Jump to content

Talk:Doonesbury

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

/Archive 1

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) 16:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

[edit]

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "hopkins" :
    • Aaron Glazer, [http://www.jhu.edu/~newslett/03-16-00/Focus/2.html Doonesbury Delivers Satirical Satisfaction], ''The Johns Hopkins News-Letter'', March 16, 2000
    • Glazer 2006

DumZiBoT (talk) 16:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What happens in the newspaper if a comic strip is dropped?

[edit]

Some comic strips/episodes have been dropped by some newspapers because they were deemed to be too sensitive/politically incorrect or simply because the paper has no guts. What appears instead? Just another comic strip? Or is the space where Doonesbury would normally appear left blank? --Soylentyellow (talk) 09:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe they rerun an old story arc. Czolgolz (talk) 11:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Quayle

[edit]

"a feather for the “lightweight” Dan Quayle" - I always assumed it was a White feather because of allegations that he dodged the Vietnam draft. Is there a definitive source one way or the other? Peter Ballard (talk) 05:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the feather was because he was a 'quayle.'Czolgolz (talk) 12:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Out of date reference

[edit]

Reference number 10 (# ^ a b Aaron Glazer, Doonesbury Delivers Satirical Satisfaction, The Johns Hopkins News-Letter, March 16, 2000) appears to no longer point to the proper content. It now just points to the main page for this newsletter, and the archives don't have an entry for march 16th, 2000 Licensedlunacy (talk) 04:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Long interview in Guardian Newspaper

[edit]

Just thought I mention it here for someone with more knowledge to add the link somehow. Lots of background and the first interview since many, many years. LinkNostrada (talk) 00:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anything from Obama?

[edit]

Is the sentence "Outspoken critics have included members of every US Presidential administration since Richard Nixon’s." still accurate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.160.157.241 (talk) 19:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quite frankly, I'm not sure it was accurate then. It really needs a citation. Czolgolz (talk) 17:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strip discrepancies?

[edit]

It recently came to my attention that the early doonesbury strips in the online archive at gocomics, and the strips in the early books do not match. Some have been edited for content (one he tries to gross out a bad date by inviting her to sleep in his bed, has been changed to his couch) Some are simply missing from the online archive as far as I can tell (including one where Mike is called a skinny little frosh by a woman he is hitting on, and thinks to himself that if he wasn't so skinny and little he would "rape her for that")

I'm not unhappy to see them go (especially that last one) but does anyone know when the revision occured and why? (other than the obvious reason of good taste.) Also, if we can find outside sources, is this important enough to be in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.78.182.21 (talk) 01:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have most of the early books. Could you give me titles and page numbers so I could look these up? I don't recall any of that.Czolgolz (talk) 01:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I just left the house that has those books. I'll look up page numbers tomorrow if I remember. I remember that the specific books were "Doonesbury, Origional Yale Comics" (sic) and "There are still a few bugs in the system." The comic that was edited was http://www.gocomics.com/doonesbury/1970/12/12 and it was dated 2-26 (in the copyright in the strip) in the book. (I think that was in the Yale strips book) The missing comic comes from the mixer sequence, starting here: http://www.gocomics.com/doonesbury/1970/11/20. (Interestingly, the strip following this, http://www.gocomics.com/doonesbury/1970/11/21 also seems to be in response to some of the strips in the book, which are not on the net, but the strip does not appear in the book. )
One I have no explanation for is http://www.gocomics.com/doonesbury/1970/11/26 which in the book has a train in the background, but is otherwise very similar.
They should all be pretty early on in the books.Jared Thaler (talk) 03:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure what happened is that Trudeau recycled a lot of jokes from his original Yale 'Bull Tales' strip and put them into Doonesbury. That would explain the differences in artwork and the self-censorship. Here's the uncensored 'share my bed' strip from the Doonesbury website: http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/archive/yale?page=3 ICzolgolz (talk) 04:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That would explain a lot of it, if the "Doonesbury, the origional yale comics" were actually the Bull Tales strips. I thought there were still some discrepancies from the "bugs in the system" strips, but I'll have to check tomorrow.
The "rape" strip immediately follows strip 8 in the Origional Yale book IIRC, but seems to be missing from the online collection you linked.Jared Thaler (talk) 04:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All the ones I can find in "bugs" are the same as online, though I haven't been able to check throughly, because the strips are somewhat out of order in the book.Jared Thaler (talk) 16:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Top Importance?

[edit]

There's a discussion on which comic-related articles should be listed as "Top Importance" on the importance scale, and I feel this article should not be included. If any user disagrees or wishes to contribute, please do so there. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reruns

[edit]

The article states "From March 3, 2014, the strip offers reruns starting from the very beginning of its history as opposed to the recent ones that re-run when Trudeau is on vacation." However, today's rerun references President Ford, who wasn't president till 1974, so every strip is obviously not being rerun, even though the first rerun was the first strip from 1970.
Ulmanor (talk) 16:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The strip does offer reruns starting from the very beginning of its history. I am not sure what you think is inaccurate - the article obviously does not state that the entire strip is being re-run, as this would take 44 years! Mezigue (talk) 18:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Thanks. Ulmanor (talk) 19:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Doonesbury. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Doonesbury. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:48, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Doonesbury. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:43, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Doonesbury. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:28, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Doonesbury. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Treatment of Donald Trump

[edit]

Given the length of the list that is the redirect target, I'm thinking this may not be a notable publication, but I wanted to include it in Sad (disambiguation). I used a piped link for Sad!: Doonesbury in the Time of Trump but the actual title is #Sad!: Doonesbury in the Time of Trump. I'm thinking the publication is not notable enough for its own article, though there is this, which mentions the publication briefly, but seems to go into more detail about Garry Trudeau's satirizing of Donald Trump. Perhaps I'm looking at adding some information to the Doonesbury article. There may be more detail to add than just the one publication.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:01, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:38, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:44, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pulitzer Prize and Editorial Cartoonists’ Society

[edit]

Under Awards and Honors, the much-repeated statement is made (citing the Washington Post) about Trudeau's winning of the Pulitzer Prize being condemned by the so-called Editorial Cartoonists' Society and Trudeau cracking a joke about it. I am a comics historian and tried to confirm this fact.

First, I pored over newspaper clippings and found no contemporary reference.

Second, I went to the records. The Editorial Cartoonists’ Society never existed. It's the Association of American Editorial Cartoonists (AAEC). Their historical records are at the Billy Ireland Cartoon Library and Museum, and I asked the curators to look through the boxes for this period for any correspondence or records about an official condemnation. They were unable to find any.

Third, I asked Garry Trudeau, with whom I was in correspondence for a book. He had no recollection of the condemnation nor of making his reply, though he admitted it could be in passing. He doesn't believe it happened.

What is the process for marking a controversy over a fact that's "reported" by the Washington Post but appears to have no basis? This is a figure-ground problem, as the only source that contradicts the Post is, in fact, a book I just published about newspaper comics history, which suffers from the self-citation problem, as I understand it. Thanks for input. GlennFleishman (talk) 19:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found a newspaper article that mentions it. The article was written years before the WaPo timeline and before the content was added to wikipedia.

At the time, the Association of American Editorial Cartoonists sourly condemned the award and urged the Pulitzer board to rescind it, joining the editors who continued to be jumpy about a comic strip with a point of view.[1]

Schazjmd (talk) 19:45, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Doonesbury&oldid=1254390518"