Talk:Peanuts

The article currently includes One strip on May 20, 1962, even had an icon that stated "Defend Freedom, Buy US Savings Bonds.", and yes, it's true that that strip had that logo in it (and that strip is the only source given for the statement.) Thing is, this may not be due for inclusion, and if it is, we need to remove the "even" that makes it sound like it's unusual. Including small savings bond ads in comic strips was quite normal during World War II, and even in 1962, there were a number of strips taking part in that campaign. For example, here's a Strictly Business cartoon, here's Rick O'Shay, Judge Parker, Dixie Dugan. Barring the discovery of some knowing, reliable third-party source indicating that this plug is worth of mention, it's probably best to delete that sentence. I will not be doing so because of WP:COI -- Nat Gertler (talk) 06:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Partially done: I removed "even" and reworded it a bit. This sentence can remain for now, but it still needs a WP:RELIABLE, WP:SECONDARY, WP:INDEPENDENT source, and it would probably be best to mention that other strips did similarly (along with a R, S, I source for that). If you have any such sources to hand, I'd be happy to look through them and modify the paragraph accordingly if they're up to snuff.

Otherwise, I'll add it to the list of things to look into more deeply as I gradually improve the article's citations. — Toast for Teddy (talk) 05:57, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I suspect that even if we found a source that said that Peanuts took part in such campaigns among other strips, it woudl not rise to the level that would call for inclusion. So much has been written about Peanuts specifically that things it was just part of a group of aren't something we should have space for. (And lest anyone assume that this was something that started with Schulz, as I said, it goes back at least to WWII -- example.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 06:51, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

@ChrisP2K5: You added a comment that Schulz did not see his final Peanuts strip published. This is not the case, as some papers still at the time distributed the non-news sections of their Sunday paper on Saturday. Schulz was, I am told, shown a copy from one such paper before his death. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

This edit replaced the descriptor of Franklin-suggester Harriet Glickman as "white" with "Jewish", and with good reason, as her Jewish background was indeed a motivator for her. However, the fact that she was white (or at least not Black) is important to the dynamics of the tale... and despite what people may assume, there are indeed Black Jews in America, so saying she's Jewish does not erase that.

I was a friend of Harriet's and will not be restoring the information that she was white due to WP:COI reasons, but I ask that others consider the case above and, if they deem it proper, add "white". -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:17, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

As the one who made the edit, I agree with your assessment and out of respect I agree with the request and will follow through. Though the discussion of whether or not Jewish people are white is a very long one. 142.162.246.88 (talk) 00:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh, believe me, I understand (there's a reason I tend to describe myself as a "pale Jew".) But there is enough sourcing on it to apply for the aspects of this case. Thank you for making the edit. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

As someone is currently trying to erase both "white" and "Jewish" from her descriptor in the article, let me note that the "white" is covered in the existing source, and "Jewish" can be sourced to this. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@CarterSchmelz61: Care to explain why you are seeking to erase this information? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there is cause to remove that information, nor should it be. She was Jewish and she was white. As mentioned by Ms. Gertler, who knew her personally, Glickman preferred to call herself Just that. As well, stating that another outside website has her being Jewish has no bearing on Wikipedia. You can use that website as a citation for the information, but not to remove it. It is absolutely necessary to the story. 142.162.246.88 (talk) 23:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Mr. Gertler. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:08, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, Mr. Gertler. 142.162.246.88 (talk) 03:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Hey, there. Since the last GAN in 2006, the article has undergone some significant changes. That said, while I've been fixing up all the dead citations on this article at various points, I would like to help out in making this a potential GA or an FA. One of the goals I have is to is have it featured on the main page as a TFA on either October 2 (when the first strip was published), January 6 (when the first Sunday strip was released) or on November 26 (Charles M. Schulz's birthday), as well as making it a WP:DYK at some point in the future. Everyone is welcome to assist in this process.

There are a few concerns I have:

• I could see a {{refimprove}} tag for the 2000: End of Peanuts section, so that section might need to be fixed up.
• The lead section should be at least three to four paragraphs long, but that can be an easy fix. We should consider removing the citations from the lead and put said citations elsewhere in the article as per WP:LEADCITE.

If there are any other concerns, suggestions or recommendations anyone might have, please let me know here. Thanks, sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:58, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

I am hectic at the moment, and I should not be editing directly as I have a stong conflict of interest when it comes to Peanuts, but when I get a little time I will try to make a list of suggestions and concerns with regard to the article. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:59, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, Nat. There's no hurry. I'm always doing my best to help improve Wikipedian as a longtime editor. I also have to confess I'm also a longtime Peanuts fan, having grew up on the franchise since childhood. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:01, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

This has been my dream for the longest time. I tried to make some effort towards GA or even FA some time ago but I lost steam; the various passages that used short-form citations are all mine. I'm willing to help. Some challenges I see is basically rewriting the history section, but I don't have precise ideas how to cover the history of the strip. I think it should only cover the strip, for one thing. Not the animations, that's all in another section that I wrote. Also, I'm concerned that parts of the Characters section has been coverted from prose to lists, and it's evolving as a surface area for indiscrimiate additions of minor characters. I think I need to revert the section that covers characters that do not appear for most of the strip.

My sandbox page, which I began rewriting a history section. Maybe this can be the start?: User:JAYFAX/sandbox#History

JAYFAX (talk) 00:22, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

That could work. Another concern I have is that one of the sentences has a {{citation needed}} dating all the way back to 2007. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:46, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

@JAYFAX: I agree that you can start rewriting the history section from scratch. You could try looking on the Wikipedia Library and its libraries it subscribes to, Internet Archive, Google Scholar, or Google Books for information about the sentence with the citation needed tag. If you cannot find information to support the sentence that has a citation needed tag, you should remove it. This is what I would do if I cannot find a reliable source that would support a sentence with the citation needed tag. Z. Patterson (talk) 19:54, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Need a source on the switch from four-panel to three-panel Peanuts? Here ya go! -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:36, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. While I usually remove statements which have a {{citation needed}} tag for over a year or so, this source certainly helps with the citation problem as described above. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:07, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank for for the encouragement. And thanks for the source @NatGertler:, great post... I met you at Beaglefest btw x) underwater cities is an in-joke with my friends now. Anyway, I will get a start soon when I have some free time. JAYFAX (talk) 23:18, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree with the 2010 section needing some cleanup. There seems to be unsourced statements peppered throughout the article - in the characters section, for example. Additionally, for a subject as mainstream and multi-decade-spanning as this, it seems like there could be some real opportunities to bulk up and expand the Reception and Legacy sections too. Sergecross73 msg me 21:03, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Serge on the unsourced statements, along with the Reception and Legacy section expansion; those are one of the other problems which can be dealt with. I've also posted neutral notices on the other WikiProjects associated with this article to get further opinions. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:26, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

• First and foremost, I see lots of unreferenced text that needs to be addressed. There's even a tag for the "2000" section for needing more sources while none at all are present within "Games". That alone prevents it from passing any FAC or GAN right now. A good rule of thumb is that each paragraph should end with at least one citation, and if you need multiple to back up a paragraph's content, then add more accordingly. As for other issues, I'm surprised the "Legacy" section doesn't address how Peanuts influenced Garfield from Jim Davis as well as Calvin and Hobbes by Bill Watterson. Both openly talked about how Schulz and his work inspired them. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:59, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

  @SNUGGUMS: Bill Watterson's thoughts about how Peanuts influenced his work is mentioned in the legacy section of the Charles M. Schulz article. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 11:07, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

@Sjones23 is the "Characters" section neccessary, given the existence of individual Wikipedia pages for all of the main cast and many of the recurring characters, as well as List of Peanuts characters? I could see the section's content replacing the tables in List of Peanuts characters, since using a table for a list of characters seems questionable at the very least. Cheers! monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 20:00, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe we can merge and simplify some of the information about these characters into a "Premise" section and mention the List of Peanuts characters under a "See also" template, using other GA articles on comic strips and animated series as models.

Also, what we do want to avoid is a full list of characters which isn't Wikipedia's purpose. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:51, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

That seems appropriate, just covering the main characters (Charlie, Snoopy, Linus and Lucy) and having a see also to the list of characters(which needs serious cleanup, and looking into it further, the "first appearance" dates may be taken from fandom) monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 23:09, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

@Monkeysmashingkeyboards: I definitely agree the list of characters might need to be cleaned up to conform with the relevant guidelines (and on top of that, there's no creation and conception section, as well as no reception section in that list). sjones23 (talk - contributions) 09:01, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I've added some HTML comments with various concerns that might impact a future FAC or GAN. Cheers! monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2026 (UTC)