Talk:The Phantom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Comics / Strips / World / DC Comics / Marvel (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Fictional characters (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

Australian Elementary schools[edit]

In the trivia section it claims that the Phantom is the only comic allowed in Australian Elementary schools. As an Australian teacher I've never heard this. I do take the Phantom in to school for my kids to read, but there are some that I don't tke in. I also take in other comics. Also in Australia we have Primary Schools, not Elementary Schools

I've just reverted a large edit by an anonymous user partly because it is unencyclopedic - reading more like an RPG character profile than an encyclopedia entry - but mainly because it is composed largely of uncredited quotations (see [1], [2], [3]), and is therefore problematic from a copyright standpoint (see Wikipedia:Copyrights#Contributors' rights and obligations). --Paul A 04:20, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


We never had them at our Primary School down in Tassie in the 1980s.  :-( Actually, we did have Tintin and Asterix comics in our school library, so there were allowed. 202.138.16.69 (talk) 11:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The kids[edit]

The addition "and after their birth there were several episodes of The Phantom changing diapers and looking for lost toys." keeps getting removed by anonymous users. What's the deal here? // Liftarn

I'm the "anonymous user" (only anonymous because I haven't bothered to register yet). It has been common for people who disapproved of the Phantom's marriage and raising a family to claim that "the Phantom is all about diapers and babies now" in a derogatory way. But the fact is that it is an opinion that is very loosely based on fact. To claim that there are "several episodes of The Phantom changing diapers and looking for lost toys." is simply incorrect. There are some stories where the Phantom's family life is mentioned but rarely, if ever, the basis of an entire episode. //AE (soon-to-be-member?)

No, not an entre episode, but there were several episodes where the kids played a part, for instance in one episode The Phantom went back to look for a lost toy and saw some bad guys doing something. In another episode his position was revealed because one of the kids started to cry. So it's correct to say that there were "several episodes of The Phantom changing diapers and looking for lost toys", but the episodes weren't entierly about that. // Liftarn

I would agree that on several occasions the Phantom's family life was featured in the strip after the birth of the twins, but not that there were several "episodes of the Phantom changing diapers" (I can think of only one, and that was in a dream sequence) and "looking for lost toys" (you give one example, and that is the only one I can remember too). If you added something about his family life/raising the twins (and not highlighting diapers and toys) aswell as find some other word than "episode" (which can easily be interpreted as the whole episode) it would be more correct. //AE

Episode lists[edit]

I removed the episode lists, since they only show a small portion of the early stories, with no comments about later stories. I find no point in including such a list unless it is complete (300+ daily and Sunday stories) or at least make some sort of reference as to why only the very first stories are listed. AEriksson 08:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll share my thoughts, and let you decide whether to restore the list or not. Ray Moore was the original artist on The Phantom (except for the weeks Lee Falk drew himself) and his stories are arguably the most famous and worth listing (especially the Sky Band stories). I thought I would do the Ray Moore stories, and leave it at that, since a complete list would be too long. I had planned to go back and add the post-war Ray Moore stories, but before I could do that, you deleted the list. Rick Norwood 18:59, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm with Andreas here, it's way too little. And there's nothing called "too much" when it comes to Wikipedia. It could be placed in an article of its own, called "List of daily Phantom stories" or something like that… Jon Harald Søby \ no na 16:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Fine by me. Here is the list as far as I carried it. Feel free to add to it, move it, or whatever you like. Rick Norwood 21:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
I'd say that it is completely subjective whether Moore's episodes were the most famous and worth listing. IMO, both the McCoy and Barry stories could qualify for this aswell. Listing all stories would be a time-consuming but possibly worthwhile project. On the other hand there are plenty of other sources on the net with complete story lists already. Maybe a link to Deep Woods would be enough until someone finds time to do a complete story list here on wikipedia. AEriksson 10:03, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
I took a liberty and added this list to the Ray Moore article. Hope you don't mind, whoever made it, it was to good to not be used. KIT WALKER

Episode Guide[edit]

  • daily stories
1 The Singh Brotherhood Moore 17 Feb 1936
2 The Sky Band Moore 9 Nov 1936
3 The Diamond Hunters Moore 12 Apr 1937
4 Little Tommy Moore 20 Sep 1937
5 The Prisoner of the Himalayas Moore 7 Feb 1938
6 Adventure in Algiers Moore 20 Jun 1938
7 The Shark's Nest Moore 25 Jul 1938
8 Fishers of Pearls Moore 7 Nov 1938
9 The Slave Traders Moore 30 Jan 1939
10 The Mysterious Girl Moore 8 May 1939
11 The Golden Circle Moore 4 Sep 1939
12 The Seahorse Moore 22 Jan 1940
13 The Game of Alvar Moore 29 Jul 1940
14 Diana Aviatrix Moore 16 Dec 1940
15 The Phantom's Treasure Moore 14 Jul 1941
16 The Phantom Goes to War Moore/McCoy 2 Feb 1942
  • Sunday stories
1 The League of Lost Men Moore 28 May 1939
2 The Precious Cargo of Colonel Winn Moore 22 Oct 1939
3 The Fire Goddess Moore 17 Mar 1940
4 The Beachcomber Moore 28 Jul 1940
5 The Saboteurs Moore 5 Jan 1941
6 The Return of the Sky Band Moore 2 Mar 1941
7 The Impostor Moore 1 Mar 1942
8 Castle in the Clouds Moore/McCoy 18 Oct 1942

Message boards[edit]

Someone had added the link ipcomic.net which leads to a message board. Am not sure whether it is good enough to be retained. Tintin 13:33, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

2005 Film[edit]

Does anyone know anything about this film? [4]

Family tree[edit]

I like the idea of the Family Tree, but it takes too long to load. Either a way must be found so it loads faster, or it needs to be deleted, or at least moved to a page of its own, where people can see it if they are willing to wait for several minutes. Rick Norwood 13:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Source of the tree[edit]

I like the idea too but it should definitely be accompanied by a line stating the source of the information and also that it is not a "strictly followed version", as Lee Falk himself wasn't very consistent about the Phantom's vast history. -- Aman King --221.134.26.129 08:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

You'll have to fix it, since I cannot load the article since the "family tree" was added. Rick Norwood 14:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I love that tree. I am on dial-up with a Windows 98 computer and this page loads no slower than any other, despite all the images. Gotta love those images too. This is certainly one of the better comic strip articles in Wikipedia (although perhaps this has something to do with the "superhero" aspect of it). BayBoy 14:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I like the family tree, too, and maybe I am just impatient. It takes about a minute to load -- but a minute seems very long when you are waiting. Rick Norwood 14:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The legend[edit]

I do not understand the significance of the section "The legend". I feel that either more information should be added or the section removed. -- Aman King --221.134.26.129 08:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your statement. It seems out of place, stuck on perhaps. I took the liberty of placing that section and the family tree section under the "The character" section. BayBoy 14:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

C'mon, the Phantom has no personality[edit]

I had inserted the following paragraph into the article:

The Phantom has always had something of a one-dimensional personality. In contrast, for example, to the angst-ridden Spider-man or the brooding Batman, the comic-strip Phantom is never seen upset, doubting his abilities, confused, in despair, or, in general, with a less-than-cheery disposition. He rarely, if ever, makes a mistake. He is occasionally shown angry at evil-doers, the only concession to what might be considered a negative emotion. Moreover, readers never see "the man behind the mask": the Phantom is never seen without either his double-diamond mask or his sunglasses.

Rick Norwood completely reverted this, saying that "The Phantom does get angry and upset when Diana is threatened, and is often seen without mask or sunglasses when with his family.) " I did mention that the Phantom gets angry at evil-doers, but would certainly like to see any strip where the Phantom is upset (without being simultaneously angry), confused, the slightest bit sad, doubtful of his abilities, or shows any degree whatsoever of angst. And I know that I've never seen the comic strip Phantom without either the mask or the sunglasses.

At the very least, some mention needs to be made of the Phantom's rather one-dimensional character.

Your thoughts, folks?? BayBoy 04:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

See this pic for an instance when Phantom is shown without the mask. There are a quite few such (as when he skis on the dolphins in Eden) pictures. Re emotions too, I tend to agree with Rick Norwood but leave it to the experts, as finding one will need too much effort for a novice like me. Tintin (talk) 05:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure how much of The Phantom BostonBay has read. Certainly, The Phantom is one-dimensional compared to, say, Hamlet. But I think he has as much character as, for example, Superman. Rick Norwood 15:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Having as much personality as Superman is certainly not a ringing endorsement.  : )

Regarding the strip that Tintin provides, one still can't see the Phantom's face. I continue to believe that my earlier posting is a correct assessment, but in the interest of consensus, I'll just leave it here on the Talk page. However, I will/did add this sentence: "The Phantom is rarely, if ever, seen without the sunglasses or his trademark double-diamond mask".

Oh, this is part of the story. No one, except his immediate family, is 'allowed' to see his face. According to the jungle legend, 'he who sees Phantom's face dies a terrible death' :-) Tintin (talk) 01:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
There are many stories where The Phantom goes unmasked around his wife and children. Rick Norwood 01:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
There was an old story where the Phantom wore some kind of Keffiyeh, masked around the lower part of his face, but you could see his eyes. I copied them onto the rest of his face, to see what he looked like. I'm still waiting for my "horrible death" to occur. 惑乱 分からん 17:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps we could solve the mask issue by writing "the Phantom's face is never seen without either his double-diamond mask or his sunglasses"

I think it's safe to say that the phantom has as much personality as his early contemporaries as the comic book characters of the 1930s were rather stayed compared to what we're used to today and unlike batman and superman for example the phantom has stayed very close to his enigmatic roots. He does however sometimes show emotion, I remember one story when his horse broke its' leg and he was visibly upset at the thought of having to shoot it and very relived that he didn't have to. I admit that's not the best example but it's the best I've got offhand. You could also consider the running gag of the phantom going into a seedy bar and asking for a glass of milk as evidence of a sense of humour.--Teletran 16:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the phantom shows the different sides of a more complex personality. I will agree in the earlier stories, we didn't see much of one but most of these stories were all work with crime fighting and not much thinking. In a lot of the later stories not written by Lee Falk we see emotions coming through. Like when the phantom thought Dianna was dead. Then when he got her out of the prison. We saw him quit being the phantom and got jobs in construction etc like us normal people because he was confused about who he was. We see love, hate and many other emotions even pride come out in some stories. I think he has great personality. Tony — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.162.77.66 (talk) 00:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Norway and the WWII[edit]

The stuff about The Phantom in Norway and the WWII reads like hearsay or urban legends. I've never heard any of this before, and I'm Norwegian. Citations, please. 80.202.93.131 17:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

In the Norwegian (bokmål) article, they write about the strips being smuggled into Norway, and edited to look like they were reprionts from before the Nazi occupation. Nothing about this "proving the USA still exists" for the Norwegian population. 80.202.93.131 17:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
The story about the smuggling, and also the detail about the USA still existing, has been included in several Phantom publications in Norway, most recently in the Jubilee comic book Fantomet jubileim 1936–2006, and also in Phantom comics and in the Fantomet Krønike series. I can find the exact references later, if needed. Jon Harald Søby 07:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Phantom Colors[edit]

" In one of the European nations the Phantom was never printed in a purple costume since it was the colour used for mourning." -- Er, doesn't that seem rather vague? Anyone know which European nation is referred to here? 69.208.249.123

in finland Phantom has a blue contume, but as far as i know that has nothing to do with mourning.

The reason Fantom or Mustanaamio in Finnish has a blue costume is because Lee Falk created the character before there was colour strips. As far as I remember Lee Falk wanted the character to have a grey costume, but the different colour publications made his costume all the way from from blue to red. The movie settled on purple, which isn't really good, as Lee Falk wanted him to be dressed in grey, and the Ghost That Walks. I remember there was a fan vote for the colour of his coat when he walks among men, when Egmont started releasing Mustanaamio in colour when I was young. I always loved the black & white stuff by Egmont. I never liked the blue colour of The Phantom's outfit, the grey was much better, and I was relieved when I read that Lee Falk wanted him to be grey.

I love best the historical stories with not the contemporary Phantom, but his ancestors. And isn't it time for Kit and Heloise to come to terms with their ancestry? Christopher Walker junior might have to deal with the world, or Heloise. I'd like like to see Kit junior taking on his father's mantle in a dedicated book. It would be too obvious for Heloise to take on the mantle of The Phantom.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.152.239.135 (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC) 

Publishers listed within the infobox[edit]

At first, I didn't understand why the anonymous user reverted my addition of DC Comics to the list of publishers. After all, the leading image is taken from the DC series. However, now that I see that there are a multitude of publishers that have published original or reprinted stories of the Phantom, I realize that it would be foolhardy to list every single one within the infobox. Still, for those of us who are familiar with the character through either one of the two big American publishers, I thought it might be helpful to acknowledge that the publishers listed in the infobox are not the only ones. To that end, I have compromised and added a link from the infobox to the comic book publication history section. Hopefully, that accomplishes something useful without damaging the aesthetic or the integrity of the article. GentlemanGhost 11:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Article Title[edit]

The article was recently moved to "Phantom (comics)". I've moved it back. First, the title of the comic strip is and always has been "The Phantom", not Phantom. No other article is titled "The Phantom". According to Wikipedia recommendations for an article based on a comic strip or comic book, the title of the strip should be the title of the article, as it is with Superman, Popeye, and most other comic book and comic strip articles, unless there are other articles with the same title. Rick Norwood 21:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

This article is not about The Phantom -- the comic strip --, but about The Phantom -- the character. We also have a large amount of info on comics in here, not only comic strips. —Lesfer (talk/@) 23:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

None of which changes the fact that the character, the comic strip, and the comic books, are all titled The Phantom, not, as you would have it, for reasons unexplained Phantom. You really do need a consensus before making a change like this. I'm changing it back, again, until you can show a consensus, or at least a really good reason, or even an explanation as to why you want to make the change. Rick Norwood 12:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You say, read the policy. I did, before I changed it back the first time. Here is what the policy says: "The rule of thumb established by Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics is as follows. Use the name itself (e.g. Green Arrow) unless that leads to ambiguity," Since there is no other article titled "The Phantom", there is no ambiguity, therefore Wikipedia policy is to use the name itself. Now, I assume your objection is that the word "Phantom", with the "The" has other meanings. It does, but so does Superman (see George Bernard Shaw's 'Man and Superman" for example), so does Batman (the servent of a British officer), and so do many character names. The title of this article follows Wikipedia policy and also follows the precedent set in other Wikipedia articles. Rick Norwood 13:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't see why this page was moved from The Phantom in the first place. Both names have validity, and beyond that, redirects are free, so it matters little where this page lies. The spirit of the naming convention is to use the simplest name possible. I think The Phantom suits just as well as Phantom (comics), and that people are more likely to search for The Phantom rather than Phantom (comics). It's best to avoid disambig phrases where possible, so this page should stay at The Phantom. If an existing article has a name which is common to the topic and has no disambiguation phrase, I cannot see the value in adding one. disambiguation guidance states If there is a choice between using a short phrase and word with context, there is no hard rule about which is preferred. Both may be created, with one redirecting to the other. For example, Mathematical analysis and Analysis (mathematics). Since the spirit of Wikipedia guidance on disputes over spelling is use the spelling of the first user, and since the naming convention policy states that we Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things., I fail to see why The Phantom cannot be used, it being the most common name, and that it is not in conflict. Hiding Talk 15:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I concur with Hiding. Also, look at The Shadow. When the 'The' is a significant part of the title, it should remain. Batman is sometimes called 'The Batman', but more often just Batman. The Question is generally refered to as 'Question' to his face, same with the Green Hornet and so on. But unless folks call him 'Phantom' to his face (and IIRC they don't), then The should remain. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 15:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I concur with Hiding and Ipstenu. --GentlemanGhost 21:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Guran[edit]

I edited a section claiming Mandrake the Magician was the Phantom's best man at his wedding, which is misinformation. I wrote a new article about Guran, and also about the Skull Cave. Would anybody help out with pictures?


Kit, Kip and Christopher[edit]

The article says: The 21st Phantom's birth name is Kit Walker (it was the tradition of the Phantom's for the eldest boy, who would be Phantom, to be named Kit. It should be noted however that Phantoms-to-be have been named Kip and Christopher as well as Kit).

Unless I'm very wrong, it would be more accurate to phrase this something like The 21st Phantom's birth name is Christopher "Kit" Walker (it was the tradition of the Phantoms for the eldest boy, who would be Phantom, to be named Christopher. This was usually shortened to "Kit" although sometimes to "Kip"). Daibhid C 22:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

"Kip" was only a nickname briefly used for the 21st Phantom; real name Kit Walker, so you might just delete that one. It's never been used since the fourties or so. KW

I always thought Kit was short for Christopher--Teletran 16:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

LEE FALK[edit]

Someone deleted the Lee Falk image on Falk's Wikipedia profile. Would anyone mind helping out with a new photo of him?


The article states that Falk drew the first two weeks of the daily strip this story is apocryphal according to:

Falk, L., Moore, R., Goulart, R., & Rhoades, E. (2010). The Phantom, the complete dailies: Volume One 1936-1937. Hermes press.

.--Teletran (talk) 11:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Australian Woman's mirror[edit]

I removed the picture from the woman magazine to the Lee Falk page. The Phantom page is getting a bit crowded with all these pictures.


VANDALISM on the family tree[edit]

Who ruined the Family Tree? Please get it back the way it was before the vandalism

  • There does seem to be something wrong with the family tree. Where is Diana Palmer? But I don't know how to fix it. Help? Rick Norwood 13:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Some tinkering going on => Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#New_template_limits.2C_Special:ExpandTemplates - Schmiteye 03:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I tried fixing the page using "subst" and it got rid of some of the junk from the article but the entire tree stilldoes not display properly. Perhaps breaking the tree in hhalf would work? Schmiteye 03:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Would it be better if we made a separate article for the tree? KIT WALKER

Article size[edit]

Trying to expand the trees in this article has made it over half a megabyte in size – 200Kb larger than the next biggest article, according to Special:Longpages. The article cannot remain this size, remember that many people use a dial-up connection to access Wikipedia, and even on broadband connections the load time it significant.

Possible solutions to the pre-expanding template problem:

  • Make the templates more efficient
  • Do without the trees
  • Use images for the trees instead

Gurch 11:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

As I said above; is it possible to move the tree to an article of its own, maybe called "Family tree of the Phantom"? It would be a shame to loose such a detialed work! KIT WALKER

I second the motion. Move the tree to a separate article: Family tree of the Phantom. Rick Norwood 14:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


OK I did it. The tree is now moved to Family tree of the Phantom. KIT WALKER

Diana Palmer and Guran[edit]

I have written articles about both Diana Palmer and Guran now. It would be appreciated if anybody could help out with a picture or two.

Toys[edit]

Someone just added a new section to the article, called "Toys". I don't think it belongs here; but it could do if it was more expansive and looked less like a commercial for Shocker Toys' Phantom action figure. Comments? KIT WALKER

First costumed crimefigher[edit]

The reason for the rv is that this version states only the observable facts without making any claims. The version I rv'd says the Phantom "is often considered" such-and-such ... but we can't do that in WIkipedia. We have to provide a cite. And if we're saying "often considered," more than one cite. --Tenebrae 15:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The article says that the Phantom is the first hero to wear "the skin tight costume" often associated with superheroes. Zorro didn't wear one of those, so I'm not sure if it's revelant to add the Zorro-note to the opening of the article..? KIT WALKER
Try telling Tenebrae that.
Duggy 1138 12:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
There's no need to be snide. No one said Zorro wore a skin-tight costume, only that he was a costumed hero before the Phantom. "Kit Walker" in the post above would be more credible if he registered properly as a Wikipedia editor. --Tenebrae 16:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I was not logged in, Tenebrae. I have done a little editing on the article here and there myself. I did not say I rejected your compromise; I only asked whether it should be there. --Kit Walker 19:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
The phrasing implies it. No, no one said it, but it could be taken from it. Kit thought it. I thought it until I re-read it three times. The Zorro reference is pointless. Duggy 1138 01:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
What about Superman, created in 1932. Wasn't he the first to wear a skin-tight costume? —MiguelMunoz (talk) 03:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Superman did not appear in print until much later. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The first costumed crimefighter was Hercules (lion skin, club). The first crimefighter with a secret identity was Odyssius, who pretended to be a poor begger and then threw off his rags and slew his wife's sutors. In more modern times, you have The Scarlet Pimpernell before Zorro. But The Phantom was the first costumed crimefighter in the comics. Rick Norwood 14:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Template[edit]

Going through, copy editing, I kept running across more and more and more opinion and uncited claims, and much original research. This seems very much a well-intentioned fan's essay with a lot of stuff he knows and is probably accurate, but which he doesn't cite or footnote. The conclusions and opinions are not allowed under Wikipedia encyclopedic standards. It needs a lot of work. I've inserted citation requests and embedded questions where necessary. -- Tenebrae 15:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I've made a bare attempt at starting to bring this article to a more encyclopedic standard, by deleting a couple of self-described rumors and uncited future claims, as well as cleaning up the hype-filled References/External-links sections.
As to the intro's paragraph about the costume: I offered a compromise. It was rejected. In retrospect, the compromise was perhaps a mistake, since an encyclopedia article needs to be written as strictly factually as possible, without jargon or original-resarch claims. The Phantom is, observably and inarguably, a costumed crimefighter. It is debatable that one could call him "a superhero". An encyclopedia can only published the confirmable, non-debatable facts. I've also edited the text in this graf to make it more readable: Phrases like "non-comic media" are jargony and unspecific; "short stories and other forms of literature" is clear and specific.
If others insist, we can go into mediation at this point. I've gone back-and-forth in good faith attempts on my part, though the jibe at me in the talk-section above suggests otherwise on another's part.
There is no question that this overwritten, poorly referenced, and clearly non-neutral article needs work if it's truly going to be an authoritative, encyclopedic entry about a major, highly significant comics character who deserves nothing less than a thoroughly researched, fully cited, comptehensive and well-written article. The broad outlines are here. There's a lot of promising material. Can we put aside fannish enthusiasm and approach this as editors, journalists, academic researchers? --Tenebrae 16:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Sure, I'll put my inner Phantom fan aside, and try to make the article more encyclopedic, and less neutral. But, shouldn't there be links to the official publishers of Phantom comic books in the External Links section, or would this be unnecessary? What do other people think? As for whether we can call the Phantom a superhero, I am not quite sure. However, he is frequently mentioned at the Wikipedia superhero article as one of the "original" superheroes --Kit Walker 19:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Kit, your words are manna. I'm looking forward to working with you.
The official publishers of course should be in the links, and I believe King Features and Moonstone already are. Who else did you mean? The foreign-language sites would each go in their respective-language Wiki articles, of course.
The Wiki article on superheroes may or may not need editing, but one of the guidelines of Wikipedia is not to use other articles as Reference citations -- only published sources and other websites.
Finally, I'm reverting the one intro graf, since User:Duggy 1138 doesn't seem to understand that this sentence is a conclusion which is disallowed under WP:NOR:
"This makes him, despite having no powers, the first comicbook Superhero."
Tenebrae 17:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
As for the link section: Sorry, my bad. I have a strange problem with Wikipedia on my computer, with the External Links not always showing. By the way, I am already in the process of tracking down sources for some of the information which needs citation, and as I don't know how to add "Footnotes" correctly (I'm no Wikipedia expert, I'm afraid), I hope that Tenebrae and other users can help out with that when I simply add links to the source site in the text. --Kit Walker 22:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

CC of posting at User talk:Duggy 1138[edit]

The Phantom[edit]

Whatever the article superhero says, you still have to abide by the rules of Wikipedia. You cannot cite another Wikipedia article. You have to cite an authoritative, outside, third-party source. Please see Verifiability which says at the very top, in boldface there:

The policy:

  1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources.
  2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor.
  3. he obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

It also says (boldface below mine):

Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources [NOT other Wikipedia aricle] with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require stronger sources."

I have tried to explain this on The Phantom talk page. Kit Walker has tried to. You ignore consensus, you ignore Wikipedia polcies and guidelines, and you refuse to work responsibly with other editors. If you continue to ignore Wikipedia rules abour proper sourcing and citation, I'm going to the Admins and I will seek to have you blocked. This has gone far enough. --Tenebrae 16:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand the concept of a consensus, but I don't think two people is one, especially when I'm building someone else's change that your repeated reverted. Two for two against... no clear consensus, IMHO. All I did cleared up a paragraph that you made jumbled and rambling, with unnecessary references to Zorro. I'm not citing the Superhero page, I'm building on it. If you think the Superhero page I have no problem with you changing it, or the Batman page which says he, too, is a Superhero. However, you'll find the consensus there agrees with the Wikipedia defintion. I completely agree that there are people who are destructive and need blocking, I don't think that people need blocking just because they disagree with me, however.
Duggy 1138 07:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

A&E Biography[edit]

The section about the A&E biography seems to need some citations. But how are one supposed to find citations for a TV documentary? I have not been able to track down any other sources either. --Kit Walker 13:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


"This article may not be compliant with the content policies of Wikipedia"[edit]

I think it should be time to remove this tag now. After finding a few references and deleting the odd untrue fact, there are only four "Citation needed" marks on this page now. The link section has been cleaned up, and the design of the article's been given a makeover. I'd say it is time we remove the tag now. Comments? --Kit Walker 16:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the tag. There is no need for it whatsoever anymore. Feel free to come with arguments against this claim. --Kit Walker 12:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
You've done good work. The article is so much more encyclopedic-seeming. There's been some contention, but your calm head and editing have been critical to this piece. --Tenebrae 17:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, thank you. There's still more work to be done, though, and I hope to get more time come the holidays. --Kit Walker 09:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kit - is there space on this article to add some of the classic lines from Phantom comics - 'Phantom moves faster than eye caan see,' " ...rough with roughnecks," etc. ? Am not sure of where they'd fit in, but do hope they can be part of the article. wildT 19:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

We'd need some citation as to what makes them classic, since one of us saying "classic" is POV. Is there a Phantom book, encyclopedia, or historical article (not a fan site) that addresses this?
There's nothing really like this that I know of offhand elsewhere; the Superman article doesn't have a list of, say, "Up, up and away" or "This is a job...for Superman!" (which could at least be objectively tagged as catchphrases of the old radio program). The Dr. Strange article has a list of his incantations, but that, too, is an objective list.
Also, wildT, couple of Wiki-pointers: If you place four tildes (the ~ sign on your keyboard), it will automatically place a timestamp and link to your registered page, User:Wildt. Additionally, since you addressed a general policy question to one editor in particular above, it might be helpful to read the policy at Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. Happy Wiki-ing, -- Tenebrae 20:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The myth and "supernatural" elements[edit]

First of all, I'm not a textboook expert on the Phantom, and I can't quote scripture and verse from the series. My intention for entering the section on an allegedly "supernatural" element to the myth of the Phantom is simply to note a number of times I'd read in the comic strip over the years (since the 70s, at least), when a twist of fate happened to occur in a manner that benefits the hero. This, of course, is something that happens to many comic book superheroes; and I'm not going to suggest there's a genuine "magical" power present -- because there isn't. Much of the Phantom's appeal stems from the fact that he is an ordinary mortal (albeit one who is highly skilled and trained, like Batman) promoting a generations-long hoax...or "myth"...that he is actually a supernatural figure, the Ghost Who Walks.

Still, the 4-issue Phantom comic book miniseries by Peter David in the late 1980s (which was pretty darned good, IMHO) also played up the aspect of a mysterious "fate" working with the Phantom -- especially the flashback to the Eighth Phantom, who had his mask ripped off by the pirate Chessman. A stream of blood from his forehead happened to surround his eyes, forming a brand-new mask; and when he chased Chessman back to the land of his ancestors and fought him to the death, he could "feel the presence" of the previous Phantoms, and he knew they were pleased.

Similarly, in the pilot episode of Phantom 2040, the young Kit Walker was repeatedly attracted to the "jungle level" of their VR video games, as though the generations of Phantoms before him were drawing him back to the jungle.

I like this idea of there being an indefinable, mysterious fate entwined with the legend of the Phantom. It's not something that anyone can point to and say, "a mysterious guardian jungle spirit protects him;" but rather, it's just something that adds an aura of mystery and depth to the legend. --Modemac 16:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

the myth surrounding the phantom has been addressed in several comics- notably 'massacre at walker's table' the peter david series is apocryphal, as publications like FREW generally only use lee falk penned stories as canon H0D G 14:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Image[edit]

How is a low-res, thumbnail image of the historically significant cover of DC Comics' first issue of The Phantom not fair use? That seems contrary to Wikipedia's own statements on the image and copyright pages.--Tenebrae 12:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree. --Kit Walker 10:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Phantomzane2.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Phantomzane2.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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Phantomcomics2.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Phantomcomics2.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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Phantom musicals[edit]

I really think demanding citations for the Norwegian Phantom musical is unnecessary, to say it the least. There is little to no information on it available in the English language, and unless I am allowed to use a Norwegian site for citations, I doubt I'll be able to help out here. And what is need for a citation on Jahn Teigen's involvement in the play anyway? It's like needing a citation for whether Billy Zane played the Phantom in the movie or not. Teigen playing the bad guy and composing the music was frequently mentioned in the Norwegian Phantom comic, making him an honorary member of the Official Phantom Club. It would really need some damn good counter-arguments to convince me I am wrong in claiming this is absolutely unnecessary (it's a casting note, after all, and I have NOT ONCE seen any of these needing citations in other Wikipedia articles), and therefore, I dared to remove it for now. --Kit Walker 20:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure you can use non-English references if English ones can't be found. A (Norwegian) RS would be appreciated to establish the scope of the play, as the only Teigen involvement I know of offhand is the song "Sala Palmer er pen". Murghdisc. 14:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
The citation request is for the existence of that stage production. The reference to the actor just happened to be at the end of the sentence is all. -- Tenebrae 15:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, sorry for my misunderstanding. I will come up with a reliable source as soon as I have the time to actually find one. --Kit Walker 15:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


Reprints[edit]

The Reprints section contains a list that is implied to be complete, but is very far from that. The number of stories actually published by Nostalgia Press (NP), Pacific Comics Club (PCC), or Comics Revue (CR) is much greater. Plus, reprints of the newspaper strip stories produced after Lee Falk's death have also appeared in CR. This list seems to be a narrow selection based on someone's own preferences. Also, it makes no reference to which specific issues the stories were published in which limits its usefulness. I am tempted to delete the list altogether, but I have already done so once in the past and tried to explain why, which apparently did not help. AEriksson 16:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Green Phantom[edit]

Can't believe there isn't a single place in this article with the information that The Phantom's costume was originally suposed to be green... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.9.99.81 (talk) 22:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Without a citation as to source, the above comment may be a prank, a rumor, or an urban legend.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


It was meant to be grey but there was a printing error and the purple was liked so it remained. Early on, Falk considered calling the character "The Grey Ghost." 202.138.16.1 (talk) 04:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Phantom (comics)[edit]

As noted in the edit summary, this move follows Wiki policy regarding the definite article "The" in article titles, and is consistent with The Joker — Joker (comics) — The Spirit — Spirit (comics) — etc. etc. etc. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to say I personally find this very unnecessary, no matter how much it follows Wiki policy. The Phantom is always - ALWAYS - referred to as THE Phantom, unlike the Joker and the Spirit. The name of the comic is and have always been THE Phantom, not just "Phantom", and therefore, I wish the article-title would refer to it as such. --Kit Walker (talk) 16:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
The examples are quite relevant, they are really "The Spirit" and "The Joker", just like "The Phantom". The problem arises when a policy regarding articles that focus on a character is applied to articles concerning a body of work. This is where "The Joker" diverges from The Spirit and The Phantom, and the reason the two latter ought to be exempt from this comics naming convention. MURGH disc. 16:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Read the debate on this subject from further up in the discussion section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Phantom_%28comics%29#Article_Title. Really, the title of this section should not have been changed at all; lots of good arguments against it. Also, how can there come there are still articles titled THE Rocketeer, THE Shadow and THE Avenger? Shouldn't they all follow the same policy then? I must say I find it rather pointless to not call the article THE Phantom, when there are no other articles called it anyway. --Kit Walker (talk) 08:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
To quote User:Lesfer at the debate you cite:

This article is not about The Phantom -- the comic strip --, but about The Phantom -- the character. [...] —Lesfer (talk/@) 23:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Absent a compelling reason that an admin would accept — and I can tell you that pointing out other Wiki articles that are done incorrectly is never one of them — we have no cause to go against Wikipedia policy. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Policy is at WP:NAME#Avoid the definite article ("the") and the indefinite article ("a"/"an") at the beginning of the page name. I've made rename corrections to the articles notes above. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

For those who came in late...[edit]

For those who came in late, can someone please provide some information about this new "Ghost Who Walks" film? IMDB states it is due for release in 2009 but provides no information about actors or crew involved, etc. A web search revealed little other information other than the screenwriter is a former Olympic swimmer.

Does anyone have information about the film? Is is a sequel to the Zane film? Have any plot details been released? Has the film been in the pipeline for a long time?

My personal thoughts are that I would like to see a slightly grittier Phantom, perhaps in the mould of Batman Begins, provided essential elements of the character were not compromised. I am not a fan of camp.

I would definitely love to see the Golden Circle worked into a film plot. Does anyone else have information or thoughts? 202.138.16.1 (talk) 04:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, thoughta about improving the articles, not hopes for the film. Discussion pages aren't forums for film speculation.
Duggy 1138 (talk) 05:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


Obviously, what I am saying is that the article provides very little data at all about the film. I am asking this question because the detail it provides is so vague. Watch your manners next time. 210.50.56.61 (talk) 08:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
The "information" part suggests that. The "or thoughts" suggests discussion of things like the "My personal thoughts are that I would like to see..." section.
I don't feel there was anything wrong with my manners, and it wasn't meant as a personal attack, just a reminder before anyone else replied in a non-article-building way. If you took it as an attack, I am sorry.
Duggy 1138 (talk) 09:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Cr138c1.jpg[edit]

The image Image:Cr138c1.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.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required[edit]

This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 17:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. It needs quite a lot more references but is solid enough on all other fronts. Plenty of potential to go all the way. (Emperor (talk) 00:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC))

B-Class?[edit]

In an attempt to make this article considered worthy of B-Class on the quality scale, I have added many citations and corrected some errors, plus added some all new information. What more, if anything, is needed to get the article considered as B-Class, or even better, A-Class? --Kit Walker (talk) 23:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Below the fold[edit]

What paper(s?) was the strip first published in? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 03:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Girl Phantom[edit]

I have a 73 king comics (charlton comics) book, with a character on the back cover dressed just like the phantom, but with the name "Girl Phantom". This may be an extremely minor character appearing in later stories from this publisher, but she may deserve a mention in the article. Issue: Prince Valiant R-08. (supplementary reading program material added for helping to teach reading skills to children, thus no ads, only reading aids). ps i dont know how to stop the blue highlight below, so i put this comment here.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the sister of the 17. phantom occassionally appeared in a phantom costume to assist her brother. --Oddeivind (talk) 13:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Under the influence[edit]

"====Betaal Pachisi====
"An Indian TV serial named "Betaal Pachisi" (meaning Phantom XXV), starring Shahbaz Khan, Tom Alter and Sonu Walia, and directed by Sunil Agnihotri, was inspired by the Phantom, after the producers failed to obtain the rights to make an actual series about the character.[1] It was first aired in May 1997 on the Doordarshan TV network of India. Each episode was half an hour long and in the Hindi language. 49 episodes were made."

While this is interesting, it's not The Phantom. "Influenced by" is not "same as", any more than Rorschach is The Spirit or The Question. I'm not sure it should come out entirely, but it doesn't deserve parity nor the implicit endorsement its own section gives it. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 07:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: Moved as there was no opposition to the requested move after 7 days at WP:RM Jojhutton (talk) 21:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)



Phantom (comics)The Phantom — Actual name and discussion aboveJustin (koavf)TCM☯ 18:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Support, seems sensible to me, especially since the proposed title is already a redirect. Powers T 20:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Support, actual name of the subject. Seems to be a uncontroversial move. Flamarande (talk) 18:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Journal Inquirer's artist name mistake![edit]

  • Every single weekday, Journal Inquirer keeps mistaking the Phantom artists' names of Tony DePaul and Paul Ryan for the names of former artists George Olesen and Graham Nolan, even though both Olesen and Nolan retired MANY YEARS AGO! That newspaper keeps making mistakes! >_< --Angeldeb82 (talk) 20:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Parodies[edit]

As far as I can remember, there was a parody of the Phantom in a Norwegian edition of Mad Magazine at one point in the early 1980s. Unfortunately I am not sure which edition, so I cannot verify this. I am not sure whether it also appeared in the American edition or whether it was made in Norway. The phantom character was named "Fantomsen". "Toms" means something like jerk/moron/idiot. The Norwegian translation of "The Ghost Who Walks", "ånden som går" was changed to "ånsen som dør" (The idiot who dies), while "The Man Who Cannot Die", "mannen som ikke kan dø" was made into "mannen som ikke kan gå" ("The Man Who Cannot Walk"). Maybe some other Norwegian edititor could help me. --Oddeivind (talk) 13:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Marabella[edit]

This section is inconsistant.

(The comic sometimes runs flashback adventures of previous Phantoms written by various authors who sometimes confuse Phantom history. Current stories have Marabella as the daughter of Columbus and marrying the first Phantom.[20][21] As Columbus died in 1506 while, according to the new history, Marabella first meets the Phantom in 1544, this results in another inconsistency, requiring her to be at least 38 years old despite being depicted as in her early 20s. Inconsistencies in storylines and histories are not corrected as a mark of respect to authors, but Falk's original history takes precedence.[22])

  • It does say she is GRANDDAUGHTER. So that means if her mother was born in 1506, and gave birth at age 19, Marabella would be 19 years old? This is all theoretically possible. Jokem (talk) 17:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)