Talk:Charles M. Schulz

Sentence

I'm confused by this sentence: "She asked her to marry him, but he refused." Is it supposed to say that he asked her to marry him, but she refused, or that she asked him to marry her, but he refused? -- Arteitle 00:42, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Good point :-) ... made a mistake ... should be "He asked her to marry him but she refused" ... will be fixed by the time you read this. Xamian 00:12, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

Needles CA; Did Schulz ever live there?

The Wiki article on Needles CA claims that the cartoonist 'grew up there', and that was the influence that contributed to the Spike character, brother of Snoopy.

From the Needles wiki page: "In the comic strip Peanuts, created by Charles Schultz who lived in Needles, California as a boy, often cartooned Snoopy's brother Spike living in the desert outside Needles. He frequently heads to Needles to partake of the town's nightlife, often running afoul of the local coyotes."

Nothing in CS's wiki page is contained about such, and his NYT Obituary is completely silent about Needles.

Comments???

He didn't grow up there. He lived there briefly, I think maybe one year as a child. —Chowbok ☠ 20:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Question, then. Shouldn't there then be some reference to Needles in Schulz's article? Reason for question: If that IS why he created a Spike, it has at least a thread of relevance, being related to one of the strip's minor characters. But without more info, how to say the when and for how long? And why on earth would he have gone there??? Its reason for existence, in the middle of the desert, revolves primarily around the railroad, and not much else. It wouldn't be a destination residence for a family from MN.

Got the answer. From archivist at the Museum (Lisa Monhoff).

"Charles Schulz and his parents moved to Needles from about 1928-1930. They moved there to join other family members who had moved there for the climate which was more condusive to his cousin's poor health (possibly tuberculosis) than Minnesota's."

I will add to the CS article. 11/29/2006

That's great, except... Ms. Monhoff needs to publish this at schulzmuseum.com or allow her e-mail to be published here, including a publicly available e-mail address for confirmation, or this can be removed at any time per the policy governing original research. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 17:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

She cited Rheta Grimsley Johnson (1989) Good Grief: The Story of Charles M. Schulz as containing the same Needles info. I didn't put her whole email in here as I didn't think it was necessary. If it is necessary, I will add it here, on the discussion page. 11/29/2006

Citing the book within the article should be sufficient—although a page number is preferable within {{cite book}}. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I tried to add the reference to "Good Grief", but can't break the code to do it properly. Can someone help?68.228.70.223 13:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The pages in "Good Grief", noting the Needles residency, are pp. 30-36, per Ms Monhoff. 68.228.70.223 20:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Done; however, I edited the entry to remove conjecture ("with TB?") that's wrong for an encyclopedia and the note that the family didn't go to Northern California afterwards since it's irrelevant to the entry. Also, per article cleanup through the Manual of Style, those bullet points preferably should be removed and the entries rewritten into paragraphs. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 14:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I see the changes. Thanks. ('Good grief', no WONDER I couldn't crack the code on citations! Perhaps when I need to in the future, I can use your entry as a template.) Thanks.68.228.70.223 12:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Concur about the bullet points getting rewritten into paragraphs. I didn't want to undertake because I don't think I'd do the job as well as someone else with more Wiki experience.68.228.70.223 12:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Now there are TWO "References" sections in the article. Intentional, or should they be combined???68.228.70.223 12:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Frank Wing

"There he met Yesterdays creator Frank Wing. They became close friends, with Wing taking a mentor role in Schulz's life."

Yesterdays points to an article about an album by the band Yes, which doesn't seem to have anything to do with Frank Wing. A google search for "'frank wing' yesterdays" only seems to return copies of this article. Would anyone care to clarify who this guy is? Bgruber 20:13, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Since it's been 6 weeks and no one has responded, I've removed the statement from the article. Bgruber 04:27, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wing was a fellow artist, and another of the instructors at the Art Instruction School. Yesterdays was Wing's comic strip (I don't have dates on appearances). Wing gave Schulz a C+ in the "Drawing of Children" correspondence course, but encouraged Schulz in the late 1940s to continue the development of Schulz's child characters (which led first to Li'l Folks, and then Peanuts). There's a little bit about Wing in the book Charles M. Schulz: Li'l Beginnings, published by the Charles M. Schulz Museum and edited by Derrick Bang. --JohnDBuell | Talk 13:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia biographical articles should appear under the name the person was best known as. Unlike, say, William S. Burroughs or Hunter S. Thompson, Schulz was generally not referred to with his middle initial, so I moved this. If most people disagree, go ahead and move it back. --Chowbok 16:38, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

Heh. I guess "most people" disagreed, or at least Tregowith. Well, whatever, no big deal. Still, it would be nice if there had been a note here about it or something. --Chowbok 14:53, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

His "Peanuts" collections books usually said "Charles M. Schulz", not "Charles Schulz". So, presumably, the article should be under "Charles M. Schulz" with a redirect from "Charles Schulz" ... as it already is, as of this writing. Wahkeenah 17:27, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Religious Themes

"...and often said that "the only theology is no theology," "

It would be nice to see a source. How much of the change in his worldview is originally sourced and how much is part of an urban legend?

REPLY: Here's the source of the quote, from one of his official biographies (the one from 1989):

Indeed, Gospel [According to Peanuts] was not a collaboration. Schulz allowed use of his comic strip but kept his distance from the book's theology. The policy came in handy as the book inevitably drew fire. It was once described by another author as "a bilious homily on sin" that undid the fine job the strip had done in making the scripture palatable. Schulz joked that he wanted to be able to shirk the criticism and bask in the praise, something he apparently accomplished.

"I tell Bob [Short, the author of The Gospel According to Peanuts] the only theology is no theology."

From Good Grief: The Story of Charles M. Schulz, by Rheta Grimsley Johnson, pp. 128-129. This entire chapter of the book (Chapter 11, "Blessed Assurance") deals with Schulz's religious and spiritual beliefs. Quite a fascinating read. Here's another quote, from page 137:

The Schulz theology has evolved ... to the point the cartoonist feels uncomfortable in any one church, though he retains "a certain fondness" for the Church of God.

"I do not go to church anymore, because I could not be an active part of things. I guess you might say I've come around to secular humanism, an obligation I believe all humans have to others and the world we live in."

On page 59 we learn that his daughter Amy converted to Mormonism, went on a Mormon mission to Europe, and now lives in Provo, Utah with her husband and four children (as of 1989, that is). And in another book, Charles M. Schulz: Conversations, which is a book of interviews he gave over the years, we learn that he has no problem with that and feels Mormonism is as good a religion for his daughter as any (while the church he grew up in disagrees). So I think it's quite clear that he changed his worldview significantly in his later years.

Twodeel 02:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC) twodeel

Since it's now clear he was an atheist, why does he keep on getting removed from the atheists category? 216.75.183.11 (talk) 03:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Ash Loomis

It is hardly clear that he was an atheist. The quote says that he had "...come around to secular humanism..." and therefore he is listed in the American humanists category.faithless (^speak) 03:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

How can one be a secular humanist without also being an atheist? Ash Loomis (talk) 19:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The two are not synonymous with each other. From the Wikipedia article for secular humanism:

Christian fundamentalist opponents of humanism typically use the term secular humanism pejoratively to mean atheism or secularism or to lump together all nontheistic varieties of humanism. Humanists object to such usage, finding it misleading or overly broad.

And considering that all Schulz said was that he was "coming around" to secular humanism, it's a bit of a stretch to even classify him as a humanist (though I don't have any problem with it). faithless (^speak) 23:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I read over the secular humanism article and it still seems extremely rare for someone to identify themselves as a secular humanist without being an atheist. :

While some humanists embrace calling themselves secular humanists, others prefer the term Humanist, capitalized and without any qualifying adjective. The terms secular humanism and Humanism overlap, but have different connotations. The term secular humanism emphasizes a non-religious focus, whereas the term Humanism deemphasizes this and may even encompass some non theistic varieties of religious humanism.

If he wasn't a full atheist, I think he would have probably identified himself as a Humanist rather than a Secular Humanist. There's also his quote from Good Grief: The Story of Charles M. Schulz that "the only theology is no theology," mentioned earlier on this talk page; It seems to indicate a non theistic world view. It also comes out in some of his comics. A good example is the Great Pumpkin series in which he uses Linus' belief in the Great Pumpkin to satire religious people. In one strip Charlie Brown even says "we're obviously separated by theological differences" when Linus mentions Santa Claus. However, I do admit now that none of these arguments are conclusive enough to warrant his return to the atheists category. Like you said earlier, he was only "coming around" to secular humanism (which may indicate that he was an agnostic.) I will not restore him to it unless I or someone else finds more conclusive evidence. Ash Loomis (talk) 20:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, he said "I've come around to secular humanism," not that he "coming around." And in another interview in 1995 (often misattributed as being in 1999), he said "The term that best describes me now is 'secular humanist.'" While it's not absolute proof of atheism, he definitely considered himself a secular humanist. Twodeel (talk) 02:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Santa Rosa

Schulz surely did NOT work in Santa Rosa for fifty years, as claimed in the introduction. He was living and working in Sebastopol at the time A Charlie Brown Christmas was made (mid-1960s) and I think he moved to Santa Rosa in the late 1960s. There was also a very brief time that he lived in Colorado, the famous nursery wall, now housed at the CMS Museum, comes from his home there! --JohnDBuell | Talk 23:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Birthplace

While the article said Schultz was born in Minneapolis, he was actually born in an apartment above what is now O'Gara's Bar, at the corner of Snelling and Selby Avenues. He's a Saint Paul native.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitchberg (talk • contribs)

Evidence: the Schulz museum website is bound to know better than CNN where Schulz was born.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.173.30.50 (talk • contribs)

Sorry; we have no idea who runs the Schulz museum website, or where they got the information; the museum reference cites no independent data. We don't know who they are, or what research they put into the question. The St. Paul Pioneer Press the morning Schulz died ran an extensive piece about Schulz (not available online, unfortunately) that even listed the (Saint Paul) hospital in which he was born. The St. Paul Chamber of Commerce (which ran an annual Schulz festival) claims it, and while I'm no big CNNN fan, they have a slightly higher standard of verification than the Museum website.

People, including the media, who are not from the Twin Cities frequently assume St. Paul is a part of Minneapolis, or fail to distinguish between the two. It's a local joke, in fact; whenever something like the Today show comes to down, it's inevitable that at least one of them will say "Welcome to Minneapolis" while broadcasting from Rice Park or the Capitol.

I will continue looking for the PiPress obit, which went into intensive detail on Schulz early years. Years which began in Saint Paul, and stayed there until he joined the Army.

Saint Paul. Not Minneapolis.

Mitchberg 17:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Who is this "we" you speak of? As in "we have no idea who runs the Schulz museum"?

How about "we" (I) consult the Enyclopedia Americana and we go with what they say?

And then "we" can stop writing like we are the Queen of England.

Michael Donovan, Minneapolis, MN USA

Later that same day...

Both the 2005 Encyclopedia Britannica and the 2004 Encyclopedia Americana list Schulz as having been born in -surprise- Minneapolis.

Do you want more sources? If so, name one more credible than the Britannica.

I will continue to challenge you, source for source.

Michael Donovan, Minneapolis, MN USA

Text of email I just sent to the Schulz Museum:

Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 13:46:28 -0700 (PDT) From: "Michael Donovan" <mjdonovan02@yahoo.com> Subject: Biographical Question. To: Inquiries@SchulzMuseum.org

Could you please tell me Mr Schulz' birthplace? Was it Saint Paul or Minneapolis, Minnesota?

Also, could you please tell me if the Museum is affiliated with the Schulz family?

Thank you for your help.

Michael Donovan Minneapolis, MN

mjdonovan02@yahoo.com

I guess I'm kind of thinking his own family might know where he was born.

I could've sworn that the biographies I'd read as a kid all said Schulz was born in St. Paul. But when I saw the Schulz Museum website (which says Minneapolis [1][2]), I wondered exactly what book I had read that was in error, or if I had simply misread them for all those reports back in elementary school. I went to our local library and this is what I found:

• Charles Schulz, by Cynthia Klingel and Robert B. Noyed, published by The Child's World Inc., 2002, ISBN 1567669506. Page 4 says, "Charles was born in Minnesota on November 26, 1922. He grew up in the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul." That really pins it down, doesn't it? :) For what it's worth, this was a children's book written in 64-point type.
• The Complete Peanuts: 1950-1952, by Charles M. Schulz, published by Fantagraphics Books, 2004, ISBN 156097589X. The foreword (page ix) by Garrison Keillor starts, "Sparky Schulz (b. 11/26/22) was a shy, self-conscious kid with bad skin, too light to play football, not tall enough for basketball, the only child of Carl and Dena Schulz of St. Paul, a painful student at St. Paul Central High School..." Still not very specific; I was born "in" another city because that's the hospital my mom went to, but my parents never lived in that city and I only spent a few days of my life there. And yet, my birth certificate will state that I was "born in [that city]." Moving along...
• Charles Schulz, by Mae Woods, published by ABDO Publishing Company, 2000, ISBN 1577654250. Page 6 says, "Charles Monroe Schulz was born in Minneapolis, Minnesota, on November 26, 1922." My spirits are crushed! Minneapolis! But then I found...
• Charles Schulz: Great Cartoonist, by Marilyn Mascola, published by Rourke Enterprises Inc., 1989, ISBN 0865924295. Page 3 says, "In 1922, a baby boy was born to Carl and Dena Schulz in St. Paul, Minnesota."
• Charlie Brown & Charlie Schulz: In celebration of the 20th anniversary of Peanuts, by Lee Mendelson in association with Charles Schulz, published by The World Publishing Company, 1970, ISBN 0394830571. Page 14 says, "Once upon a time--about forty-eight years ago--a baby remarkably resembling Charlie Brown is born in St. Paul, Minnesota." I think this is probably the best source of the ones my library had on the shelves, since it was written by both Lee Mendelson and Schulz himself. I'm almost positive the book Charlie Brown, Snoopy and Me (Doubleday, 1980, ISBN 0385158068) also says St. Paul, but since the book was checked out I couldn't verify it. Again though, we don't know if even Schulz himself declared his birthplace to be St. Paul because that's where he lived, or if perhaps the hospital was in Minneapolis and that's why it's reported as such elsewhere (such as a birth certificate).

--Birdhombre 00:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Er, Dan? I'm not sure what is the motivation for leaden ad-hominae like "And then "we" can stop writing like we are the Queen of England", but I'm only trying to get to the root of the story, here.

I am going to find the Pioneer Press hardcopy noting that Schulz was born in Saint Paul, but in fact (if I recall correctly, and I believe I do) at Ancker Hospital - which became Ramsey County and finally Regions Hospital.

If necessary, I will go through public records.

There is no way Charles Schulz can be from Minneapolis. Ick.  :-)

Mitchberg 01:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The 2005 World Book: Minneapolis.

The Dictionary of American Biography: Minneapolis.

Who Was Who in America: Minneapolis.

MJD, Minneapolis, MN USA

Hopefully the e-mail reproduced below will be the last word on the subject of Schulz' birthplace. Now, dare I make the corrections, or will they be removed again?

Michael Donovan, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA

Subject: Re: Biographical Question Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 10:09:36 -0700 From: "Lisa Monhoff" <Lisa@schulzmuseum.org> To: mjdonovan02@yahoo.com CC: "Inquiries" <Inquiries@schulzmuseum.org>

Dear Michael Donovan,

Thank you for contacting the Charles M. Schulz Museum and Research Center.

Charles Schulz was born in Minneapolis, MN but grew up in St. Paul, MN. Yes, the Museum is affiliated with the Schulz family. Jean Schulz, Charles Schulz's widow, is the President of the Board of Directors and is very involved with the Museum's daily operations, and Craig Schulz, Charles Schulz's younger son, is also on the Board of the Museum. Craig has also spearheaded the City of Santa Rosa's "Peanuts on Parade" festivities which involve the creation of statues of Peanuts characters displayed around the city for the summer. This year is the "Summer of Woodstock".

Regards,

Lisa Monhoff, Archivist Charles M. Schulz Museum & Research Center 2301 Hardies Lane Santa Rosa, CA 95403 (707) 579-4452 x122 lisa@schulzmuseum.org www.schulzmuseum.org

It's a shame we can't be more specific, to address my "hospital" concern above. In this edit, it was stated that Schulz moved to St. Paul "at an early age." What age? That seems more like an attempt to sew up the logical gap between being born in Minneapolis but growing up in St. Paul. It could be entirely possible that Schulz only "lived" in Minneapolis for 72 hours before "moving" to St. Paul (which admittedly would still be "an early age").

Also, why is it that the biography Charlie Brown & Charlie Schulz, as I cited above, claims he was born in St. Paul? Surely Schulz himself would know where he was born, again, unless there's some semantical dispute regarding birthplace vs. hometown. Perhaps we should change the opening line to Charles M. Schulz was born in Minneapolis, Minnesota, to Dena and Carl Schulz but grew up in Saint Paul, Minnesota. That removes the question of at what age he moved to St. Paul and more or less quotes the e-mail you received.

(And regarding your question about "the Queen's English" to Mitchberg, I assume by "we" he was referring to the collective editors of Wikipedia, not himself alone.)

--Birdhombre 20:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, here we go. I think I found the articles to which Mitchberg is referring. Although you have to pay to read them in the Pioneer Press archives, I did find (copyright-infringing) reprints of them on the Peanuts Collector Club website: here and here and here. Do a search on those pages for the word "Minneapolis," and you'll find at least five places where they say Schulz was born in Minneapolis but raised in St. Paul. That pretty well settles it for me. :)

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go build a time machine and correct all those reports I wrote in elementary school, and write some errata letters to World Publishing Company regarding Charlie Brown & Charlie Schulz. :) --Birdhombre 20:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems to crunch it. Bummer.

For the record, Schulz' family lived in Saint Paul - at the aforementioned apartment at Snelling and Selby - from Schulz' birth.

So while I am going to go to Public Records the next time I have a day off and run this down, for now I'll run with it - albeit sadly. Minneapolis? Yuck. This can not stand.  :-)

Mitchberg 11:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

You, Mr Berg, are an honorable opponent. Best of luck.

Michael Donovan, Minneapolis, MN USA

Just for the sake of completeness, I requested Charlie Brown, Snoopy & Me from the library. This book was written by Schulz himself, and, in spite of my earlier memory, states that he was born in Minneapolis. He doesn't mention St. Paul until a few paragraphs later, where he says "since we were living in St. Paul at the time..." with no indication as to when exactly they lived there. --Birdhombre 02:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

His Mother's death

The Wikipedia states that Charles Schulz left for army training after his mother's death, but I remember a rare television special around the 1980's on Mr. Schulz and I specifically remember him talking about how he had to leave his mother's deathbed to report for the army. That they had said their goodbyes, him knowing he would never see her alive again and she not knowing if he would come home from the war. It may seem a minor detail but considering what an unimaginable painful parting this must had been, I think we should at least "get it right". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JohnTH (talk • contribs) 17:57, June 27, 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. —Chowbok 19:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Picture?

Why is there no picture of Schulz himself in this article? Does it have something to do with vandalism or fair use issues, or has there simply never been one? Paul Haymon 06:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Photos added to Wikipedia, like the text, should be freely-licensed. Most photos aren't. I've written to the Schulz Museum asking if they could release a photo under an acceptable license for us to use, but I never heard back. —Chowbok 15:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Darn. It would be nice to have a picture... Paul Haymon 23:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Somebody told me on here that if a picture was released for the general press to be able to use, we can use it.... is that true? Antmusic 22:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not. —Chowbok ☠ 00:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

New Picture

The pic of Schulz is an old one and we need a present day pic. Schulz's drawing of Charile Brown in the pic is the Late 50's Charile Brown.

Since Schulz has been dead for six years, I don't think we really want a "present day" picture. I know what you mean though. The issue is that pictures on Wikipedia, as much as possible, need to be licensed for free redistribution, which almost no photos are. This photo has the rare advantage of being public domain, which makes it hard to replace. As I said above, I have written to the Schulz museum, asking if they'll freely-license a photo for us, but I never received a reply. If anyone else wants to write them, let me know; I can help you with what you need to ask (you can't just say "a photo to use on Wikipedia"; that's too restrictive). —Chowbok ☠ 19:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

"Since Schulz has been dead for six years," I don't believe the changes in fair-use rules apply since a new image cannot be created. This may need discussion at Wikipedia talk:Publicity photos. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The reason we can use fair use images for the deceased is that the theory is that they're irreplaceable; i.e., no free images can be created. Obviously, this doesn't apply if a free image already exists; not only is it replaceable, it has been replaced! This has nothing to do with the changes in fair use policy, this has always been the case. —Chowbok ☠ 21:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I rather suspected that, even as I was searching for it (I couldn't independently recall...). RadioKirk (u|t|c) 21:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Patty

The comment about Patty being based on Schulz's wife is original research. Pleases provide citation, as I don't believe Schulz ever said this.LLM68 00:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

June 6/D-Day

Schulz did not save his strip on June 6 EVERY year to pay tribute to D-Day. He only did this in the later years of the strip, not all 50 years.LLM68 00:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Still earning money

Forbes magacine states that he still earns 35 mio$ in 2006 for his cartoons. Being third after Cobane and Presley in the posthume earning people.--Stone 08:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Biography

Does anyone have the name of the Schulz biography due for an October 2007 release? Its considered to be the first full-scale Schulz bio, and I think it merits mention in the article. Steveo2 11:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Scratch that. I found it: "Peanuts and Schulz: A Biography." Steveo2 19:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

What about his strip "Young Pillars" from 1956 - 1965 or "Two-by-Fours"?

Church of God's young adult magazine "Youth" published a bi-weekly title by Charles M. Schulz called "Young Pillars" (sometimes called "Youth" because of the original magazine's title). I think he had another series of strips called "Two-by-Fours" too. Antmusic 22:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

"Young Pillars" actually started in 1955, and the frequency varied over the run (sometimes biweekly, sometimes weekly, with substantial stretches of reruns.) The Two-by-Four cartoons weren't so much a series as a set of cartoons done originally for the book "Two-by-Fours". These, and Schulz's other syndicated newspaper cartoon It's Only a Game (which does have its own entry) should probably be mentioned here. I am uncertain whether under Wikipedia policy I am allowed to make these additions myself as I have a commercial interest (having put out the book "Schulz's Youth", which collects the Youth and Two-by-Fours and related material, as well as the book "It's Only A Game"). NatGertler 14:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Nat Gertler

Quotation marks

I've recently become involved in a bit of an edit war with another editor. Could someone else weigh in on this? The controversial sentence originally read:

Schulz touched on religious themes in his work, including the classic television cartoon, A Charlie Brown Christmas (1965), which features the character Linus van Pelt quoting the King James Version of the Bible (Luke 2:8–14) to explain "what Christmas is all about." In personal interviews Schulz mentioned that Linus represented his spiritual side.

Hornetman took exception to the quotation marks, and removed them, claiming that they were somehow not neutral; I reverted his edit. Without the quotation marks, the article reads like Wikipedia agrees with Linus as to what Christmas is all about. Obviously this is not the case: WP has no opinion. The quotation marks belong in the article, as they show that Luke 2:8-14 is Linus's opinion of what Christmas is all about, and not Wikipedia's. Please leave your thoughts. Thanks! Faithlessthewonderboy 08:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course the quotation marks are needed. Hornetman, you need to once again remember that not everyone-- especially not Wikipedia-- agrees with your perspective on everything, especially religious matters. In addition, even Linus' interpretation of the quote could be different from someone who has similar religious beliefs. Leaving the quotation marks out is implying a bias in Wikipedia, which we should not have. --lucid 01:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, Lucid. :) Hornetman has been indefinitely blocked, so I'm going to go ahead and ask the admin to unprotect this article (he offered to previously, but I didn't want to give Hornetman the opportunity to begin the edit war again). Cheers. faithless (^speak) 04:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Charles Schulz's "unhappy" life news link

According to today's Yahoo news article, a new biography described Charles Schulz as a generally "unhappy" man, and I believe the link is of important use for the article. But, the article stated pretty much on his childhood that influenced his main character, Charlie Brown. + Mike D 26 13:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC) [ url= http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071019/en_nm/arts_schulz_dc]

The biography is already mentioned. faithless (^speak) 19:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Video: A Day in The life of Charles Shulz (1965)

Also a Studio 360 did a radio program on Charles and what peanuts meant to people.

• http://www.studio360.org/episodes/2007/11/02

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVn5bsvtmqk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.126.236.103 (talk) 00:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Change of infobox?

I suggest that the Template:Infobox Person be substituted with a Template:Infobox Comics creator. What might the consensus be on this? MURGH ^disc. 12:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

2 infoboxes necessary?

Is the military one really necessary? Schulz is more known for his work on Peanuts than his World War II service, and the info in there can be mentioned in the paragraph that mentions said service. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 06:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. I noticed when the second infobox was added a few weeks back and meant to address it, but instead completely forgot about it. While (to the best of my knowledge) there is no policy or guideline forbidding multiple infoboxes, I think that this brief discussion sums up things nicely. Schulz's military career isn't relevant to his notability (that is, it's not why he has an article here), and therefore the second infobox is unnecessary. faithless (^speak) 08:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree entirely. Not only is his military service irrelevant to his notability, I'd argue the infobox places WP:UNDUE weight on an aspect otherwise just mentioned in a small paragraph in the article. MURGH ^disc. 11:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Politics

While I agree with the deletion of the recent he-was-a-republican-and-donated-to-McCain addition (I don't think one $1000 political donation is significant in the bio of a non-political figure), I will note that while the linked-to page didn't actually say Sparky was a Republican, he described himself as an "Eisenhower Republican". Which doesn't mean that he was necessarily an actual member of the party. Just thought I'd note that, in case editing on this continues.--Nat Gertler (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Congressional Gold medal

The senate bill listed here does not seem to be the one that was passed. The House bill was sent to the senate and passed unanimously. It can be seen here http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:HR03642:@@@X --T1980 (talk) 03:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Religion

Claiming Schultz turned away from Christianity is both comical and inaccurate. He published a book in 1989 titled "I Take My Religion Seriously". Reference 33 is inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Countryfan (talk • contribs) 23:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

That 1989 book was just a collection of cartoon panels he'd done in the mid 1950s through mid 1960s, published by the folks who held copyright in those cartoons. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

This is another example of the inaccuracy of Wikipedia and why no institution of any credibility allows its citing.