Talk:Doonesbury/Archive 1

Doonesbury makes law?

seem to remember reading some time ago - maybe in a 90s doonesbury anthology... the one with the sinatra / gangsters strips - that doonesbury was responsible for making some state law. can't find the book, have read the wiki, googled it and can't find any reference. would seem to be a fairly significant achievement missing from the record if true. any ideas?

Are you thinking of the Palm Beach, Florida case where their "Worker Registration law", compared to Apartheid-era pass laws, was struck down as unconstitutional in 1985? There are articles about that on the Doonesbury CD-ROM, one is from the St. Petersburg Times, 20 December 1985, though the decision was appealed the following January. I don't remember the final outcome, but the strips satirizing Palm Beach were run not long after the infamous Sinatra sequence. --JohnDBuell 22:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

no, don't think that's it. but could be. will go see if i can find the anthology.

well, checked flashbacks and, yes, 1 oct 85 'the doonesbury bill' gets introduced and passed in florida. also noted on the doonesbury.com Q&A.

Page width complaint

Why is this page so wide? Why do I have to scroll right to read it? -- Zoe

it's wide because of the table at the bottom - it makes the formatting funny. --Abqwildcat 07:06, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Um, well, that's weird, once I created the Talk page, the formatting came out okay. Never mind. -- Zoe

Who is Tang Wensheng? RickK 02:26, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

According to this article (in French), she was the interpreter for the Chinese foreign minister during the "Ping-Pong" diplomacy era of Sino-US relations, and served as Mao's interpreter when meeting with Nixon.

Aka "Nancy Tang" or "Tang Wen-sheng" (with hyphen), use these for Googling.

See photo.

Copyright concern

Is there any problem with just putting the text of a comic in the format of a 6 or 8 panel cartoon without the artwork? I'm fairly certain that the case could be made that the comic artist or his syndicate owns the copyright to the text of the comic strip as well as the artwork. I hate to do it since it seems to add to the flavor and description of the article, but if there are no objections I think this page has to be listed as a copyvio for the "typical-strip" table at the bottom of the page. The original comic isn't available on the web any longer **UPDATE: Found original at UComics** it's word for word, so I think it would qualify as a copyvio. --Abqwildcat 07:06, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it's a question of "the case could be made" -- of course Trudeau or his assignee owns the copyright to the text. The real issue would be fair use. Out of many years' worth of Doonesbury cartoons, can we give the mere text of one, without the art? I'm no copyright expert but I'm inclined to think that's fair use. JamesMLane 09:33, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I guess my concern is this: As I understand it, no material included in wikipedia can be copyrighted unless the copyright holder gives permission to use it. Some fair use exceptions DO apply BUT the argument that because there's a lot of the comics we can copy the text of one of them is ridiuclous. By this reasonning, we should be able to include the complete works of any highly-producing artist. Fair use is a bit of a complicated concept, and direct copies of copyrighted work are probably not covered under Fair use. A comic strip is such a small work and a complete transcription of its text violates any fair use that we'd be claiming.

Also, it's copyrighted by Trudeau or his syndicate. Syndicates have a history of suing to remove comics of their artists, as well. Not that I think it's likely in this case. I think the case remains that under US copyright law a direct copy of the entirety of a work (in this case from a comic) is not ok. If we generalize the faux comic panel a bit, I think we'd be ok. The problem with that is that it would lack Trudeau's skill with words and witty banter that is the essence of the comic. --Abqwildcat 10:08, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You should look at the article on fair use. You write that "the argument that because there's a lot of the comics we can copy the text of one of them is ridiuclous." I disagree, because one factor in a fair-use analysis is "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole" (emphasis added). The size of the Doonesbury oeuvre is a relevant fact. You also write that "direct copies of copyrighted work are probably not covered under Fair use." To the contrary, fair use applies only to a direct copy of a portion of a work. If, instead of directly copying, you paraphrase, or steal the ideas without stealing the words or images, it's not a copyright violation in the first place. Your argument is that we've copied "the entirety of a work." The issue is whether a single strip is a "work" all by itself. I could see that going either way, but treating each day's strip separately seems unrealistic. It's also relevant that Wikipedia is a nonprofit enterprise and that this particular use of Trudeau's work isn't designed to take away his sales, but to promote the strip. The article lauds Doonesbury and directs the reader to Trudeau's website. I think we have a pretty good argument here. We can, in good faith, leave it up, unless and until Trudeau or the syndicate demands that it be taken down. JamesMLane 11:18, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm content leaving the sample strip, but did think the subject worth discussion. There are quite a few points of view one can take in regards to this question, and I thinik you're right. Unless there's either a request to drop it from the copyright owners or unless there's a future consensus in favor of removal, let's leave it as is. --Abqwildcat 17:52, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Symbols representing politicians

I would like to know more about the symbols that represent politicians in the strip. The article mentions W.'s representations, but doesn't mention any others. I seem to recall that president Bush (the former) was represented by a flag,

I think Bush Snr started as just empty space, with radial lines donating the nothingness. The flag was draped on after. GWO

vp Dan Quayle by a feather (I think), and president Clinton by a waffle. What is the significance of these symbols? Qualye's is clearly a play on his name, but I am not sure about the others. Is Bush's flag supposed to represent patriotism?

Or Bush's own claims to such, anyway. GWO

I think that the feather for Dan Quayle is mainly to represent him as an intellectual lightweight. The pun on his name is probably secondary. -- DSatz 13:41, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

What issue did Clinton waffle on?

I thought this was somewhat more today with his various prodigious appetites... I was wrong. After Clinton's election, there was a fake survey taken in the strip to choose between the Waffle and a flipping coin, so he must've been vacillating during the campaign... GWO

I believe the waffle is for Clinton's talent at seeming to be "all things to all people" but again, the element of appetite is certainly there. -- DSatz 13:41, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

The article's explanation of G.W. Bush's asterisk in the article is a little tame--more than the "controversy" from the 2000 election, the symbol represents the obligatory historical footnote, "majority in the Electoral College but not in the popular vote". Of course there are additional layers. -- DSatz 13:41, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

It would be nice to see this information incorporated into the article. Hfs 13:09, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Newt Gingrich was a bomb with a lit fuse... there weren't too many more. It was a 90s thing... Complete list here: http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/faqs/faq_cs.html

George H.W. Bush -- point o' lite

Dan Quayle -- feather

David Duke -- swastika

Newt Gingrich -- bomb

Bill Clinton -- waffle

Dubya -- asterisk (wearing cowboy hat)

GWO

---

So now GWB is re-elected, how's Tredeau going to depict him? Still as a battered helmet for the next 4 years? 67.8.139.45 07:49, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sure. Is it any less a metaphor for his presidency just because he's been re-elected? The same things wich battered the helmet still batter the helmet, figuratively of course. --ABQCat 08:42, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

Ron Headrest - this character seems similar to the gag in Back to the Future Part II, which features a Max Headroom-ised version of Reagan. Anyone have any idea which appeared first?

Ron Headrest's first appearance was 27 April 1987. BttF2 was released in November 1989, so I'd say Doonesbury came first with the idea. --JohnDBuell | Talk 07:43, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Spoiler warning

What spoilers are we warning people against? I'm going to delete that warning in a couple of days unless somebody can give me a justification for having it. RickK 05:34, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

Uncle Duke is a Major Character

Uncle Duke should be with the major characters - he's been with the strip almost since the beginning and has centered a large number of wacky storylines. Who can forget Duke as Governor of American Samoa? As Ambassador to China? As a hostage in Iran? Or as a zombie? --BD2412 03:24, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I will make the move.NatusRoma 05:55, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, his time as a hostage in Iran isn't currently mentioned. Lawikitejana 17:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It IS covered under the Uncle Duke page about the character, however. --JohnDBuell 18:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Doc Edgerton a character??

In the list of "Other characters, and their inspirations," Doc Edgerton is listed. I don't remember any such character; can someone please confirm? -- DSatz 13:27, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

I've got nothing for the first twenty five years, but I haven't followed Doonesbury nearly as closely or religiously over the last ten. --JohnDBuell | Talk 07:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I've got no clue who Doc Edgerton is, either. Can anyone say? 02:17, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Doc Edgerton was an MIT professor and also tried to search for the Loch Ness Monster in the 1970s, allegedly he was lampooned for this in Doonesbury. [1] I don't recall the strips off hand (and I've read nearly every Doonesbury strip ever published ever since I got into the strip in the 80s), so my assessment would be that he was, at best, a very minor character and probably not on par with the others there. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 02:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I found it. There's a reference to him in the comic strip from 19 July 1976. --JohnDBuell | Talk 05:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Original Title?

It's referred to as having started as Bull Tales and then become Doonesbury.But wasn't there a time when the strip was called B.D. ?--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 02:52, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No. --Micahbrwn 06:40, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Various minor changes

Made a number of minor changes, adding details to the character sections and replacing the very obviously POV statement "he is once again hilariously questioning authority and speaking truth to power" with a more neutral description.

Ford quote

The Gerald Ford quote ("There are only three major vehicles to keep us informed as to what is going on in Washington: the electronic media, the print media, and Doonesbury — not necessarily in that order") is very interesting, but no source is cited for it, and a Google search finds only several hits of the Wikipedia page (and replicas thereof) and a few other pages that likely drew the quote from Wikipedia. Does anyone have an original source for this quote, or any variation of it? --LostLeviathan 23:12, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

On the back of Doonesbury Deluxe, the paperback edition, ISBN 080500596X The Ford quote is between quotes by Jimmy Carter and Henry Kissinger. --JohnDBuell | Talk 07:31, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Missing Media

Who wants to tackle the Doonesbury TV special (which I rented once, about 10 years ago, and haven't seen again since)? And there were two CD-ROMs released in the mid-1990s: Doonesbury Flashbacks and the Doonesbury Election Game (both in 1995, I think, marking the strip's 25th anniversary). --JohnDBuell | Talk 07:36, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

If anyone is interested - I'd forgotten about the Doonesbury Flashbacks CD-ROM being repackaged with the book The Bundled Doonesbury which is STILL in print. Oh, and it IS Windows only, sorry.... Also someone could mention the Duke figure published with the first editions of the Action Figure! book, and The 1990 Doonesbury Stamp Album for the 20th anniversary - stamps were in full color, and proceeds went to "the nationaly distributed Writers' Voices publishing program of Literacy Volunteers of New York City, Inc." --JohnDBuell | Talk 02:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Character Chronology

Would anyone object to adding a chronology of characters? When characters first appeared, had major events, and last appearances? (if anyone ever tried to do a full and complete list of every character EVER, it would need its own article, and that says nothing of the celebrity/politician references!) --JohnDBuell | Talk 05:14, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

To elaborate, since khaosworks was already asking :) - I would suggest adding just dates where there's a list of characters now (and especially since only a couple of the characters actually have their own sub pages). E.g.: Michael Doonesbury (first appearance: 26 October 1970). B.D. (first appearance: 26 October 1970). Mark Slackmeyer (first appearance: 19 November 1970, first mentioned by name: 30 November 1970). And so on. --JohnDBuell | Talk 06:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I think I'll start this as a sub page of my user page. If anyone wants to contribute, please do. Perhaps we can work it into a subpage of the Doonesbury page later on. Have a look at User:JohnDBuell/Doonesbury Character Chronology --JohnDBuell | Talk 10:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Move the musical to a sub-page?

The more I write about it, the more I'm thinking that the information about the Broadway musical should probably get moved to a sub-page. Anyone agree? --JohnDBuell | Talk 20:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Included cartoon

Now that I've re-read the other cartoons from July 1978, the included one seems a little out of context (the character on the right was the minor recurring character "Lava Lava" Lenny, originally recruited by Duke and Macarthur on American Samoa to play football, then brought to the Washington Redskins by Duke). I'd LIKE to perhaps do one of the very first cartoons from 1970, then perhaps a more recent one to show changes in artistic style? Any other suggestions/ideas? --JohnDBuell | Talk 06:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe a "famous" Doonesbury moment (or series of moments) was the Watergate coverage. In part because I think it was the first time a comic strip (not a single "editorial cartoon") was making big, and explicit, political statements (Pogo worked by analogy.) As an example, I remember that the famous cartoon showing the white house being "bricked up" (the bricks as if covering the panel itself), and I think also the reverse, the bricks being taken down, appeared in my high school history textbook.

I would suggest that the guilty guilty guilty strip be used: [2]. It's got everything: Doonesbury's big Watergate coverage, Doonesbury being censored, an ongoing character (Mega->microphone Mark), and it's also still pretty funny. IMO the "first" cartoon is not very interesting except to fans: it's like, oh, a dumb cartoon about college life, how important.

If you wanted to include a second one (don't think it's necessary, might be pushing fair use, and might encourage others to just keep adding and adding cartoons they dig), why not one of the recent ones with Mike returning to visit his old Walden commune?

Sdedeo 06:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

How about this - leave up the "first cartoon" for now, and if anyone can scan, download or copy the "Stonewall" cartoon (12 August 1974), the one he got the Pulitzer for, post that instead? --JohnDBuell | Talk 06:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

The ucomics site makes it seem as if you have to pay money to get the archives -- however, it is trivial to retrieve comics for free, and nothing they say seems to suggest they oppose it. You can just type in the correct format for any date. I've uploaded and replaced with the stonewall (the one in my old HS text); you may want to change the caption. Amazing to see how far Doonesbury came in just three years -- from rather lame satire to some heavy stuff. (An argument for including two strips, I think -- the first, and that.) Sdedeo 07:06, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that's fine. I would probably only restore "the first" for the style section, if you can also find a recent strip that features Mike and B.D., for contrast's sake (which would put us up to three, but hey). --JohnDBuell | Talk 07:17, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Ask and you shall receive! B.D. and Mike have been reunited, perfect for contrasting thirty-five years of artwork. --JohnDBuell 05:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

If people think my edit history:

03:01, 12 November 2005 (hist) (diff) Image:Stonewalldb.gif (http://images.ucomics.com/comics/db/1974/db740812.gif "Stonewall" Doonesbury comic of 1974, August 12, Pulitzer prize.) (top)
02:54, 12 November 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Logophile (top)
02:45, 12 November 2005 (hist) (diff) Talk:Doonesbury (→Included cartoon)
02:25, 12 November 2005 (hist) (diff) Image:Db780722.gif (image is clearly not fair-use when appearing in Doonesbury article) (top)
02:19, 12 November 2005 (hist) (diff) m Doonesbury (→Censorship)
02:18, 12 November 2005 (hist) (diff) Doonesbury (→Censorship - rm DKE comic (which is also a copyright violation); should we include every strip that references an object, group or person in the real world?)

is somewhat hypocritical, I have one thing to say:

File:Stonewalldb2.gif

Sdedeo 07:26, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

35th anniversary article

There's an AP article covering the strip's 35th anniversary, reprinted on msnbc.com. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9998791 --JohnDBuell | Talk 02:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Ginny?

Shouldn't someone who appears in that TIME picture be given some kind of mention in the actual article? Thanos6 14:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Virginia Slade? Yes, probably. She's not really been seen since her husband ran against Lacey Davenport for Davenport's seat in Congress, in the early 80s. But she was a major character through most of the 1970s, as a roommate to Joanie Caucus, when both attended law school in California. --JohnDBuell 01:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

"Conservatives have long called for the censorship of Doonesbury".

This sentence starts out the criticism section, followed by an unsupported claim about blasphemy without any time-related context, followed by two events which have occurred less than three years ago. This hardly constitutes, to me, a life-long attempt to censor Doonesbury. Kade 03:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Dick Davenport "died" in the mid-1980s (7 November 1986). And the criticism has followed Doonesbury nearly non-stop over its thirty-five year history. Much of this criticism, from the first twenty-five years (1970-1995) was copied/archived onto the Doonesbury Flashbacks CD-ROM disc. I felt that the section provided a nice representation of criticism, but if you really want to see more, I'm sure we can find enough to fork off a new article. --JohnDBuell 15:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, to borrow a phrase: "You asked for it, now you're gonna get it." :) All of the following are right from the archives on the above named CD-ROM disc.

• • In July 1971, the Macon Telegraph in Macon, GA started a reader's survey after one reader wrote in with his dislike for the then nine-month-old syndicated comic. The results of the poll are not recorded.
  • In May, 1975, Trudeau won his Pulitzer Prize, which upset several "Editorial Cartoonists." Within a week of that award, there were several letters sent to the newspaper in New Haven, CT. The editors' reply is reprinted on the CD-ROM.
  • The Adirondack Daily Enterprise delayed printing of three Doonesbury Strips in July 1976 where the fictional Congressman Ventura took a lady applying for a staff position out to a motel and...had her read treaty texts to him out loud.
  • November of that year was the infamously cut sequence (by the Boston Globe, New York Daily News, Chicago Tribune and others) that panned to Rick Redfern and Joanie Caucus waking up in bed together.
  • The Billings Gazette, Billings, MT, also had a reader poll at the end of 1976, with a decision announced in 1977: 1624 votes for dumping, 324 for keeping.
  • The Minneapolis Star had African-American men picketing their offices in December 1977 after the "60s revival party" strip. They protested the use of the term "Negro" and "portrayed blacks as 'beggars'".
  • In June 1978 Trudeau faced the ire of then-US House Speaker Tip O'Neill over a postcard campaign. The campaign related to a scandal in the House involving members taking expensive gifts from a Korean businessman.
  • In January 1979 Trudeau was in the crosshairs of US Senator John Warner from Virginia, over a series of strips.
  • In July 1979 the Stockton Record in California suspended the strip over a storyline dealing with then Governor Jerry Brown.
  • Losses by George Bush and John Anderson were blamed on Doonesbury during the 1980 presidential election in the USA. The Deseret News in Utah ran one anti-Reagan sequence all at once because they felt it was too personal of an attack.
  • The subject of Polish jokes caused the strip to be pulled in Milwaukee in July 1981.
  • Then-head of EPA Anne Gorsuch wasn't pleased with her 'alter ego' appearances in Doonesbury in 1982: "it 'stretched the limits of my sense of humor.'"

And that's the first twelve years. As I said, we really COULD fork off an article with all of this, if anyone desires to. --JohnDBuell 04:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Uh, I hate to be the one to point this out, but dissatisfaction with a cartoon's content does not automatically equate to censorship. I'm entirely free to criticise anything you write/draw/say, and my doing so would not be censorship of your views. Of all your examples above, I do not see a single one which would qualify as real "censorship", let alone a campaign by conservatives to have the strip censored. You'll have to do better than that to justify the retention of the POV sentence that Kade objected to. — Impi 00:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Impi, on at least the major point: The scare word "Censorship" is flung about too often, and I think this is one of the cases where the conservatives' approbium is best described with a less inflammatory word. -- GWO

The original debate was over the span of time involved. I think I've proven that the length of time in question has been most of the nearly 36 years of the strip's existence. For the rest of the wording of that sentence, feel free to modify it. Something like "Over the span of the comic strip's run, various readers have at times objected to the strip's content, even occasionally calling for its censorship or discontinuation." --JohnDBuell 21:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Physical size of strip in the newspapers

I seem to recall that when Doonesbury returned from its hiatus in the 1980s that Garry Trudeau would only allow the strip to rappear in papers which would guarantee that the physical space allocated to Doonesbury met his requirements. Apparently there had been a trend towards shrinking comics (perhaps it still continues, I don't measure regularly).

IIRC, This is one of the reasons (the main reason?) that Doonesbury does not appear in the main comics section of The Washington Post.

Does anybody have anything on this? Is it worth mentioning in this article?

Yes I think it's worth mentioning if we can verify it. I'm not sure where we'd go to verify it however. Have you looked on Doonesbury.com? --JohnDBuell 20:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Great American Novel

"Doonesbury has occasionally been called The Great American Novel of the late 20th century."

I find this to be a fascinating claim. Can we provide any citations for this? --Shmuel 23:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Alright, anyone know where we can get a copy of the following? Blair, Walter, and Hamlin Hill. "The Great American Novel." America's Humor: From Poor Richard to Doonesbury. New York: Oxford, UP, 1978 --JohnDBuell 00:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

"The Great American Novel." America's Humor: From Poor Richard to Doonesbury -- it seems more likely that the author is characterising the history and scope of American humorists en masse as constituting the Great American Novel. That's an interesting thesis. Unless you can quote the authors narrowing this to Doonesbury itself, it's not a citation. And, then, it's going in as a citation : "X says Doonesbury constitutes the Great American Novel." That this is a common assertion is simply not true. -- GWO

I go on record as declaring Doonesbury the second half of the 20th Century's answer to the Great American Novel. And you can quote me. --Happylobster 17:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I never suggested that the book title ALONE would be the reference. I wanted to see what the book contained, which is why I asked if anyone knew if a copy could be had. It seems available from used book shops, but I haven't had time to check my local libraries yet. (I'm also under the impression that "The Great American Novel" might be a section on the book of the same name by Philip Roth, but again, I haven't received a copy of the Blair and Hill book yet). --JohnDBuell 17:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm attempting to get a copy of this book through an interlibrary loan. I'll report back on what I find it says about Doonesbury. --JohnDBuell 21:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Took nearly a month, but I got the book. The "Great American Novel" section is indeed exclusively about the book by Roth. There are no real analogies between Doonesbury and Roth's book; the only real analogies are between Doonesbury and "All in the Family" and even the early work of Tom Lehrer. However, I was able to get some material regarding Doonesbury in 1975, including the original source for the Gerald Ford quote. --JohnDBuell 22:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Roland Burton Hedley III?

Is the suffix on Roland's name "III"? I thought it was Roland Burton Hedley, Jr. Spebudmak 03:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I embedded a note about this in the article as an HTML comment. I suppose, if worded correctly, it could be actually worked into the article. Quoting the comment: Note: Roland HAS been listed as Roland Burton Hedley, Jr. AND Roland Burton Hedley, III in Doonesbury. However, the "III" appears on the official Doonesbury website. --JohnDBuell 03:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Earl of Duke

Added Earl to the list of minor characters. I don't recall much of his background before this week's strips. I'm assuming with Honey out of the picture and the lobbyist angle that Earl's going to be more prominent. --Happylobster 17:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

When Duke attempted to operate an orphanage in Colorado, one of the orphans looked familiar. Honey sent one of Duke's warts off for DNA tests, which proved Earl was his son. Earl was touched when he realized that Duke had a tattoo of his mother's name, but that didn't narrow it down for Duke. Earl kind of dissappeared after Duke's unsuccesful 2000 presidential bid.

Czolgolz 19:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I remember now. I'll incorporate that into the paragraph. Thanks. --Happylobster 21:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

April 2006 story line

I removed the following bullet:

• In April 2006 Doonesbury re-visited the circumstances where B.D. lost his leg. The strip from April 27, 2006 shows a driver's-eye view of B.D.'s Humvee bearing down on several women and a child.

While I think it may be notable, I think we should wait until the plot cycle is further along to summarize it. The edit is basicaly a summary of the day's strip, and could change tomorrow. Here's strip in question, but that link won't work in two weeks. JohnWhitlock 01:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I reverted, which provoked this audit-trail comment:

Come on now, is it really too much to ask to wait to see how a strip turns out before deciding it's a pivotal moment?

Today, we have revealed for us the fact that B.D. gave the order to drive on, apparently causing the deaths or injuries of those civilins we were introduced to yesterday. This will turn out to be the pivotal moment of B.D.'s tour of duty in Iraq, and it is the reason he's been so f'd-up since coming home.

I won't revert again right away, but I'm confident this text will be back.

Atlant 13:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

So am I. But I've been wrong before. -- GWO

I'd support putting this back up after Saturday's strip, since there is a good chance that it will tie up the week's content. Friday's strip added some new points - BD gave the order, but was not the driver, and he might be suicidal. JohnWhitlock 15:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion it is a bit too early to start calling something a milestone when it is only two days old. Why not wait a month or so? We don't know if this will be the pivotal moment of BD's tour -- I think we should wait and see. Spebudmak 23:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this. Next week it could all be a Bobby-Ewing-style dream. Unlikely, but we just don't know --- GWO

The vehicle?

As long as we're on the talk page, Atlant brought up the question of the vehicle (in an HTML comment). Is it:

• A Humvee
• An APC
• Something else?

My vote is a Humvee, based on the gun turret in the April 25th comic. JohnWhitlock 15:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The Doonesbury Musical

It seems like the section describing the action of the Doonesbury Musical is disproportionately long. If the many storylines in the strip's 35 year history were described in such detail the article would become much much longer than it currently is. I suggest that the section on the musical be moved to a new article. Spebudmak 21:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed that the same request was made last october by "JohnDBuell". Spebudmak 21:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggested it, and nobody took me up on it. The description is incomplete anyway - the action of Act II is still missing from the article, save for the finale. --JohnDBuell 21:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

So I decided to 'be bold' and moved most of the details of the musical to a new page, Doonesbury: A Musical Comedy. Some of the material on that page is repepetitive with this one, but I suppose that could be cleared up if necessary. Spebudmak 18:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Political characters

I can only remember a few (ie. Clinton as a floating waffle, Buchanan as a bomb, etc, etc.) I know there were more -- anyone want to fill out that list? JAF1970 20:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

No real need for this - they're described in prose in the "Characteristic Style" section. --JohnDBuell 21:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone agree that that section of the prose is a little long? The amount of space devoted to it almost makes it seem like the only "characteristic style" Trudeau has is replacing politicians with symbols. Anyway the list that I can think of is 1. GHW.Bush, Point of light; 2. David Duke, Swastika; 3. Bill Clinton, levitating waffle; 4. Newt Gingritch, bomb; 5. George W. Bush, originally a point of light like his dad, then a point of light with a cowboy hat, then an asterisk with a cowboy hat, then an asterisk with a roman helmet; 6. Arnie, giant hand. Spebudmak 22:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and 7. the feather for Dan Quayle. Spebudmak 22:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't agree. Prose is ALWAYS preferred over lists, numbered or bulleted. --JohnDBuell 23:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you prefer prose, but for my tupence, I know that I prefer a list.

Atlant 22:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Just so people see where I'm coming from, I'll quote from Wikipedia:Embedded list:

As a basic principle, you should avoid list-making in entries. Wikipedia is not a list repository. Lists of links, if warranted, should have their own entry: see Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) for detail. Instead of giving a list of items, the significant items should be mentioned naturally within the text.

Which actually should also mean that the lists of primary and secondary characters should get forked off, eventually, into, say List of primary and secondary characters in Doonesbury. I don't feel that an exact copy of this list, forked into its own article, would go against the ideas expressed in Wikipedia:Listcruft (which is just an essay, and has no real official standing). --JohnDBuell 01:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting either a list or long prose for this. I'm saying that there is much more to Trudeau's "characteristic style" than the use of icons for politicians. I don't know if these icons deserve more than a sentence or two, and they certainly don't all need to be mentioned and explained. Spebudmak 20:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright, how about the rewrite I just did, placing the political characters at the END of the section, and expanding a bit more on real life place settings and storylines? --JohnDBuell 22:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Great! I like the separate, titled paragraph for the political icons. One day when I have a chance I think I may add something to that section about the strip's static art, with typically just two talking heads, and the realism of the characters' surroundings in pre-circa-1987 strips, and the extensive use of multi angles and silhouettes post-1987. Spebudmak 00:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget the HEAVY Jules Feiffer influence on the early 70s strips - his art has come a LONG way in 36 years! --JohnDBuell 02:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

New Washington Post interview with Garry Trudeau

For Doonesbury fans, there's quite a bit of information here. I don't know how much of it could work well into this article, but it's quite an interesting read. Just thought it was worth a mention. Washington Post Magazine article. IFCAR 23:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Passage of time

Shouldn't there be an article on the passage of time in Doonesbury? I mean, the characters have aged recently, but in the beginning they didn't (they were in college for at least 20 years).

They weren't in college for twenty years (except Zonker). The strip started in 1970 and Mike was in the workforce during the Reagan years. Czolgolz 18:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

How about a paragraph like this:

The strip underwent a significant change after Trudeau returned to it from a 22 month hiatus (from January 1983 to October 1984), during which he helped create a Doonesbury Broadway production. Before the break in the strip, the characters were eternal college students, living in a commune together near "Walden College," which was modelled after Trudeau's alma mater.

Copy and pasted from the Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is GFDL licensed, so we can probably just copy this into the Wikipedia article.

Character section

I decided that although it is good for the character list to have its own page, the Characters section in this article should at least say who the main characters are. I added a comment "Please don't let this section get too long -- that's what the list article is for" to the source. Spebudmak 01:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I went back to the Doonesbury Flashbacks CD-ROM and added some details about the formation of Walden Commune, and what wound up as its core cast, as seen in the TV Special and the Musical: B.D., Mike, Mark, Zonker, Boopsie and Joanie. --JohnDBuell 02:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

In the "Criticism" section it says "Outspoken critics have included members of every US Presidential administration since Richard Nixon's." This may be sourced from something that was written during the Clinton administration. Have George W. Bush or any of his subordinates said anything about it? George W. Bush is known for not giving his critics much ammunition, by not responding to them (unlike his father--check out the back cover of, I think, "Read my Lips, Make my Day, Eat Quiche and Die!") Spebudmak 01:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Of the recent books that are searchable (on Amazon - I don't own any since Virtual Doonesbury), there aren't any quotes directly from the administration. Hunter S. Thompson was quoted on one, and an Alabama newspaper on another. --JohnDBuell 02:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Hasn't Doonesbury also received lots of criticism simply for not being funny unlike other supposedly left-leaning cartoons like If...

Every cartoon has its critics. Any number of people don't think Dilbert is funny. A number of people don't think Garfield is as funny as it used to be, and some people said that about Peanuts in its final decade. I doubt there's enough space on Wikipedia's servers to cover all of that, and then you have to consider the copyright violations.... --JohnDBuell 21:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I seem remember a few articles in different newspapers criticising it only for not being funny. I think as the first commentator wrote, Donnesbury more than any other cartoon has been criticised because many people just don't "get it".

Universal Press Syndicate template

While I appreciate user Iguana nirvana14 making the Universal Press Syndicate template, I am not sure it is necessary -- none of these strips have much in common, nominally, other than the fact that the money for them comes from the same source. This is kind of like putting recording artists from the same record label on a template together -- ok, they have the same distrubutor, but what is unifying about the content? Spebudmak 16:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention the sheer number of comics if the list on mycomicspage.com is to be believed. [3] However, I fear this wouldn't be enough to challenge the template on a TfD discussion. --JohnDBuell 17:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

One other thing I noticed - all columnists and editorial cartoons distributed by UPS are also missing, and that might just make the template more cumbersome.... --JohnDBuell 17:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Citations WOEFULLY inadequate

This article makes incredibly high numbers of unsourced claims, and this problem is made all the more glaring by the fact that sourcing them is unlikely to be very hard for those who added them. There is considerable printed material available on the strip — not the least of which is the introductions to the collections — and the website is the kind that I would expect to source even some of its own claims. I'll do what I can as time allows, but I'm about to go back to work for the semester and don't have nearly the massive collection of DB material that many who contributed to the article likely have. Lawikitejana 20:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)