franchise, then the character categories shouldn't be here, as it causes utter confusion and redundancy. I say break away the character to have its own page, like what happened to Kristin Wells. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, that's the problem. As one of my comments above shows, the character's name is NOT "Shadow" but "The Shadow" - and therefore, if the character has a seperate page, it should still be titled "The Shadow" - "Shadow (character)" would be inaccurate and wrong. Rabidwolfe (talk) 21:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
The origin of this character appears to be from a magazine. Is this factually correct or was it a comic? If the latter, naming conventions would prefer Shadow (comics). Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Not a comic at all. According to leading radio historian's John Dunning's excellent On the Air: The Encyclopedia of Old-Time Radio, and as noted in the article, The Shadow *began* as a radio show which was a *tie-in* to a magazine, Street and Smith's Detective Story. This was a weekly series adapting a story from the magazine, and a narrator figure was conceived, the Shadow. At this time, it's fair to say the capitalized "the" didn't apply, since the character was along the same lines of other radio horror/mystery storytellers who came before and after (the Man in Black on Suspense, the Whistler, the Hermit on The Hermit's Cave, etc). But people enjoyed the show but didn't get the link to the magazine. So a new magazine focusing on the character was launcghed, The Shadow Magazine, following a contest in which readers were asked to describe how the Shadow (thinly sketched, just a creepy voice at the time with a famous laugh) would look and behave and what his life would be outside of telling tales. Walter E. Gibson then wrote a full novel for each issue of the new magazine, creating Lamont Cranston and developing his abilities and so on, and essentially establishing him as "THE Shadow* (the original narrator might as well have been *a* Shadow). In 1937, the radio version finally abandoned the anthology format and made the Shadow no mere narrator but Lamont Cranston, and so on from there. My own recommendation? Since as noted, everything is bundled in here *except* the movie and on the whole the article is more about The Shadow as franchise than as a character, I'd say move it either back to its original form (I'm not sure it was casuing either confusion or trouble there) or to "The Shadow (pulp franchise)." or something of that nature, or else to its original origin, which was as a radio show, though like The Lone Ranger and The Green Hornet, it spawned a cultural life which extended into multiple media. I re-read the article, and really, it doesn't say a heck of a lot about The Shadow as character or Lamont Cranston or his other identities, but a whole lot about the franchise, and while I understand concerns about the definite article in character names, there's no question whatsoever that The Shadow is the consistent franchise name in all incarnations (in contrast, Hulk is known to many as The Incredible Hulk, been published as simply Hulk, The Hulk, and so on; and the Joker as character is not the main focus of the franchise, just an incredibly popular supporting player with occasional solos; Zombie (comics), on the few occasions the character actually headlined the comic, appeared in Tales from the Zombie but also Zombie, and so on; none of the counter examples mentioned really parallel The Shadow, while The Lone Ranger and The Green Hornet are in fact the closest comparisons, in terms of cultural history *and* consistent name usage; looking at The Green Hornet article, in fact, I see only one example of anything, 1 single 1966 kids book, which removed the definite article). I think it makes more sense to use those similar pages as comparisons, again using common sense based on evidence of how the name was used and general consistency and even scholarship, than following the comic book guidelines. To me, in fact, this whole thing is closer to arguing that A Christmas Carol have its "A" removed than it would be setting an unhealthy precdent for Atoms, Zombies, Creepers, etc (The Invisible Man might be a better comparison, in fact, for it began as a single novel but spawned a Universal movie series and countless sequels, remakes, pastiches, and so on; and while the character has his own page, it's Griffin (The Invisible Man), which could be read as either noting the proper title of the novel or of the character, but either way, nobody has clamored for renaming either). My two cents, anyway. -- Aleal (talk) 22:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Very long, but a great comment by Aleal. I suggest people read it in full rather than just skim it. Rabidwolfe (talk) 01:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I seldom engage in these debates, but when I do, I don't do it by halves. :) Oh, and something which might help clear up Tenebrae's overall concern. I took a good look at this page, The Lone Ranger, and The Green Hornet, and all three are essentially similar pages, covering a radio series which then went into films, comics, etc. All three are multi-categorized, as characters, as radio shows, serials, etc. (The Shadow, as it stands, at first glance in categorization emphasizes the character cats over everything else, and lacks the qualifying serial category, so maybe some clean-up and re-ordering there would also help). All are mostly about the franchise with only cursory info about the character qua character. The only difference is that The Lone Ranger article says at the beginning "The Lone Ranger is an American, long-running, old-time radio and early television show..." The Green Hornet says "The Green Hornet is a masked fictional crime fighter," and The Shadow says "The Shadow is a fictional character created by...." *But* there's no appreciable difference in content amongst the three articles (for this page, the "Character Evolution" section is more about the development of the radio show and magazine; "Character Universe" discusses The Shadow, Cranston, Allard, but also all the supporting characters), and thus the earlier argument that one is more problematic than the other doesn't really hold up. So if the concerns remain, the easiest solution would be a text tweak to that first line, just to clarify at first glance what the current focus of the article is (if at some point it fundamentally changes and the radio series, pulp books, and each film get their own page, I might feel differently, but not now). From 1932 on until 1954, the radio series was *always* called The Shadow; the cast changed but the title never did (once you get past the early anthology phase, which I need to expand in the article later on; one version was The Love Story Hour, with the Shadow narrating tales from S&S's romance title!) The Shadow was also the precise title for the 1940 film and nearly every comic book version, so that should be just as viable as The Invisible Man, The Old Man and the Sea and so on. -- Aleal (talk) 02:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Nice work, you summed it up very clearly. Some cleanup could be in order for the article to take out all mention of "character" when they really mean the show itself.and a little tweaking to the lead could help avoid this confusion. Hewinsj (talk) 04:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm new to Wikipedia and this is my first time commenting on anything, but I really read everything I could in the rules or well policy guidelines and maybe I can offer a fresh eye. From what I've read of the policies, if it's a character, it has to be "Shadow (fictional character)" since "The" isn't used except as part of a formal title. If this article is about the franchise, then, like "The Lone Ranger," "The Shadow" would be correct.

I hope no one minds my commenting -- I've been wandering through Wikipedia, you know the way one article leads you into something else and you never know where you end up!--LanusOeste (talk) 03:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

LanusOeste - no one minds your comments, but it would be helpful if you read the entire debate (I know it's long, sorry) before restating a point that's been talked to death at this point. The "The" is okay as long as it's actually part of the character's name (and thus would be capitalized in running text as Wiki guidelines say) and not just a definete article. With my citations from several books and other citations from other books by some of the other commentators, we've established that his name is "The Shadow" and not just "Shadow." You may disagree - that's fine. But please try and read the whole debate to make sure you aren't just repeating what's already been said a dozen times. Rabidwolfe (talk) 00:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Would Shadow (comics) and other similar names be suitable as redirects, per categories below? And what about Shadow (character)-related links? I do not know what the best page name would be at this time. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
We could stop considering the addition of (character) or any other derivitive of (character) to the page name, and just correct the article to move the emphasis from the character back to the franchise. Character development reads like the development of the show for instance. Removing the word "character" from section headings and changing the first sentence in the lead to read something like "The Shadow is a series of early radio dramas, films and fictional stories which document the exploits of of the vigilante detective The Shadow." That would both resolve the fact that this article covers the franchise rather than just the character, and the whole issue of adding "The" to the title. We could switch the title to The Shadow without any disambiguation qualifiers attached.
In addition Sesshomaru, Shadow is the name of the main character in the Neil Gaiman book American Gods, and your suggestion would cause more confusion than it would solve. Hewinsj (talk) 13:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, we've been over the fact that the first The Shadow comic was made some time after the radio show started, so Shadow (comics) would never be appropriate because you would be excluding all of the other media that The Shadow has been written for. You could write an article for the comic if you could write a whole article about the comic series and it's impact on the world at large, but there isn't enough in this article to warrent a separate page. If you tried, the article would still require "The" being added to The name because you are talking about the series rather than the character. Why not stop worrying about making a character page until we've corrected this franchise page? Hewinsj (talk) 13:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You know, Rabidwolfe, there was no need to "bite the newbie." Why would you assume I didn't read the whole thing? Because I disagreed with you?

Yes, I conscientiously read the debate, and politeness stopped me from saying that you are a fanatic fan who is putting your own parochial concerns above the good of this encyclopedia. (Consistency being good.} Why cannot you believe that someone would disagree with you after reading all this? I'm new here -- of course I read the whole debate; it's fascinating. And I was concurring with those who want to change the lead of the article from "is a character" to "is a radio show that spun off...." or however you want to phrase it. My goodness. --LanusOeste (talk) 23:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Touchy much? You certainly aren't polite. I apologized (above) to Tenebrae for the one time a comment of mine got out of bounds. I tried to be polite to you, but you have a thin skin, apparently. I suggest reading ALL of the applicable rules rather than claiming "consistency." Also, Wikipedia has a rule (discussed above) that there are always exceptions to the rules, and that too much consistency is a bad thing. The main rule deals with whether the "The" would be capitalized in running text, but you ignored that, for whatever reason. Remember the hobgoblin of little minds. Rabidwolfe (talk) 23:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Let me just add that I was NOT trying to "bite the newbie" and I'm not sure where your venom comes from. Let's agree to disagree or something. I tire of everyone getting angry at everyone else during these debates. Except for my idiotic outburst (way above) about overzealous editors and this exchange, we've managed to keep the debate rather civil. How about a truce? I swear I had no ill intentions and was only trying to give advice. Rabidwolfe (talk) 23:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay: what page name has number consensus decided on before we start splitting off the character into his own article? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't see why, at this point, the character even *needs* to be split off into its own article, based on what's here right now, anymore than The Lone Ranger and The Green Hornet need to. In fact, though I'm a newcomer to this discussion, may I humbly suggest that it might be a good idea for all of us to just settle down and wait until Tenebrae, who started this discussion back in February, responds again. Right now, I think we're mostly just waiting for his/her input and see which of the proposals makes the most sense and is generally agreed upon (since in that user's last post, a compromise and general understanding certainly seemed close). Otherwise, we're just going back and forth and we get things like the above as a result of retreading old territory in an unclear manner, and so on. -- Aleal (talk) 00:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Just wanted to support Hewinsj on adapting the article's lead to put it in a broader and more universal context of the entire proper-name franchise. I've been away on personal family matters until recently, and even if I had not been, I would have felt uncomfortable being the one to take that bold step, even given the discussion that seems to have favored it as a workable compromise solution.
Let me also give my sincere thanks to Rabidwolfe in particular for his collegiality across our differing positions. A lot of people got involved in this discussion, and we all made it accessible enough for even a newbie to feel comfortable joining in. OK, some bumps, but nothing too bad. Man — this is what Wikipedia is all about. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the support Tenebrae, I appreciate it. Rabidwolfe and everyone else have been very constructive throughout, has lead to a very productive dialogue. I've done what I intended to do with the lead and organization of the article's sections, and was even able to maintain the "character" information so we won't need to make a redundant character article. I'm going to try to clean up the references, but that's the only other thing I have planned for it. Hewinsj (talk) 16:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Penelope Margo Lane.jpg

Image:Penelope Margo Lane.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 ensure 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) 00:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Animated Series

In the TV series section the animated series that never went into production isn't mentioned. I remember seeing clips for the series on the internet. Even though not one full episode was ever produced the fact that it was seriously considered and test clips were made warrants a mention I would think.

Here are the clips on youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nClZXgIb6NU and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuFxljle30A&NR=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.142.101.38 (talk) 00:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

In order to write about an animated series we would first need to know about its production and development, even if it was halted mid way. What company and crew worked on it? How far along did it get and what were the reasons for canceling it? To that end we would need reliable sources that discuss the subject. As it stands, these videos don't demonstrate any "history" of the project and some may speculate as to their authenticity. I could see fans putting something like this together in flash and it snowballing once the internet got ahold of it. Hewinsj (talk) 13:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)