Talk:Political cartoon/Archive 1

controversy?
''There is controversy as to the bias of editorial cartoons. A large majority of editorial cartoonists are left-wing, also there is not a single black editorial cartoonist writing for a major American paper.''

What about The Boondocks, which runs in several major papers -- including, last I heard about it, the Washington Post? Like Doonesbury in many papers (though IIRC the Post runs Doonesbury in Style), it often runs in the comics section, but it is certainly unabashedly political. (It is also always amusing to read the letters to the editor written by folks who can't stand to see radical opinion in print.) --FOo 20:13, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Comic strips are not generally considered editorial cartoons. Doonesbury is the exception to this, but even it enraged cartoonists when it won the Pullitzer Prize, most still do not consider it an editorial cartoon. (also Boondocks is syndicated and not written for any particular paper)- SimonP 20:29, Aug 4, 2003 (UTC)


 * You're not being consistent. Either Doonesbury and The Boondocks are both editorial cartoons or they both aren't.  They both are usually (but not always) heavy on political comment.  But I agree they don't fit the typical mold of a standalone, usually one-panel illustration.  Also, I think it should be pointed out in the article that editorial cartoons need not be humorous.  In fact the most effective political cartoonists realize this and don't sacrifice message for humor.  Look at the example provided, there is no humorous gag in the iconic "JOIN OR DIE" snake, it's just a powerful metaphor.  By contrast, cartoons that consist of pure caricature for humorous effect while not having any strong message are, and probably should, be relegated to the trash heap of history.  68.162.81.209 14:05, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Belated reply to that unsupported POV comment: Editorial cartoonist John Slade of the Louisiana Weekly published a collection of his work under the title "But I Am Too a Black Cartoonist! Really!". Saying there's no such thing is just sloppy inaccuracy. -- Infrogmation 20:01, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

-- This suffers from US-POV. We also need more on the early history of political cartoons. -- Tarquin 20:22, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

political cartoons outside the mainstream
suggest adding online editorial cartoonists to list of cartoonists as currently the impression is that cartoonists don't exist outside of the major newspaper publishers. left / right opinion within that environment operates within a totally narrow band and has no right to assume sole legitimacy when it comes to political cartooning. plenty of stuff to be written on this subject also.

Removed text
I've removed the following:


 * Presently there is an ongoing controversy as to the bias of editorial cartoons. A large majority of editorial cartoonists are left-wing, also there is not a single African-American editorial cartoonist writing for a major American paper.

I personally have never heard of this bias, nor does my personal experience bear it out; moreover, a couple of searches (lexis-nexis, google) revealed no really relevant content. If people can attribute this controversy, I'd be happy to have it back in.

However, the statement about African-Americans is wrong--Aaron McGruder (creator of The Boondocks) is black, and he's as much of an editorial cartoonist as Gary Trudeau.

I'd also like to note that this article is incredibly amerocentric.

[[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 18:51, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

I have a few sources for history of and a few for goya. I'm going to restructure and add a bit of history info., and fix some awkward grammar. Resonanteye 10:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Done, and done. I think it's amerocentric firstly because this is the en:wikipedia, and we need some british and aussie help to add references, and secondly, because not enough political cartoons are translated to english for those of us without other languages to post in the article. If you have another language, or you have some other sources from anywhere else, please add them. I think it would help the article a great deal to have more variety. hope my edit helped Resonanteye 11:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Would you care to admit that goy, goyim or goya are not terms of endearment? Fairydogmother (talk) 00:58, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

"Propoganda" Accusation Removed
Under History, I removed the statement:
 * "Editorial cartooning has a history of controversy. When it is seen from a sympathetic or even familiar viewpoint, it functions as critical commentary but just as often the same cartoon can be seen as propaganda by those outside of that culture or time. Political cartoons can become more propagandistic during times of war or other crisis."

There is no citation for it and it appears to be based purely on the author's opinion. It doesn't add to the article and seems out of place under the history of editorial cartooning. Thorburn 00:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Ummm...
I am a new User and this is my first few edits not on my User page...If what I added is redundent or if there are any mistakes in it, please tell me on my talk page...Sorry for any mistakes... Littleghostboo [ talk  ] 09:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Welcome! Be Bold! rewinn 16:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Conscripcartoon.jpg
Image:Conscripcartoon.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 Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required
BetacommandBot (talk) 04:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required
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 Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 16:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

C-Class rated for Comics Project
As this B-Class article has yet to receive a review, it has been rated as C-Class. If you disagree and would like to request an assesment, please visit WikiProject_Comics/Assessment and list the article. Hiding T 14:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Watch the word 'propaganda'
I was reading the article on Vladimir Lenin and noticed some subtle biases. A plain-as-day political cartoon was called a 'propaganda poster.'

Virtually any political cartoon or satirical poster can be described as 'propaganda' so it would be nice to keep the Western revisionist history at a minimum. Mechnesium (talk) 15:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

links = neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding
the rules at wp:elno are followed here. This a a strong, short selection of valuable sources, including several major university sponsored projects. The guideline says: What can normally be linked...Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject." What we have are links to historically important visual documents (editorial cartoons) that are too numerous to include in the article, plus annotations that are copyrighted. Rjensen (talk) 20:22, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Caricature gillray plumpudding.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Caricature gillray plumpudding.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on July 16, 2017. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2017-07-16. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:38, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Editorial cartoon. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121222004743/https://cup.columbia.edu/media/4135/all-the-art-that's-fit-to-print-jerelle-kraus-excerpt.pdf to https://cup.columbia.edu/media/4135/all-the-art-that%27s-fit-to-print-jerelle-kraus-excerpt.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071231044551/http://www.weberberg.de/skool/cartoons.html to http://www.weberberg.de/skool/cartoons.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:46, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 9 May 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

Moved. See general agreement below to rename this article as requested. Kudos to editors for your input, and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover)  Paine Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 01:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Editorial cartoon → Political cartoon – This term already redirects. The article was created back in 2003 exclusively about cartoons in regular newspapers and magazines. But in the "golden age" (or the first of several) of cartoons they were never contained in publications, but sold individually, so there was no "editor" or "editorial" involved. Today, with the internet, they are again often stand-alone works not connected with a publication. Also, at least in the UK, "editorial cartoon" is just not the WP:COMMONNAME. So the less specific term is much better. Johnbod (talk) 16:42, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support because I don't see any reason to oppose. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:12, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: Isn't "political" actually more specific rather than less specific, since some editorial commentary is not about politics? —BarrelProof (talk) 21:39, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Eveything is political, some say! The article is firmly about political catoons, and "editorial" is essentially just wrong. Johnbod (talk) 22:38, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose. As BarrelProof said, not all editorial cartoons are political ones.  Calidum   04:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Did you happen to read the first sentence in this article? Argento Surfer (talk) 17:18, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The opening sentence can be edited (and has been edited – by you, in fact). The article already includes some discussion of cartoons that are about religion rather than politics per se (e.g., the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy and the 2007 Bangladesh cartoon controversy). I would argue that some other topics in addition to politics and religion are also the subject of editorial cartoons –  e.g., the well-known cartoon of Serena Williams that was recently published in an Australian newspaper is an editorial cartoon, and it was not specifically about either religion or politics. There are also cartoons of various other non-political celebrities and cartoons depicting non-celebrity non-politicians that are the subject of editorial commentary that are not necessarily depicting political figures –  e.g., there could be editorial cartoons depicting rude social behaviour by non-specific people (litterers, people who use foul language, manspreading, manterrupting, mansplaining, ...). I suspect that few editorial cartoonists have confined their work to the strictly political domain (unless we go with the notion that everything is political, in which case the term becomes meaningless). Perhaps there may be some degree of WP:ENGVAR here, as the terminology may vary between different regions.  —BarrelProof (talk) 20:48, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Support, since the article is primarily about political cartoons, despite the current name. bd2412  T 03:48, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Biased Cartoons
I am very dismayed to find very biased, often libelous cartoons, intimating a relationship between Trump and Adolf Hitler, Trump as a killer of children, and so forth. They are about as hilarious and unbiased as late night "comics." If a hate-fest is what I wanted, I could have driven my happy behind to a Maxine Waters rally. I think that you need to rediscover humor. Fairydogmother (talk) 00:54, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you link to some examples, Fairydogmother? I don't see anything like this in the article nor in the Commons Category:Political cartoons.  Paine Ellsworth , ed.  put'r there  22:29, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The most recent cartoon in the article is 1903! Johnbod (talk) 00:20, 3 June 2019 (UTC)