Talk:Charles M. Schulz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


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?[edit]

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 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? 13:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
The pages in "Good Grief", noting the Needles residency, are pp. 30-36, per Ms Monhoff. 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. 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. 12:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Frank Wing[edit]

"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[edit]

"...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? (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)
"Am I a religious man? I'll have to let someone else judge that. I'm a firm believer in the Kingdom of God, but I don't know about the afterlife[...]" from New Choices, June 1995, reprinted in the just-released My Life With Charlie Brown, p. 65. This is well after most of the "secular humanist" quotes. I think the real answer is his later beliefs are hard to pigeonhole and as such probably shouldn't be pigeonholed. (I realize this is an old conversation, I just wanted this here in case the topic arose again.) As a COI revelation: I publish books of Schulz's non-Peanuts works, and have an upcoming licensed book about Peanuts. -Nat Gertler (talk) 18:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Haven't read that book yet, but I'll note that the quote is not "well after" most of the secular humanist quotes. It comes at the same time as the one from his 1995 interview that was printed in 1999. He does seem to be hard to pigeonhole, though, that's for sure. Littlererun (talk) 00:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Which is why I didn't say that it was well after -all- of the sec hum quotes, but the ones I see more frequently cited are the Good Grief ones and others from a year or two around there. My goal is not to say "he was an atheist, but he returned to religion" but to note that in Schulz's mind, he hadn't inherently walked away from belief in G-d simply because he had embraced the sec hum descriptor. Schulz seems to have taken the contemplation of a supreme being and its relation to the world quite seriously, and at many points, a simple descriptor of his belief status just ain't gonna cut it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

All secular humanists are atheists. Atheists are not necessarily secular humanists. The secular part gives it away - no god. There are lots of technical and aesthetic variations of agnostic atheist, weak atheist, and the like, but atheist - lacking a belief in god - is a prerequisite for secular humanist. If Schulz was secular humanist, then he was atheist + humanist values. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the above, I can only say: [citation needed]. Rivertorch (talk) 05:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
No, one need not be an atheist in order to be a secular humanist; one need only believe that humanistic ethics can be derived without depending on the factuality of god. In any case, if he didn't say he was an atheist, we should not presume that upon him. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Santa Rosa[edit]

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)


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

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" <> Subject: Biographical Question. To:

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 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" <> To: CC: "Inquiries" <>

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".


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

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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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)


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[edit]

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)


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[edit]

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[edit]

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)


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"?[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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=]

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

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

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

Change of infobox?[edit]

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?[edit]

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. BrokenSphereMsg 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)


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[edit]

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 --T1980 (talk) 03:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC) This is just a thought, but I believe George Bush was in the White House in 2001, not Bill Clinton. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

While both Bush and Clinton were in the White House during 2001, the bill was signed in 2000, by Clinton. It was only received by Jean in 2001. I've added the year to the date of signing just to avoid this sort of confusion in the future. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


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 (talkcontribs) 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Countryfan (talkcontribs) 02:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Before you go ranting about the inaccuracy of this, you may want to look at what it actually says - it does not say that he turned away from Christianity, it says that he described himself as a "secular humanist"... which he did in multiple interviews. The Johnson piece cited was not some minor or obscure source, but the most significant biography done of Schulz during his lifetime. His separation from the Church of God is certainly well-documented (see, for example, They Called Him Sparky: Friends Reminiscences of Charles Schulz by David Liverett, which is made up of essays specifically written by those who new him through the Church of God. Pay attention, for example, to the essay by Kenneth Hall at the end of that book. If you have some contravening source, please put it forward. But if you want to claim "inaccuracy", you may want to make sure that it's not an example of your assumptions being in conflict with evidence. Certainly, if your evidence is the title of a collection of the work he did thirty-five years before his death, you may want to look a little deeper. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 04:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Possibly the dispute is over him being in the category "former Christians." If he described himself as a "secular humanist" he probably fits, but you seem to indicate some uncertainty that he turned away from Christianity. (I suppose this uncertainty means could have been some kind of Christian humanist who preferred secularism)--T. Anthony (talk) 13:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we could make some sort of indication that this doesn't necessarily mean he solely identified with the philosophy of "secular humanist"? Probably not. Naw. That's a bad idea. Wikipedia is supposed to be a place for atheists... maybe agnostics. If they behave. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I highly doubt he was an atheist, and saying "I guess you could say I've come around to..." isn't exactly an affirmation of a belief. Hell, there are secular humanists who are agnostics and not atheists and even some who claim to believe in a deist-like diety/god/whatever. Not my thing, but the point is I highly doubt the category "atheist" fits. Secular humanists, yes, but to automatically assume atheist, heh, kinda innacurate. (talk) 07:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
If one views him/Schulz as the Sagittarius he was, his so-called spiritual/religious complexities might make more sense. So too was Mark Twain, Emily Dickinson. Long-searching-for-life's-meaning Woody Allen. And Pope Francis! 2602:304:CDAF:A3D0:2DB4:5EEC:5016:1ADD (talk) 03:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

So-called "last words in the hospital"[edit]

I have cleaned up a recent edit concerning Schulz' purported last words in the hospital. First, they are from a December 14, 1999 interview which can be found on YouTube ( and it does not appear to have been filmed in a hospital. Second, he is stating something which "he thought", not something he said out loud (except while recounting his thoughts in the interview). Third, there was a slight error in transcription: it was not "poor kid" but "poor, poor kid." (This is an understandable error considering Schulz was literally holding back sobs while speaking.) Further, I have not found a transcript of that interview; based on the fact that the first half of the statement had a slight error, I think that we should pin down the exact wording of the second half of the quote, if possible.

Here is the second half of the quote we need to verify: "What a dirty trick — he never had a chance to kick the football." It is widely quoted, but at this moment I do not know who conducted the filmed interview. The YouTube video has a 22-second fragment of the first half of the quote only. I would be most interested to know the origin of the video and read (or preferably see) it in full. paul klenk talk 23:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Finally, this quote is found far and wide on the Web; however, most of them are simply mirroring Wikipedia. Of the remaining, most of those are unknown sites and blogs. I found only one instance of that quote in a newspaper, which is one from Scotland.

Now, considering this interview was captured on film and broadcast, I would not be surprised if it were accurate. But we need to check to make sure. "Schulz' final words" should, in Wikipedia at least, be absolutely accurate. So I will continue to look for a definitive source.

Also I deleted a statement that was part of the same edit, stating that Schulz "obviously" regretted that Charlie never got to kick the football. It may be obvious, but it is not for WP to state this, but rather for the reader to infer, if he chooses, based on actual quotes.

Moral: Check a fact before it becomes a fact.

paul klenk talk 23:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The interview was with Al Roker, and was included in the Charles Schulz episode of American Masters. Unfortunately, I did not record it, and cannot confirm the exact quote. —MJBurrage(TC) 03:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

incorrect death location[edit]

The sidebox lists his death location as Santa Rosa, which was the location of his office, but he died at home, which would be Sebastapol. I'm avoiding editing Peanuts articles due to WP:COI concerns; could someone else correct this? --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Donna Mae?[edit]

Does anyone have a good reference for the following contribution from

  1. 11:48, 27 May 2011 (diff | hist) Charles M. Schulz ‎ (I knew the middle name of the "little red-haired girl"'s inspiration so i added it)

Sorry I can only pose the question and not help out further!

Thanks, --Geekdiva (talk) 07:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Schulz and the Church of God[edit]

The current text says Schulz "had been active in the Church of God as a young adult", which understates his involvements. He was attending the CoG regularly into 1958, which puts him in his mid-30s and a not-so-young adulthood. Then he moved out to California, and various sources say either that there was not a local CoG (Michaelis) or that he hadn't fit in at the closest one (They Call Him Sparky, p. 55), but even while he attended elsewhere he still maintained strong CoG links. He contributed work to CoG publications regularly through 1965 and again in 1969, donated substantially to Anderson University (Indiana), and in other ways maintained his ties well after. I am avoiding making these edits myself due to a potential WP:COI, but I encourage others to adjust this. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Letters to the President[edit]

An editor just deleted a reference to Schulz illustrating a book of letters to President Kennedy, because he could not find the book.... which is understandable, because the description is off. It wasn't Kennedy; the book is Dear President Johnson, by Bill Adler, published in 1964. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! That indeed explains why I couldn't find it ;-) Fram (talk) 13:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

York Peppermint Pattie[edit]

Someone has edited a reference to Peppermint Patty being named after the candy "peppermint pattie" to specifying York Peppermint Pattie. However, there is doubt that it was actually the York brand; other brands do use the "peppermint patties" terminology, and York was not distributed to the west coast until well after the character was established. I'd undo this myself, but I'm treading very carefully on Peanuts-related articles due to WP:COI concerns; if someone else could look at this and adjust it, I'd appreciate it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Nat, fixed. Thanks for the tip! Pepso2 (talk) 02:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Article name[edit]

Someone posted on the request-for-moves page a request that this page be moved to Charles Schulz, claiming the move was uncontroversial. The move was done, but a couple of us went and requested that the move be undone, and it was. If someone really has an argument to make that the page should be moved, it should be raised here, as it is clearly not an uncontroversial request. Schulz is generally identified on his work with his middle initial. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I second all of the above. (Incidentally, I couldn't find the move request. I didn't spend a lot of time looking, but I did look.) Rivertorch (talk) 21:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
While his middle initial is often included in formal credits and honorary usage, it is not how people commonly refer to him, which is the standard called for by WP:COMMONNAME. If you were to ask a random person who created Peanuts, they would answer simply "Charles Schulz"... and I wager most wouldn't even know his middle initial if you pressed them for it. Google "Charles Schulz" and you'll see that even articles that include his middle initial in the header (formal bios, obits, and the like) immediately begin calling him "Charles Schulz" in the article itself. The current top search results, after this article and his museum (not a representative source), are A&E's, PBS, Newsweek, The Atlantic, and The New York Times... all referring to him as "Charles Schulz". Go to subsequent pages and you can find Encyclopædia Britannica, Time, The Los Angeles Times, People,, The Onion, and others using his everyday name. These sources reflect the mainstream, mass-market usage, and Wikipedia is (pretentiously, I think) out of step from it. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:37, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't agree about random people not knowing the initial. His innumerable books, of which millions have been sold, use the middle initial. The major daily newspaper that carried Peanuts when I was a child used the middle initial above the strip, both daily and Sundays, and it wasn't the only one that did. Basically everything that's been named after the man, from an airport to a theater, use the middle initial. The Charles M. Schulz Museum, a popular tourist destination, uses it. So it's very much out there in public view. There are more Facebook mentions of "Charles M. Schulz" than there are of "Charles Schulz", and likewise there are more Google and Google Books hits with the initial than without. Various reliable sources, including The New York Times, The Christian Science Monitor, The Washington Post, Reuters, NPR, and Vanity Fair are inconsistent but have used the initial at least some of the time.
Why our using the initial is "pretentious" is beyond me. I don't think it would be tragic to drop the 'M' from the title, but I don't think you've made a compelling case that we should do so. RivertorchFIREWATER 16:17, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
If the best evidence you can muster is that "at least some of the time" sources use it "inconsistently", then you've made the case for me. Including middle initials is not Wikipedia's default, and needs stronger evidence of that version being the "most commonly used". I suspect your perspective is distorted from your level of interest in Schulz, spending an atypical amount of time looking at references that feature his initial. But referring to people with a middle initial is not common in our society. The exceptions are usually presidents, or actors explicitly branded to comply with SAG disambiguation rules and thus never referred to without it. People hardly ever talk about "John Kennedy" or "Samuel Jackson", but as you acknowledge, they do talk about "Charles Schulz". (And I bet you do too.) The examples I cited show journalists – who have their ear on the pulse of the public – routinely drop "Charles Schulz" into headlines and ledes, and use it freely in their body copy. When they use the initial, it's usually in a stiffly formal context: bibliographic, biographic, or honorific. That's not what WP:COMMONNAME looks at. His own museum is about as unobjective and COI as you can get, and reflects the tendency to use full names rather than common ones on institutions (e.g. the William J. Clinton Foundation and the Donald J. Trump Foundation). Finally, Facebook stats are a poor indicator, because the site pulls article titles from Wikipedia and presents them as tags/suggestions, which not only distorts usage, it also means you're indirectly citing Wikipedia!
As for "pretentious", I speak there from personal experience. :) I use an initial for my own professional branding, a deliberate choice supported by research[3], intended to counteract the low-brow status of my comix. It's nice if you can make it stick. But it usually doesn't, and I still routinely have people call me "Jason Quest". So if you're operating under the assumption that using an initial in one's credits will drive popular usage... I can testify otherwise. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 04:07, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Interesting. I don't understand what you mean about my level of interest in Schulz, though (or how you can know what it is). I have heard many people say "John Kennedy", for what it's worth; it's less common but it does happen. Sometimes Wikipedia gets it wrong: Samuel F.B. Morse redirects to Samuel Morse, which is frankly absurd. Other times we get it right: William S. Burroughs, Edward R. Murrow, Howard K. Smith, Irving R. Levine, Booker T. Washington, Tom T. Hall, and John D. Rockefeller all use the initial, even though several of them wouldn't need disambiguation if they didn't. Sigh. Let's see. What about precedent? Can you think of another bestselling author whose books use a middle initial and whose Wikipedia article doesn't? RivertorchFIREWATER 18:00, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Meant to say but forgot: this kind of discussion often seems fairly inconsequential to me. Either way it goes, we'll have a redirect, so there's no issue of our readers having trouble finding the article. RivertorchFIREWATER 18:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Rivertorch, I suspect his comment about the level of interest in Schulz was confusing/conflating you with me. I have a high level of professional interest in Schulz and his works. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:12, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Oh. Well, take note: I'm the untalented one who can't draw. (Wanna see a stick-figure Snoopy?) RivertorchFIREWATER 13:52, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Suggested edit[edit]

A recent edit added "Shulz was having an affair with Tracey Claudius, 23 years his junior. The affair was discovered by his wife, ending their marriage" to the article. In addition to this needing a spelling correction for Schulz's name, the claim that the discovery of the affair ended the marriage is problematic. On a very practical level, discovery of an affair does not end a marriage; divorce does. Many a marriage continues after the discovery of an affair. And while the discovery of an affair may well have been a key point in the marriage coming to an end, by all accounts the relationship was very strained before that. I think that if we just say that Schulz had an affair, then follow it with a statement of them divorcing, we will not be concealing anything but will also avoid a sort of inaccurate oversimplification.

I will not make this edit myself, as I have certain WP:COI regarding Schulz and Peanuts-related matters. I leave it to other editors here to consider and possibly implement. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I've made some changes along the lines you suggested. The cause and effect wasn't supported by the cited source, anyway. I also replaced the source, since I think it's preferable to avoid the Daily Mail when other sources are available. Rivertorch (talk) 08:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Great! Thanks. One other edit I suggest, while I notice it: On Sunday, May 8, 1988, two gunmen wearing ski masks entered the cartoonist's home through an unlocked door, planning to kidnap Jean Schulz, but the attempt failed when the couple's daughter, Jill, drove up to the house, - it is incorrect to call Jill "the couple's daughter", as her mother is Sparky's first wife Joyce, not Jeannie. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
The wording may or may not have been "correct", since parent-child status doesn't depend on blood ties. However, I've altered it to read "Schulz's daughter", which is unquestionably accurate regardless of what Jeannie and Jill considered their relationship to be. Rivertorch (talk) 16:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
thanks for fixing that. -Nat Gertler (talk) 17:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Between High School and Army[edit]

Schulz graduated High School in 1940 (age 17) but wasn't drafted until around the time of his mother's death in February 1943 (when Schulz was 20). What did he do in the interim? (College/University, work, care for family?) This stood out for me because I wondered what sort of draft deferment he had, but looking into it a bit more I don't think one would have been necessary. The Selective Training and Service Act of 1940 enabled drafting of men between 21 and 35, and it wasn't until Nov 11, 1942 (only a few months before he was drafted) that the draft age was lowered to 18. Still, I do wonder if we know what he was doing during this time. -- ToE 15:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Painted wall[edit]

Someone just inserted that the wall that Schulz painted for his daughter was done in Santa Rosa; actually, it was done in Colarado Springs, which can be verified here. -Nat Gertler (talk) 07:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Charles M. Schulz. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • 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) 04:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Charles M. Schulz. 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:

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

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • 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) 09:50, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Silver Snoopy award attribution[edit]

I'm not sure how I'm supposed to note this, but I know it's supposed to be in the record: the information on the Silver Snoopy award that another editor just added is copied from the Silver Snoopy award page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:01, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Charles M. Schulz. 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:

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

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • 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) 02:59, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


There's a lot of speculation on the web that Schulz may have had Asperger's/ASD. Worth a mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

There's a lot of speculation on the web about all sorts of things, isn't there? Wikipedia will mention such speculation if there has been sustained, in-depth coverage of it by reliable sources—in other words, if the speculation itself has become notable. Otherwise, we leave it to those other sites. RivertorchFIREWATER 08:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)