Talk:Editorial cartoon
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Contents |
[edit] controversy?
There is controversy as to the bias of editorial cartoons. A large majority of editorial cartoonists are left-wing, also there is not a single black editorial cartoonist writing for a major American paperfuck you suck my dick i like to suck pussyes.
What about The Boondocks, which runs in several major papers -- including, last I heard about it, the Washington Post? Like Doonesbury in many papers (though IIRC the Post runs Doonesbury in Style), it often runs in the comics section, but it is certainly unabashedly political. (It is also always amusing to read the letters to the editor written by folks who can't stand to see radical opinion in print.) --FOo 20:13, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Comic strips are not generally considered editorial cartoons. Doonesbury is the exception to this, but even it enraged cartoonists when it won the Pullitzer Prize, most still do not consider it an editorial cartoon. (also Boondocks is syndicated and not written for any particular paper)- SimonP 20:29, Aug 4, 2003 (UTC)
- You're not being consistent. Either Doonesbury and The Boondocks are both editorial cartoons or they both aren't. They both are usually (but not always) heavy on political comment. But I agree they don't fit the typical mold of a standalone, usually one-panel illustration. Also, I think it should be pointed out in the article that editorial cartoons need not be humorous. In fact the most effective political cartoonists realize this and don't sacrifice message for humor. Look at the example provided, there is no humorous gag in the iconic "JOIN OR DIE" snake, it's just a powerful metaphor. By contrast, cartoons that consist of pure caricature for humorous effect while not having any strong message are, and probably should, be relegated to the trash heap of history. 68.162.81.209 14:05, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Belated reply to that unsupported POV comment: Editorial cartoonist John Slade of the Louisiana Weekly published a collection of his work under the title "But I Am Too a Black Cartoonist! Really!". Saying there's no such thing is just sloppy inaccuracy. -- Infrogmation 20:01, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This suffers from US-POV. We also need more on the early history of political cartoons. -- Tarquin 20:22, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)
[edit] political cartoons outside the mainstream
suggest adding online editorial cartoonists to list of cartoonists as currently the impression is that cartoonists don't exist outside of the major newspaper publishers. left / right opinion within that environment operates within a totally narrow band and has no right to assume sole legitimacy when it comes to political cartooning. plenty of stuff to be written on this subject also.
[edit] Removed text
I've removed the following:
- Presently there is an ongoing controversy as to the bias of editorial cartoons. A large majority of editorial cartoonists are left-wing, also there is not a single African-American editorial cartoonist writing for a major American paper.
I personally have never heard of this bias, nor does my personal experience bear it out; moreover, a couple of searches (lexis-nexis, google) revealed no really relevant content. If people can attribute this controversy, I'd be happy to have it back in.
However, the statement about African-Americans is wrong--Aaron McGruder (creator of The Boondocks) is black, and he's as much of an editorial cartoonist as Gary Trudeau.
I'd also like to note that this article is incredibly amerocentric.
[[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 18:51, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
I have a few sources for history of and a few for goya. I'm going to restructure and add a bit of history info., and fix some awkward grammar. Resonanteye 10:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Done, and done. I think it's amerocentric firstly because this is the en:wikipedia, and we need some british and aussie help to add references, and secondly, because not enough political cartoons are translated to english for those of us without other languages to post in the article. If you have another language, or you have some other sources from anywhere else, please add them. I think it would help the article a great deal to have more variety. hope my edit helped Resonanteye 11:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "Propoganda" Accusation Removed
Under History, I removed the statement:
- "Editorial cartooning has a history of controversy. When it is seen from a sympathetic or even familiar viewpoint, it functions as critical commentary but just as often the same cartoon can be seen as propaganda by those outside of that culture or time. Political cartoons can become more propagandistic during times of war or other crisis."
There is no citation for it and it appears to be based purely on the author's opinion. It doesn't add to the article and seems out of place under the history of editorial cartooning. Thorburn 00:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ummm...
I am a new User and this is my first few edits not on my User page...If what I added is redundent or if there are any mistakes in it, please tell me on my talk page...Sorry for any mistakes...Littleghostboo[ talk ] 09:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- Welcome! Be Bold! rewinn 16:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Conscripcartoon.jpg
Image:Conscripcartoon.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 04:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
