Talk:Little Orphan Annie

Stamp image copyvio

I've removed the Little Orphan Annie stamp image from this article because the standard license statement for USPS stamps is explicitly for illustrating the stamp and not its subject. The relevant text is:

This image is of a United States postage stamp produced in 1978 or later. The copyright for it is owned by the United States Postal Service. It is believed that the use of postage stamps to illustrate the stamp in question (as opposed to the subject of the stamp) on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Other use of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement.

(All emphasizing is part of the original Template:USPSstamp text.) We need a properly licensed image. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The image was restored by Gamaliel (who should have commented here about it). The unstated justification seems to come from mentioning the stamp release in the caption, which strikes me as more of a pretext. (This is something that should be described in the article, where its relevance to the article would be better examined.) We really should have a better image than a tiny postage stamp anyway, but I'm not going to push the point. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

What is the law on uploading images from comic strips to Wikipedia. I see quite a large number of images from comic books, but few from comic strips. Rick Norwood 14:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Orphant?

The link from James Whitcomb Riley to this page reads "Little Orphant Annie", and there is a comment in the markup saying that Orphant is not a typo. I certainly believe this is true, but could it perhaps be explained on the Annie article? Why is Orphant correct? I know I was tempted to go and change the link on the Riley page until I saw the comment. Lbbzman 12:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• This page has the complete poem.[1] I take "orphant" to be a colloquialism for "orphaned". The entire poem is written in dialect. Wahkeenah 13:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the link. I'll probably incorporate some of the information about the poem in the main article. Lbbzman 18:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

It exists also a film Little Orphant Annie, 1918, see [2] phe 01:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Half tab

There was some discussion in recent edit summaries questioning the term Half tab. I'm not the one who added the term, but I did find the linked article. I don't care whether the term is reinserted or not... it's definitely not my area of expertise. Cheers, Lbbzman 20:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• It was once linked to just plain "tab", which is of no use. The latest poster has directed it to another page that has to do with this subject. "Tab" in this context is short for "tabloid". I gotta tell ya, I feel enriched now. :) Wahkeenah 23:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Learn something new every day. Rick Norwood 23:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

WRONG!!!

I disagree with the assertion that Annie was based on the character from the poem. I remember reading an article once that said Harold Gray's original concept was for a strip about a boy named Little Orphan Otter, but the syndicate rep thought that sketch of the boy was too girlish, and suggested a revamp, with the boy becoming a girl, and the charcter renamed Annie. The syndicate guy had probably heard of the poem, which was about a black servent girl that told ghost stories, but it is a very, very big stretch to say that the comic strip was in any way based on the peom.--Drvanthorp 00:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• It sounds like it would be more correct to say that the title was inspired, at least in part, by the poem. Wahkeenah 00:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree. Rick Norwood 14:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe Gray's original title was Little Orphan Otto. Annie's masculine origin is probably the main reason she's so capable at and fond of what at the time were considered the more boyish activities, i.e. camping, hiking, sports, fishing, fighting, etc. Gray wanted to do a strip about a innocent but tough little boy, and in a sense he did. --AC 07:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Harold Grey's Annie is not fond of any of the activities you mention. She likes dolls, animals, school, friends, and hard work. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC) I think Rick is right (Anonymous) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.238.31 (talk) 00:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

"I'm just goin' to keep right on bouncin' your pan on that floor till you holler 'enough' or till I give out, and I feel real strong yet see?" -LOA, 1925; "Gee when I socked that big guy on the nut he rolled over twice and got up runnin'" -ibid, weeks later; "So you'll teach ME will yuh?" -LOA 1932 (a 7 stars & 1 moon roundhouse), etc... --AC (talk) 07:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

LOA is a fighter, sure enough. But she doesn't enjoy fighting. She never picks fights. When forced to fight, she fights to win. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Did someone claim LOA picks fights? No. Though she sometimes pulls pranks, which lead to reprisals, and eventually to fights. And she's clearly proud of being, as HG says, "tougher than hell": "So you'll teach ME will yuh?" -- that emphatic "ME" shows pride, it means "I'm far better at this than you are".

On fighting to win, perhaps you'd agree LOA enjoys winning most of the many justifiable fights HG orchestrates. For a fictional character, can we distinguish (or define) the difference between the enjoyment of having won a justifiable fight, and the enjoyment of winning any fight? Do we give priority to a character's words if their actions seem to contradict those words? Does Spider-Man enjoy fighting? Prince Valiant? Popeye? The Incredible Hulk? I recall a few comic-book villains who "abhor violence", but employ it liberally. For a more controversial example, see Hero (2002 film)#Critical_response. --AC (talk) 12:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I was responding to the following: "she's so capable at and fond of what at the time were considered the more boyish activities, i.e. camping, hiking, sports, fishing, fighting". I can't think of any evidence that Annie is "fond of" any of those activities.

As for the second group of questions: who enjoys fighting? -- Popeye, for sure. Hulk, not really, he would rather sit in a field and smell the daisies. "Leave Hulk alone!!!" Prince Valiant -- fighting is his job, he usually doesn't enjoy it -- witness the time he threw the Singing Sword into the sea in disgust after slaughtering many enemies. Spider-man, only when he wears the black suit. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Re Hulk, depends which color or mood he's in. Val & Spidey too like "action" which usually means violence; I think "mood" is the key, as all these characters have moments of regret or remorse, but seldom remain pacifists for long.

LOA has moods too... "I'm just goin' to keep right on bouncin' your pan on that floor till you holler 'enough' or till I give out, and I feel real strong yet see?", those are the words of somebody who likes to fight. Unless there exist unpublished HG strips that show LOA being dosed with mayhem-inducing drugs at the time, I feel that quote (and panel) satisfies the burden of proof.

On occasional scenes of remorse... consider a Country Music singer who's famous for songs of honkytonk cheating, fighting, & wild life... who also waxed a few nice gospel records now and then. If we selectively regard only their "Sunday" expression, it paints a different portrait from Saturday Night. Both days, sides, & moods are equally real though. For actual persons, it is common to hear partisans dismiss one side or another of an admired or despised person, according to the observer's bias -- their friends see Sunday eulogies, but opponents prefer the National Enquirer style of biography. Polarizing an audience is is less common with fictional characters, though endemic to religion.

Some long running comic strip begin as novels with characters and prejudices, that eventually change into inflexible sagas about archetypes and minor saints. In their early years the characters can change, have adventures, love and hate, etc., but great popularity brings greater editorial and civic obligations, and the character's rougher aspects (which early readers liked) are smoothed away, the character becomes a featured role model, stars in public service announcements and ad hoc educational/propaganda comics, and finally is frozen into a servile archetype. At which point the strip tends to lose what made it interesting, maybe the author introduces new rougher characters with the attributes formerly possessed by the titular protagonist, or early readers look elsewhere for what was lost in ascension. The strip fades onward with a loyal and larger audience happy to see their familiar thing, but has fewer readers.

Hypothesis: what's "real" for a character may be unreal for an archetype. I can assert that HG's LOA the 1925 character is a cute roughneck in Dickensian drag, but in 2008 LOA the archetype is whatever folks believed in most. --AC (talk) 09:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

How about a date for the panel you quote. It sounds familiar, but the strip ran for a long time. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Better late than never... My Dover Books edition of 'LOA and LOA in Cosmic City' has it on page 24, "The Championship Still Remains in America", there's a copyright of 1925, but no date, but it's 61 pages before the Thanksgiving strip in the same story arc -- assuming 6 dailys a week (no Sundays in this book) and a 1925 calendar, that would be on or about August 24 1925. Wonderful sign of the times that arc, everyone but Mrs. Warbucks hates little Selby Adlebert Piffleberry and he's in league with rascals, the day before "Daddy" teaches Annie boxing, two days later Selby's doctor shakes Annie's hand for beating Selby up, and three days later we see Selby in a wheelchair with a head bandage. Nowadays Selby's villainous guardians could probably make their pile by suing the Warbucks, and LOA would be involuntarily medicated. But it's a good arc and needs no defense. --AC (talk) 23:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Um, excuse me, but I don't believe it was titled "Little Orphan Otter". It's not about an orphan animal. It was originally titled "Little Orphan Otto" and he just based the comic strip on the poem. Tweedle20 (talk) 15:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)Tweedle20

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 Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 16:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Hgray.gif

The image Image:Hgray.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --13:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Merrill link broken

the first of the two sources links, http://members.aol.com/jonmerrill/loastrips.htm, doesn't work anymore. Can someone insert the current URL (if still available)? --Martin de la Iglesia (talk) 13:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. Pepso2 (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Kupperberg

Kupperberg started in 2001, not 2002. Perry Hotter (talk) 18:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Controversy section

I added Template:Lopsided, to the sentence "Despite the strip's pro-capitalist slant, corrupt businessmen often appeared as villains". It represents an anti-capitalist slant by implying that capitalists are pro-corruption. The first clause is unnecessary because the paragraph it appears already made it clear that the strip had a pro-capitalist slant. I suggest the sentence be merged with the previous sentence to read "Other targets were the New Deal, communism, and corrupt businessmen." Joflynn (talk) 16:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Top Importance?

There's a discussion on which comic-related articles should be listed as "Top Importance" on the importance scale, and I feel this article should not be included. If any user disagrees or wishes to contribute, please do so there. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Plot Summary

Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia but the plot summary seems to be far too long (approximately 2000 words), and does not follow wikipedia guidelines. I would recommend cutting it down in the future.--Diego Huerta (talk) 19:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

It is. And it isn't even a plot summary of the strip, it's a plot summary of one storyline. It is completely unnecessary and extraneous. It is a clear example of where "being bold" is valid and the whole thing should be easily dumped without controversy. It is an over-zealous anti-vandalism user (with a Bot) who continues to revert. If there is no support for keeping it in a few days, feel free to delete again. 128.151.71.16 (talk) 19:33, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Annie and "Daddy" vs. Mrs. Warbucks and Count de Tour

There has been no real action on this unnecessary and overlong section since it was tagged in April. If no significant improvements are done in one week, I will remove it. Rhindle The Red (talk) 14:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Little Orphan Annie. 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/20070702093057/http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=118241 to http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=118241
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100227091537/http://thenostalgialeague.com/olmag/annie.htm to http://thenostalgialeague.com/olmag/annie.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930023601/http://www.wnyc.org/stream/ram.py?file=archive%2Farchive_10.ra to http://www.wnyc.org/stream/ram.py?file=archive%2Farchive_10.ra

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Warbucks, FDR, and military spending

May or may not be important so I just bring it up here. But, in how they reconcile Warbucks' relationship with FDR, there is no mention of FDR and defense spending. While Republicans made several decisions in the '20s that slashed the navy, Roosevelt - who would have been in the Navy Department when warbucks was starting to make his billions - embarked upon a buildup that really helped in WW2 eventually.

Not saying it has to be mentioned in this article, but it would surprise me if it wasn't used any time with Little Orphan Annie as a way to reconcile Warbucks' friendship with FDR (though his being a philanthropist would help, I'm sure), as it seems somewhat easy to use. Then again, if it wasn't, it wouldn't be the first big "oops" moment for writers of something. 2600:1700:E810:5090:98AA:12C5:BA8D:6532 (talk) 18:19, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Sentence issue

Currently, there is this sentence (as of the date written) in the article:

Predictably, Gray was reviled by some for preaching in the strip to the poor about hard work, initiative, and motivation while living well on his income.

I understand that it was likely an obvious issue, but it sounds very subjective. It almost sounds like a personal opinion.

1. We have predictably followed by some and preaching. Those words in a single sentence makes this sound as though it is based on a personal opinion. In fact, this is an angry personal opinion.
2. While some is allowed, since this is an angry response to the strip, it would be better to offer an example. Were there articles about demonstrations or opinion pieces in newspapers? Perhaps a book on the subject may say something and someone can quote a few words to explain this, then cite it.
3. The word preaching must simply go. It has a religious connotation and should never be used. Its use here is only an angry opinion; a religious doctrine that is being used in a very disparaging way. What I believe was actually meant is lecturing, which I will change now.
4. Saying that he is living well on his income sounds like an opinion. What is well to you may not be what is well to me. If we mean that the poor were poor and the wealthy had a "well" income then use wealthy or even comfortable instead. These are more specific. Today, being comfortable is without worry of money. This also means that this is a fact and so a citation will be needed. Someone can even be more specific and find a citation about his success. There may even be archival information about his taxes in the 1920's. A neat little factoid like how much he made would create an interest value to the article. Sometimes they're in census records and Ancestry may be a great resource, if someone has access. Ancestry's Newspapers.com may even hint at how many of his things sold for. As a last resort, someone can simply repeat a citation about his success that is from elsewhere in the article. For now though, I will change that to "while enjoying his successful lifestyle." It still needs a citation but I think that's a fairly obvious conclusion for all to understand.
5. Lastly and this is more of an after-thought. I will change reviled to mocked. Sadly, modern English doesn't exactly use the word "reviled" any more. The word mocked is much more modern.

MagnoliaSouth ^(talk) 23:38, 28 May 2022 (UTC)