Jump to content

Talk:Calvin and Hobbes/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10


Bumper stickers?

I am disgusted by the number of bumper stickers/car decals I see with Calvin peeing on things, praying before a cross, or reading a Bible. Could there be a section about the bastardization of this strip by trash culture? Especially since Watterson was so anti-syndication, I feel like it's relevant. -Emily D. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.101.147 (talk) 21:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

What's the whole problem with praying or reading the bible? Yeah, i undestand the peeing on things, but not the reading the bible or praying......=I -eyeshield 21 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.19.26.254 (talk) 02:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Because depicting Calvin as religious is completely contrary to his essence. It just doesn't represent the character in the least bit. The problem is more about the fact that Watterson worked against this kind of commercialization for his entire career, and now people sell images of Calvin depictings things he'd never do. I'm sure the people who buy them have no idea who Calvin is, or else they'd realize the irony.
-Emily D.
I've been a C&H fan for many years---in fact I even own all the books. I think it is completely within Calvin's personality for him to pee on something and think it is funny. Little boys do things like that. They write their names in the snow. They urinate on insects and spider webs. They have competitions to "see who can pee the farthest". Calvin was intentionally given to us with a reputation of being a hellraiser. Urinating on objects is mild compared to what most little boys, especially imaginative ones, are capable of. That's why I can easily see Calvin doing that. I find those stickers humorous, and only in bad taste if someone is a prude. In fact, if I could find one with Calvin peeing on a Nissan you can bet it would be in the back window of my Tacoma. Finally, Watterson's decision to not license Calvin and Hobbes merchandise is exactly the reason why all these knock-offs are around. Calvin appeals to a great many people for many different reasons. (for example--he appeals to me because he reminds me so much of myself when I was six years old. I don't think you could say the same!) His appeal is almost universal and licensing Calvin and Hobbes merchandise would not have hurt the artistic integrity of the strip. Calvin and Hobbes grew to be more than just a strip. It was a cultural phenomenon, and as such it deserved some different outlets other than the comics.
Please understand, I'm not saying that Watterson didn't have the right to deny licensing agreements. I just think there would not be so much crap (like Calvin prayin) out there had Watterson taken a different stance. -- Primium mobile (talk) 18:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Calvin was a hellraiser not because he was like all little boys, but because he was unlike them in his preternatural intelligence. The humor that those stickers represent is lowbrow, while the strip is much more esoteric than your interpretation- this is both the strip's great strength and its weakness.
It makes me sad that those stickers are the most visible remnant of that incredible body of work.
-Emily —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.103.89 (talk) 06:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I think that you are completely wrong. Calvin's intelligence was comparable to the intelligence of many six-year old boys who are walking around now. I would hardly refer to it as "preternatural". He was an ordinary kid with an overactive imagination and a sometimes very dark sense of humor. The genius of the strip was not Calvin by himself, but the reactions of others who were exposed to Calvin. That includes Hobbes. There is nothing lowbrow about a little boy urinating on something he doesn't like. It's akin to frying an ant with a magnifying glass. All the adults are shocked by it, but little boys find it amusing. That would include Calvin. I agree that it is sad that the window stickers are the most visible remnant, but that is something you should take up with Watterson and not the makers of the stickers.Primium mobile (talk) 09:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Maybe you'd like to edit the section on Calvin, then, where it says, "Calvin is an impulsive, sometimes overly creative, imaginative, energetic, curious, intelligent, and often selfish six-year-old, whose last name is never mentioned in the strip. Despite his low grades, Calvin has a wide vocabulary range that rivals that of an adult as well as an emerging philosophical mind." 71.206.103.89 (talk) 21:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)Emily
I'm sorry, but why would I want to do that? Other than things like circulation statistics and such, this entire article is entirely subjective. That whole quote you pasted here is entirely the opinion of the author of the article. All children are philosophical. Calvin just happened to be particularly good at expressing his thoughts. But he was by no means unique. The whole crux of your argument is that Calvin would not urinate on anything. I am telling you that he would. Just because so many people see him as some demigod who has never had an equal does not mean it is true. Primium mobile (talk) 15:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to put in my two cents, to make some points that people seem to have been missing, and clarify some things. First of all, I like the fact that the comment which started this section objected equally to both extremes of the bastardization of the characters. To answer those who say "what's so wrong with ____?":

  • The Christian propaganda is offensive because Calvin never gave preference to any religion or faith, nor did any of the other primary characters. I find it disgusting when a political or religious group usurps a well-known character, seemingly only because they're popular and will grab people's attention, and portray them doing or saying something contrary to their true character.
  • As for the idiotic decals of him peeing on various logos, it's not so much offensive as just stupid. It's not just a simple matter of a little kid peeing on things (yes, most of us are aware that boys of Calvin's age do tend to think it's funny to pee on things, but that's not the idea behind these things); the problem is that the look on his face, combined with the fact that a decal of him peeing on the logo for (insert automobile company A) appears on a (insert automobile company B), is making the claim that Calvin prefers (company B) and takes evil pleasure in literally pissing on (company A). Calvin is an overly intelligent kid with an inflated vocabulary, not a beer-drinking college student, and I highly doubt he would have such devotion to any automobile company, sports team, or whatever else drunken frat boys are into these days.

And finally, it's naive at best to think that these sorts of things wouldn't have came about if Watterson had allowed his beloved characters to be whored out to the masses with merchandise. One can find plenty of offensive bootleg shirts and stickers of every popular comic/cartoon character, regardless of how much official merchandise is available for those characters. - Ugliness Man (talk) 06:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

A friend of mine suggested I make a decal of Charlie Brown defecating on a car logo and see how the "well dang, I think it's funny" people react then. -Emily —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.103.89 (talk) 14:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I never once said that these things would not be around had Watterson signed liscensing agreements. I said that there may have been more control over it. And that is exactly true. Watterson was completely wrong to criticize Charles Schultz for allowing Peanuts to be commercialized to the extent that it is. Peanuts, like Calvin and Hobbes, was and is a cultural phenomenon. There will always be bootleg merchandise of everything. The point was that if there was any official merchandise there would be less of the crap around. That's not so difficult to see. And again, I'm not saying that Watterson didn't have a right to deny licensing of his characters. They belong to him so he has that right. Primium mobile (talk) 09:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Simply as a fan of the strip, I'd like to know what Watterson thinks specifically about the praying Calvin decals. On his page, there's nothing mentioned about his religious beliefs, and currently there's no quote by him about the praying Calvin (there is about the peeing one). If there isn't any information out there, that's one thing, but if there is, can someone include it in this section? 72.130.89.63 (talk) 21:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

All I know for sure is that Watterson is opposed to almost all merchandising of his characters, including all decals and bumper stickers, and that using someone else's intellectual property to promote your own agenda is theft. The so called Christians who abuse Calvin in this way should be ashamed. Watterson's opposition to such merchandising should definitely be noted, especially as these asinine stickers are becoming a cultural phenomenon. F-451 (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

No one said the stickers were the cultural phenomenon, the strip itself was. Personally as a long time fan of the strip I don't find anything offensive about the stickers with Calvin peeing on stuff. It's the kind of kid he was. As for the ones with him praying and such, I didn't particularly like those because it totally went against his character to have faith in something like that (you'll recall the numerous strips where he scrutinizes the possibility of a God and the Devil). The only one that made me laugh was one that showed him praying with the caption "Lord, please forgive me for peeing on everything." For Calvin to believe in something like that is totally against the inquisitive nature of the character. I imagine if he ever met a Pastor he would end up playing the "Why?" game not to irritate or test limits like most children, but because he truly couldn't understand how people could believe in something so baseless (it would seem baseless to him, not bashing religious people here, just trying to put words to Calvin's way of thinking).Hypershadow647 (talk) 02:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a number of reasons I find the bumper stickers offensive. First and foremost, Watterson opposed (and obviously, if you have read the 10th Anni. Book, still opposes) any sort of merchandising outside of the small number of paper-medium products he approved of. To produce ANY marketable merchandise that depicts ANY of the characters doing ANYTHING, even if they are directly copied from the strip, is an insult, legally, professionally and artistically, to Watterson and his original low-key vision of the strip. He would be, I presume, incensed to find a T-shirt with a carbon-copy of one of his strips on it. It wasn't that he wanted to avoid offensive unauthorized mass-media depictions such as the urination or religious examples; he wanted to avoid ANY mass-produced examples of the strip THAT WERE NOT DRAWN BY HIM. To take a lofty approach that it's acceptable to have depict Calvin doing ANYTHING that wasn't drawn by Watterson, even if it's Calvin going down a hill on a wagon, is ignorant and naive toward Watterson's terrific strip. Secondly, to suggest that Calvin would urinate on things and find it funny is just as easily naive and is a really one of the most imbecilic examples of creative liberties that I can think of. Having Calvin throw a water balloon or a buckeye at the "Ford" logo would be, while still completely illegal and encroaching on Watterson's personal vision, closer to the idea of the strip. We were never led to believe that Calvin would find peeing on anything a source of humor even though he was an often-immature six-year-old. There is no indication that this was "the kind of kid he was". When I myself was six, I didn't find the idea of urinating on this or that to be uproariously funny. I didn't find it grossly offensive, but it just wasn't the best humor my mind could come up with. None of you bozos should think that, because Calvin locked Susie in a closet and soaked his father with a sprinkler while he was in a business suit, he would take delight in pissing on things. It's idiotic not because six-year-old boys don't pee on things (which, of course, they do), but because Watterson never suggested anything of the sort. I highly doubt it was because of the potential censorship he would almost certainly encounter; I believe it was because such crass and pedestrian humor would strike him as wholly unfunny. And because Calvin's existence is a result of Watterson's mind, we can pretty much guarantee that Calvin wouldn't perform an action that Watterson wouldn't approve of. And to the suggestion that Calvin's intelligence is comparable to other six-year-old boys today, I say: when did you grow up? Have you looked twelve-year-old boys today, much less six? Calvin, while completely disposed toward childish and immature behavior, was easily the most intelligent, thought-provoking and insightful cartoon child the papers have ever seen. I read him when I was six years old and couldn't understand a third of what he was saying; I know twenty-year-olds today who probably couldn't grasp the full humor and irony of the strip. Don't you ever suggest that Calvin largely resembled a normal six-year-old; apart from a number of regularly-occurring instances of juvenile behavior, Calvin's sense of humor, philosophical intrigue and thought process were ahead of most working adults today.

I completely disagree with that. But since you can't be bothered to sign your posts I have no idea who I'm speaking to. So I won't. Primium mobile (talk) 22:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

You don't have to know who you're speaking to to make a reply---go ahead and do it. I'll listen. I'm genuinely interested in hearing what you have to say, and you don't need to make it private to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.207.132.162 (talk) 22:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Signing my posts now. I don't exactly know how talking on wikipedia works, but if you want to continue this conversation, well, just let me know how. Cause I don't know how. Bricklayerp (talk) 19:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I do remember one or two strips where Calvin was outside in the snow and desperately needed to use the bathroom, and he peed on a nearby tree so as not to have to go inside, take off all his winter gear, and have to put them back on to go out. But I agree with the statement that Calvin peeing on something in a malicious manner is againist his character. Calvin has many pet peeves, an odd sense of humor typical of little kids, and is immature in various ways. But I truly believe he's not the sort of person that'd be caught desecrating some logo or otherwise, despite his rebellious nature. In fact, Calvin LIKED the idea of advertising, so why would he violate it? (Remember the strip where he wished his shirt had a LOGO so he could be a "walking billboard" and when he,as an avart-grade artist would EMBRACE commercialism??)And every time I see bootlegs of Calvin, I as a consumer, am thrilled, because I love the strip dearly and want to promote it. But I have to remind myself of Watterson's sentiments towards that and respect it. In fact, I mostly agree with his views that over-exposing characters leads to their degradation in value. I mean, I love SpongeBob, but it's overwhelming to watch the show and then see hundreds of SpongeBob related products in stores. It also makes it harder to buy the fact that SpongeBob himself is pretty naive and innocent. Also, Calvin is soooo not your average 6-year-old although he may appear to be, at an extent. I cannot remember myself, my friends, or my relatives ever thinking at that high a level or being as philosophically inquistive as Calvin is at that age. Eenyminy (talk) 03:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Calvin's religosity: http://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/2009/02/02/

Now with that out of the way, has it occured to anyone offended by the praying/pissing Calvin decals that maybe they were all created by actual Calvinists, getting back at Watterson for pissing in the boots of their church founder? 74.47.28.13 (talk) 12:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

"Calvinball" in use "outside of the media"?

Are there non-blog references to this? Aren't they needed? --DAW0001 (talk) 15:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Not really. All it is is a made up children's game that plays an arbitrary role in the comic —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dracdrac (talk • contribs) 04:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not arbitary. Watterson himself said that Calvinball sums up the spirit of the strip. Eenyminy (talk) 04:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Criticism section

And also why isn't there a "Criticism" section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.48.158 (talk) 21:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Because the criticism is integrated throughout the article. See Wikipedia:Criticism#Formatting criticism.

Image deletion pending in one day

Just a note for the maintainers of this article that the image of Hobbes in the Characters section is up for deletion (tomorrow Friday February 1) because of an invalid fair use tag (see talk page for specific reasoning). It might also be wise to update the other images if need be to make sure they are all licensed correctly. Harryboyles 10:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed, fixed the rest of the images, and the user who tagged it has been notified that by common courtesy they should have posted a note here to let us know earlier. Anomie⚔ 12:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Charles Schulz

This article neglects to mention that, though Waterson warmly praises Charles Schulz as an influence, he also brutally condemns Schulz (without naming him) for commercializing Peanuts. I'll come back in a month or so, and if no one has added this material, I'll insert the specific quotes.

Someday when Waterson is dead and buried there'll be plush Hobbes toys in stores around the world - and thanks to the expired copyright status, there won't be a thing anyone can do to stop it. Deal with it Bill173.58.53.212 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC).


WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 23:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Please do. I look forward to seeing that. I'm always interested in what Watterson has to say on the industry.--Jono —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.112.102.254 (talk) 01:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I frequently find myself thinking of Schulz's classic "football" strips as synonymous with Hobbes' door pounce. ximbabwe0228 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.160.189 (talk) 00:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

BIg problem with comic from Attack of the Deranged Mutant Killer Monster Snow Goons

In this week long strip with said book Calvin creates a machine that allows him to clone himself, but only the good part of himself. Now for this whole week "Calvin" is supposedly hiding under his bed and hanging out with Hobbes, while the "good Calvin" goes to school gets good grades starts being nice to everybody and tries to put the moves on Sussie. At the end of the week "good Calvin" gets shut down hard by Sussie so "good calvin" goes and confronts "Calvin" who is off playing with Hobbes. "Calvin" is angry that "good Calvin" is ruining his bad name and then enrages "good Calvin" by saying something and good Calvin disappears do to a "fail safe in the cloning machine". Now think about that, did Calvin try and change his life and become good only to be sent back to his old life by a failed romantic adventure and then made up this story to rationalize the whole event. Or did Calvin actually pretend to be good Calvin for a whole week doing all his homework getting up early helping with the dishes just so his original game of having a cloning machine would work, if you read the comic it's pretty clear that "good calvin" actually is the one interacting with people and in this case "calvin" is the part being imagined. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradleyg5 (talk • contribs) 09:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

So what's the BIG problem? You seem to understand it.Primium mobile (talk) 04:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed and furthermore you forgot to think of the implications that it is a comic strip and therefore follows a different set of "rules". Otherwise we should constantly be questioning Calvin's sanity and why he has two distinct personalities. Chitchin13 (talk) 23:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Either that, or Hobbes is a secret alien that morphs into a stuffed tiger anytime an adult comes in? IT"S POSSIBLE! Hi Ben Atlas —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dracdrac (talk • contribs) 04:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Calvin and Hobbes being a slightly fantasy-like comic strip, I don't tend to think of most of the events in it as rational.Eenyminy (talk) 04:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

"Horrendous Space Kablooie" nominated for deletion

The article Horrendous Space Kablooie has been nominated for deletion. The discussion regarding this matter can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horrendous Space Kablooie. --Ckatzchatspy 06:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Where calvin lives

In the conclusion of the "weirdos from another planet!" storyline, Hobbes mentions that their "house is by the big letter E in the word states" this would make them live in the mideastern US, and the climate seems to indicate they live somewhere to the north (not Florida ect.)Emma Hordika (talk) 20:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)Emma Hordika

The idea of defining where Calvin lives, for any purpose more academic than a lazy conversation on a summer afternoon among friends, seems counterintuitive to the entire strip.--Jono —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.112.102.254 (talk) 01:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that Watterson mentions in one of his books (maybe the Tenth Anniversary Book) that Calvin lives in Ohio. But I'm not sure. In another book, he mentions that he like to give the sparse look of Ohio in November. 99.137.108.94 (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Watterson has commented that he used Ohio landscape in general in depicting the world of the strip. However, for the most part, I am inclined to think that A) The strip is designed to take place in a fairly timeless and placeless setting, much like The Simpsons, and B) Any conclusions about this would be original research. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It will take me a while to find this but I think in the UK he lives by the big E in AMERICA (not STATES). I believe, at least for a while, when it was syndicated in the UK the captions were (at least partly) relettered-- for spelling etc-- so I could be simply wrong or it just differs in the UK edition. If someone could point me roughly to the strip I can check my UK editions of the books.

SimonTrew (talk) 01:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The artwork on the rear cover of the tenth anniversary book depicts the town square of Watterson's hometown, (Chagrin Falls, Ohio) The well known "popcorn shop" can also be seen on the back cover. I also remember reading an interview with Watterson's mother (I don't recall who conducted it, so it will remain unsourced). In this interview, the interviewer described how similar Watterson's Mother's house was to the one depicted in the strip, including the distinct circular brickwork patio that is often seen in the strip (I remember seeing it while Calvin tells his Dad to "give up on that sissy lighter fluid" during a BBQ, among other times). I searched the address of Watterson's mother on Switchboard.com, and then cross-referenced the address of his father, and they were both the same: 540 North St, Chagrin Falls, Ohio. Upon looking at the house on google earth, it was obvious that this was the house. The roof is the same colour, and the general layout is clearly the same. ANYWAY. Here are the Google Earth Co-ordinates of EXACTLY where Calvin lives: 41.4436484035, -81.3853345493 BAM! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.86.96 (talk) 01:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I've also suspected that Calvin lives in Ohio (I recall the strip where he finds a BUCKEYE and comments that it's pretty and decides to throw it at Susie). But honestly, I don't think it matters. Calvin's location is as irrelevant as his parents' names, or whether Hobbes is real.Eenyminy (talk) 04:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Newest revisions

The newest revisions to the article should remain. They get rid of some redundant and unnecessary information. A few things may be missing now, but over all, I think it is an improvement. Mynameisnotpj (talk) 02:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that the older version of the article is more interesting. Why not leave all of that in there? After all, it was a starred article before you removed all of the little factoids that flesh out an article. It reads more stale now. Icarus of old (talk) 02:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Not only that, but the so-called "newest revisions" (IMO, they're just simple vandalism) include numerous formatting errors and nonsense resulting from deletion of random paragraphs and section headers. Anomie⚔ 02:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
It is a Featured Article, and if such large swaths of the article are going to be removed after meeting FA requirements it should be discussed here, especially if it breaks formatting. I say, if it ain't broke don't fix it. Hewinsj (talk) 04:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

the battle to keep or remove info

well i'm confused cause a bunch of people keep reverting each others edits over and over again regarding the info about the origins of calvin and hobbes's names and also the official merchandise that was ever produced. I dunno what going through your minds but I think we should set this straight before this becomes a reverting battle.

from the sources I saw, it seems like the origin of calvin and hobbes names are valid (waterson did name them after the 2 philosophers) and the merchandise info is correct. but if you think it is relevant or not, its up to you people fighting over the format to decide... 130.113.226.6 (talk) 15:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Calvinball and nanotech

98.224.230.176 has twice now tried to add this as a reference to the Calvinball section:

“If the limitations of life were like the rules in Calvinball, someone like Nozick might ask if there would be anything left for people to do.” David H. Guston, John Parsi, and Justin Tosi, "Anticipating the Ethical and Political Challenges of Human Nanotechnologies", in Fritz Allhoff ed., Nanoethics: The Ethical and Social Implications of Nanotechnology, (2007). Page 196.

While potentially interesting, it doesn't serve to support anything currently in the article so I have moved it here. If 98.224.230.176 (or anyone else) can come up with one or two more such references in scholarly works or very-high-profile news reports, we could use it to support a statement like "Calvinball is occasionally used as a metaphor for other situations where the rules are arbitrary and change at a whim." Anomie⚔ 12:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The Noodle Incident and "Hamster Huey and the Gooey Kablooie"

Someone decided it would be a good idea to create a stub at Hamster Huey and the Gooey Kablooie, and then someone else decided to tag it as merging to here. I merged everything worth merging, so I removed the merge tag from this article. Anomie⚔ 22:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. (I tagged it for merge, as I didn't have much time this morning.) -- Quiddity (talk) 23:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

What exactly was the Noodle Incident? Was it ever explained? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.189.224.229 (talk) 07:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

No, the incident was always left unexplained for comic effect. --PenguinCopter (talk) 23:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Besides, it was circumstantial evidence. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 06:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Hold on, why is this featured?

Can I ask why this article is considered featured quality. The second paragraph of the lead is completely unreferenced and has weasel words in, eg "he strip is vaguely set in the contemporary Midwestern United States, on the outskirts of suburbia, a location probably inspired by Watterson's home town of Chagrin Falls, Ohio. "

Probably? Who said this? Sentences like "Calvin and Hobbes strips are characterized by sparse but careful craftsmanship, intelligent humor, poignant observations, witty social and political commentary, and well-developed characters." have no references. In a featured article, I'd expect a reference after that. --Mouse Nightshirt | talk 21:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I just finished reading this. The writing is great, but there are a lot of unreferenced statements. It could either use cleaning up or re-evaluating. leafschik1967 (talk) 21:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Knockoffs

Many edits and reversions have been made about the knockoffs. We are lucky to see one last three minutes. Most of the discussions focus on the "peeing Calvin" window decals, which are clearly unauthorized. I am from the northeastern United States, and saw in a lot of New England colleges and boarding schools knockoff T-shirts which showed Calvin & Hobbes binge drinking. It caused a bit of a stir in that students should not be wearing such attire, and that Calvin & Hobbes were intended to be child friendly, and showing them engaging in such lewd activity was clearly contrary to Watterson's humor. USN1977 (talk) 18:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

There's only 17 books

Do someone really look at the reference?
[1]During its syndication, Calvin and Hobbes ran in more than 2,400 newspapers. Worldwide sales of Watterson's 17 existing Calvin and Hobbes book collections surpass 30 million copies, making Watterson's heartwarming depiction of precocious six-year-old Calvin and his imaginary, pouncing pet tiger Hobbes unquestionably one of the most popular and beloved comic strips of all time.

Or does it take into account The Complete Calvin and Hobbes books, so 17+1=18? (I'm not sure it is a book, it's a collection of three books!) Hand15 (talk) 20:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The "17 existing" collections in the reference is not counting The Complete Calvin and Hobbes, which is 1 book in three volumes. List of Calvin and Hobbes books has information on all 18. Anomie⚔ 00:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, the sale count is nearly 45 million based upon this source: http://www.cleveland.com/living/index.ssf/2010/02/fans_still_pine_for_calvin_and.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cvindustries (talk • contribs) 02:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Academic response

I've added a section on academic response, using the two academic sources on Calvin and Hobbes that I am aware of. It should be noted that this skirts the line of WP:COI, given that I wrote one of them, and in it I was critical of the other. (Though I did not make mention of my critique in the article.) I was careful, though the summary of my article could probably be tidied up a bit, but I figured I would make note of it here so that other people could review my work and make sure that it was not unduly self-serving. I tried to keep the balance equal between the two pieces (which are a short section of a book and a peer-reviewed article.) Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

As noted in discussion of a similar nature on Tori Amos, this section violates NOR as well as COI. 99.174.233.4 (talk) 17:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

No... it does not violate NOR as it was published in a peer-reviewed journal and in a special issue I had no editorial involvement in. And it does not violate COI because I disclosed the issue openly here. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Disclosing that you have a conflict of interest does not make the conflict of interest go away. Quite the contrary: it establishes the fact that such a conflict exists, and is known to you. Regardless, a section on 'academic criticism' would have to start with the premise that such a section serves the purpose of establishing the definition, relevance, or impact of the subject. The bush-league 'academia' included here scarcely does that. Given such a low threshhold, every article on Wikipedia would be bloated by the inclusion of every article ever published on the subject, ever. 99.174.233.4 (talk) 23:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I've not violated WP:COI at all, however. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
The very first definition of COI under the policy page is: "Adding material that appears to promote the interests or visibility of an article's author." That is clear as a bell here. The 'perspective' offered does not illuminate the subject material for a general audience, as an encyclopedia should, but instead cloaks it in the gobbledygook of post-structuralism (I mean Lacanian readings of comic strips?). To make it crystal clear, the policy goes on to state: "Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is notable." This ain't. 99.174.233.4 (talk) 02:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Your objection seems to be a POV pushing anti-academia objection. This is not even remotely valid. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Please address the policy I have quoted here, rather than trying to address the person. The section is a clear violation of COI, explicitly and implicitly, as noted above. It is not notable, and thus your inclusion of it in the article was a violation of COI. In addition, it obscures, rather than illuminates, the article's content. I am not against academia, per se. I am against obfuscation of the subject material. 99.174.233.4 (talk) 13:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

When I look at the material that Phil contributed for the "academic response" section, if I imagine that someone else had contributed the content instead of Phil, I have few concerns about the contribution. My main objection is that it's given too much weight considering the general paucity of scholarship touching on Calvin and Hobbes; if there's little treatment of it in academia then the article shouldn't spend more than a couple of sentences on it, in my opinion. But it does have a place, and I find it interesting to see how academics approach Watterson's work. Reading it in isolation, I don't see any inherent bias in the wording that favors or disfavors either academic's viewpoint, so it raises no NPOV concerns on my part.

The self-citation by Phil makes me wrinkle my nose a bit, but I give him credit for being forthright about it instead of trying to sneak it in anonymously or something like that. I guess my question for Phil is, do you anticipate a real-world gain for yourself by being cited thus in Wikipedia? If it would increase your notability as a scholar or attract more attention for your theories, etc., then ethically it would have been better to mention the paper on the talk page but let the other editors decide whether to add it or not -- and you shouldn't be making any future editorial decisions about the content, though you could of course discuss it on this page. Be that as it may, though, the content seems worthwhile to keep in some form, and I wouldn't reject it solely on the basis of who contributed it. alanyst /talk/ 20:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't honestly see much practical gain from being cited in Wikipedia. The academic world has a fairly disdainful view of Wikipedia, truth be told, and nobody who is judging my work professionally is going to pay much heed to whether the citation got into Wikipedia or not. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
The question posed above by alanyst then still remains - if you, the author, hadn't thrown the piece into the article, is it likely anyone else in the world would have done so? Does it actually immuniate the material in any way that is appropriate to a general encyclopedia article? I submit that the answer to both is 'no.' minor references to a subject can, with some justification, be worked into an article's main material...it doesn't get its own section and heading. The material is aimed at a specialist academic audience and does not focus on the general topic of the article. I still see no argument for its inclusion and plenty for its removal.99.174.233.4 (talk) 15:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Erm, have you read the article? It focuses on the general topic of Calvin and Hobbes, and is certainly not pitched entirely at a specialist audience. The question, to my mind, is "does academic coverage in notable journals constitute an aspect of a work of art that is worthy of encyclopedic coverage." If your answer to that is "no," I submit that you do not understand what an encyclopedia is. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
"does academic coverage in notable journals constitute an aspect of a work of art that is worthy of encyclopedic coverage?" Arguably. However, that is not what we have here. We have a couple minor-league works in obscure specialist fora. They are not notable. If Calvin and Hobbes became the subject of an issue of PMLA, you might have a point. But this is not the case here. 99.174.233.4 (talk) 21:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Addendum - as far as COI goes, your own statement on the subject suggests that you are, by definition, not in a position to objectively evaluate whether or not you have violated it: "If we can tell you have a COI, your COI is interfering excessively." We can tell. 99.174.233.4 (talk) 15:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Erm, what? I was asked point blank to evaluate it. I answered the question. Your suggestion that I am in some way hiding the ball here when I have been wholly open about my possible COIs. I was asked a direct question about what I had to gain by adding the article, I answered the question, and now you're bitching me out for bias? You've made your utter distaste for academic coverage of this topic clear - you think that the "gobbledygook of post-structuralism" is unfit for an encyclopedia. To which I can only say that it appears to be you with a POV to push. I've been wholly open about this. But as you are objecting to the entire section - including the Kuznets material, which I have nothing to gain from (and in fact, as I noted, I am critical of Kuznets in my own work) - it is clear that this is anti-academia dressed up in COI clothing. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
That I think the majority of most post structuralist academic writing is gobbledygook does not mean I reject worthwhile academia. I am rejecting that portion of it which obscures, rather than illuminates, its subject material. My objection stands: since not every academic work on every topic can be contained in an article, there must be a threshhold for its inclusion, particularly when it is not being incorporated as a footnoted reference (as is typical in the vast majority of Wikipedia articles) but featured in its own section. The fact remains that the only apparent reason you decided to foreground the material in such a fashion is to reference your own work. However, even without COI, the objection stands. This is minor, minor, minor-league stuff...not worth an entire section in the article. 99.174.233.4 (talk) 21:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
So, you dislike post-structuralist criticism, therefore it is unsuitable for inclusion? No. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Please respond to the actual argument instead of attacking straw men. I did not claim to dislike post structuralism, merely that much - arguably most - post-structuralist criticism is gobbledygook. The objection still awaits an answer: since not every academic work on every topic can be contained in an article, there must be a threshhold for its inclusion, particularly when it is not being incorporated as a footnoted reference (as is typical in the vast majority of Wikipedia articles) but featured in its own section. What is that threshhold? The COI policy claims that the work must be notable in its own right. Is your claim here that your article is? 138.23.75.177 (talk) 14:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
In the absence of a response, I must assume you've recognized the error in your logic, particularly since you're being asked the same question on Talk:Tori Amos, and avoiding answering it there too. 99.174.233.4 (talk) 17:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
No, I just grew very bored of you. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Good, since I had no desire to interest you in *me*, and thought you were spending entirely too much time on the subject, at the expense of the actual topic: since it is impossible to include every academic article published on a subject, what is the threshold for its inclusion (not merely as a footnote, but as an entire paragraph on the subject)? And in the same vein, since the COI policy specifically states that material to which you have contributed must meet notability guidelines in its own right to merit inclusion, is your position that your article does so? 99.174.233.4 (talk) 18:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
My position is that your trolling arguments are unworthy of response. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Visual distortions

What was wrong with this material (that was deleted with the instruction "don't add again"). What about it is "trivial"? It is interesting and its reference is provided in the text that was deleted. --DAW0001 (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Someone throwing their weight around, I guess. I may add it again later, once I have time to <ref> it enough to satisfy pedants. Anomie⚔ 22:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Movie/ TV series

I heard on a website that they will make a movie and cartoon of Calvin and Hobbes, that Bill Watterson gave permission, and forbid it to be told prior to the movie's release. Is it true? if so when will it come out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.36.206.39 (talk) 00:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know where you heard this, but I highly doubt its validity. --76.98.145.108 (talk) 03:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Watterson is too secretive and idealistic too sell a movie from his strip. It's probably just a bunch of obsessed-fan hoopla and nostalgia. Why would Watterson, after spending half of his time from 1987-1995 refusing virtually all marketing of the strip, suddenly sell a movie? I'm curious too know were you heard this rumor. Could you inform me excactly what website you read this on? Est300

Not to be rude, but seeing that this IP first made this section in December 2008, I doubt you're going to get an answer. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 17:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a web page, http://www.marcellosendos.ch/comics/ch/ , which is a collection of C&H strips obtained from ucomics.com and wonderfully organized by months (from 1985 to 1995). Should this page be added as an external link suggested to wikipedia readers?Quarkde (talk) 10:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

At first glance it looks like a wonderful addition. Could somebody more familiar with copyright laws verify that this isn't be a copyvio? Themfromspace (talk) 10:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
On the help page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tutorial_(External_links) ,it says that the external links section is "for linking to websites with significant and reliable additional information on an article's topic." I think that my proposed link meets this criterion and does not pose any copyright violation (if the comics are from ucomics.com) Quarkde (talk) 09:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, copyright violations aren't allowed on our articles, but Wikipedia also forbids linking to copyright violations. If the comic strips technically aren't allowed on ucomics.com, then we shouldn't link to that site no matter how helpful it is. Themfromspace (talk) 11:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I see. I'll make sure not to do that again. Quarkde (talk) 21:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Past or present tense

I just undid an edit by User:BiggKwell that changed the tense of the article from present ("Calvin and Hobbes is a comic strip") to past tense ("Calvin and Hobbes was a comic strip"). The edit I reverted had a few minor mistakes, but I have broader concerns about the main purpose of the edit. Because comic strips are written and published serially, it is easy to think of them as events, and to refer to them in the past tense when they are no longer being written. But this is the wrong idea: C&H is still being published, and still exists in the present day as a literary work. We don't say that the Iliad was an ancient Greek poem; it is an ancient Greek poem, despite Homer's having ceased work on it a long time ago. The synopsis of the work (or in this case, individual comic strips or the overall story arcs) is described in the present tense, for it makes the most sense in telling "here's what happens in the world as you follow the plot": thus "Apollo sends a plague against the Greeks" for the Iliad, or "Other characters see Hobbes as a stuffed animal" for Calvin and Hobbes. BiggKwell, I'm sure you meant well by your edit, but keeping things in the present tense just reads better stylistically and is consistent with practice elsewhere on Wikipedia. alanyst /talk/ 07:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

A Joy to Read

These discussion pages so often being used only as gripe forums, I feel the need to say that this article is a joy to read. It's a perfect example of how an article can keep its encyclopedic tone while simultaneously communicating the humor (and thus the point) of its subject matter. I wish more Wikipedia articles succeeded as well at this. rowley (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The end date

Why is the end date so early? Didn't the comic last past 1995? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.77.4.43 (talk) 18:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Complete gutting

This entire article needs an enema. It's chock-full of original interpretation, unsupported by external sources, from the opening analyses to the character descriptions. 99.174.233.4 (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I've started the process, but the entire second-half needs significant grammatical revision as well as further gutting of subjective response. 99.174.233.4 (talk) 00:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I've reverted you, because, erm, don't gut feature articles without discussion kthxbye. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
One does if they are full of sloppy personal interpretation. 99.174.233.4 (talk) 00:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Here is the relevant policy statement: "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments." - WP:NOR Statements such as "Calvin and Hobbes strips are characterized by sparse but careful craftsmanship, intelligent humor, poignant observations, witty social and political commentary, and well-developed characters." are nothing *but* speculation and interpretation. They are not objective, but evaluative. Later statements, such as suggestions that Watterson "expresses frustration with public decadence and apathy, with commercialism, and with the pandering nature of the mass media" are even worse - unless the author of this commentary is psychic, he is not in a position to suggest what Watterson is thinking (and even if he were, the psychic reading would have to be published in a significant, reliable secondary source). NPOV's policy statement makes the case explicit. It is appropriate to forward interpretations of art if the interpretation is "with citations or references to notable individuals holding that interpretation." Such is not the case here, where instead we see "opinions of individual Wikipedia contributors" - the definition of a violation of neutrality. Are there any actual counter-arguments to the fact that all of this type of material is violating WP:NOR and NPOV? 99.174.233.4 (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

As the author of the "sparse but careful" sentence, I agree with the anonymous user. I wrote that way back in the day when the standards of NOR and verifiability were a bit lower; I was trying not to be effusive but singling out what I saw as the hallmarks of the strip as a way of describing to the reader what distinguished it from others. Under the current standards of Wikipedia, the "sparse but careful" sentence probably needs to be rewritten to echo what secondary sources say, instead of being an editor's own take on the strip as a primary source.
Anonymous user, since this is still technically a featured article (though it might be a good candidate for review as such), Phil has a good point about being conservative with the changes. May I suggest two alternatives? One would be to draft a complete rewrite in a sandbox-type area where interested editors can compare what you have in mind to the current article contents. This would work better if you registered an account so you could do this in your own user space. Another alternative is to take the changes one at a time, in smaller chunks, and keep us appraised on the talk page of your rationale for the changes. That would help keep discussion centered on specific issues, and avoid suspicion on either side that the other side is simply trying to impose their vision of the article on them. What do you think? alanyst /talk/ 19:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Er. Maybe my memory is playing tricks on me. I thought I'd authored that sentence, but it seems to have been there before my earliest edit to the article. Apologies. alanyst /talk/ 19:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
My initial take on the task was in the spirit of WP:Bold, but I'm willing to take smaller chunks. I'd like to start with those evaluative sentences mentioned above, and similar subjective 'opinions' throughout the article. Would you prefer them listed here with suggested alternatives, or elsewhere? Here seems both most relevant and most accessible to interested parties, but it seems revision discussion would bloat over time 99.174.233.4 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC).
Yeah, here would work, listed with suggested alternatives to facilitate comparison and discussion. I concede it's more tedious that way for you, but it's appreciated. alanyst /talk/ 20:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. That there's a ton of original research is one problem. And, I bow to no-one in my appreciation for C&H trivia, but the article is out-of-hand in terms of listing every bit of trivia about the strip. No offense to the recent and highly-enthusiastic additions, but do we really need, for example, to list all of the G.R.O.S.S. passwords? The article really does need to be edited, and probably with a meat axe .. heck, to start I'll even nominate for deletion the section I added on "Exploitation Films". It's fun, but does all this stuff really belong in an encyclopedia article? Fladrif (talk) 21:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Definitely not. You should help out because it is being considered as a featured article recently. A meat axe would be good. Atm, it's too much information for someone who wants to have a brief overview. The Wurdalak (talk) 23:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

This article has undergone some severe bloating and could stand to be cut in half. I plan on taking out my red pen to the article in the next few days. I will put an edit lock on the article. I am certain that people will object to some (most?) of my changes. Nevertheless, I ask in advance that people give me a chance to revise the article and complete my changes. Once I've removed the edit lock, you may all do with it as you please. I do promise to work as quickly as possible but due to the size of this one, it may take me a couple visits. Thank you. fvincent (talk) 20:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't be nearly as hard as you suggest. I bet I can cut 20-30% on one pass without difficulty. 98.180.9.209 (talk) 00:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
And I was right. 20% gone in a flash. The real question is why the fuck nobody did this while the article was being debated for removal as a FA, instead sitting around whining about it. Oh yes. Because bitching is easier than editing. *eyeroll*. 98.180.9.209 (talk) 00:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted content, so far - for reference. -- Quiddity (talk) 04:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Done my edits. fvincent (talk) 19:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge

Sounds fine to me. Please cut the blatant original research that you don't think can be reliably sourced if you can, however. The article has enough issues as it is :P --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Merging would not be appropriate. If there are OR issues, they should be addressed within the spin-out article as this article is long enough already. Calvin, as the central character of a noted series, certainly warrants a separate article. --Ckatzchatspy 03:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I understand that, but...everything in the article is OR. The Hobbes article isn't even that bad. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 04:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
And another thing, people don't seem to understand that merging a smaller article to a bigger article doesn't mean you have to necessarily include everything from that smaller article; in fact, you don't have to include anything. That's why we have redirects. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 04:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I'll leave the article alone for one more night. If there isn't anything done to improve it by then, I'll merge. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 15:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd oppose the merge. I suggest you confer with, and coordinate with, the various people (including many admins) busy rescuing Calvin's alter egos (Calvin and Hobbes)‎ (and read through that article's current afd for more background). -- Quiddity (talk) 18:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
If you oppose the merge, then why don't you improve the article? And how sad is it that the alter-ego article is better sourced than the regular Calvin article? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 15:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I'll fix it. We might still want to merge the alter egos article there. If you'd like to give me a deadline, you can nominate it for AfD, but I'll try to work to the week's given deadline anyways. Jclemens (talk) 16:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
It's already been over a week. Here's the thing: there's no deadline on Wikipedia, so I really didn't have to alert people about this at all; I was just being civil. But as often is the case, opposers don't seem to show up until just before (or after) a merge like this happens, which really isn't fair. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 19:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
And the civility is appreciated. I only just watchlisted this and that article, and only just saw this thread when you edited it because it appeared on my watchlist. Yes, WP:TIND. Hopefully people with more time than us for this topic, will now have a chance to helpfully edit that Calvin article into a better state. Isn't that the ideal goal? :) -- Quiddity (talk) 21:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems like a vast amount of information on the Calvin page can simply be cut. Much of it is included on the Calvin and Hobbes page anyway. The parts to include in Calvin's Personality section would be his origin in John Calvin, fixation on predestination, his language, and more specific references to his relationship with the other characters. Most of this is here, but with alot of extraneous detail. I don't think we need a whole rundown of Batman and Astroboy, for example. The same is true of the detail given to Calvin's alter egos. I'll start some hard streamling and augmenting with Jclemens if that sounds appropriate. Lordknave (talk) 22:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Stupendous Man

I's shocked and astonied, there's no mention of Stupdendous Man!?! For best effect, I suggest he be listed as a separate character. Then note that Stupendous Man and Calvin are never seen at the same time, suggesting that perhaps Stupendous Man might BE Calvin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Friendly person (talk • contribs) 04:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

That would be unencyclopedic. First, because it would be treating the details in question from an in-universe perspective, second, because even 'from' an in-universe perspective, everyone knows it's Calvin. D. J. Cartwright (talk) 21:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit war/July 2009

Does the reverted content violate WP:NOR/WP:NN — regarding Phil Sandifer's self-referencing? TrbleClef ♮ (talk) 18:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It comes from a peer-reviewed journal, so I think it passes WP:NOR. However, I'm not sure how notable his work in the field actually is, and I'm guessing that it may not quite be notable enough to warrant the name drop he gave himself. AniMatedraw 18:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad someone noticed that particular criteria. Besides the self-referencing, I think it doesn't belong in the article because it is trivia. Not just trivia, but lengthy, cumbersome trivia, the kind that makes readers decide they've scrolled down too far and that it's time to abandon the article. I think Phil Sandifer ought to make a case for why it's pertinent before putting it back in, particularly since there seems to be a conflict of interest for him being the one to decide it belongs there. Cheers. --Preston McConkie (talk • contribs) 20:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
How about the first part only (the piece from Lois Rostow Kuznets)? Since it is not his own work, I see this as a valid inclusion. Academic discussions of fictional characters are common. I don't see why that section should be refused. Ccrashh (talk) 11:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I would point out that the article in question appears in a peer-reviewed journal, and furthermore, in what is the only peer-reviewed journal currently in publication on comics. Comics are a growing area of academic interest, with more and more universities offering courses on graphic novels, and a growing pool of seminal texts that penetrate into general survey classes. It is a significant field, and as the sole English-language peer-reviewed journal, ImageTexT sits very high on the ladder within the field.
I did not violate any COI policies in inserting this material. I have been open about my involvement in the article, and I encourage anyone seeking to complain on the grounds of COI to look at the policy, which restricts self-promotional use. Had I been interested in self promotion I would have simply added a summary of my work and nothing else. However, I also incorproated the Kuznets work. Furthermore, despite the fact that I spent a significant amount of time in my article attacking Kuznets work, I omitted this, because I did not want to set the section up in a way that made my work seem like the more important of the two.
But the fact of the matter is, my work was published in a major journal in the relevant field. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I will also say, I am sympathetic to attempts to improve the section, and I will not revert attempts to do so. What I will flatly reject are approaches that are based on the flat-out rejecting academia as "psychobabble." That's just POV pushing. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
So long as the material is well-written and properly sourced, why should the "Academic response" section not be included? Omnedon (talk) 15:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I've put the section back, sans the COI portion from Sandifer, and moved it down, placing it as the final section of the article. Unitanode 16:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Please clarify what aspect of COI the section violates. Note that the policy is as follows: "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is notable and conforms to the content policies." What, exactly, does the material violate? Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
      I'm not going to argue about this with you. I have no opinion about whether or not your work belongs in this article. I simply restored the section (which I think is useful) without your work, so that space could be had for you to convince the other participants (of which, I was not one) in this discussion that your work is necessary and proper for inclusion in the article. If you do that, I have no problem with it being included. As of right now, though, I neither support nor oppose inclusion. I apologize if my use of "COI" came across poorly, as I can see how it could be taken as my "taking sides" in the dispute. I do feel that impression should be mitigated by the fact that I did readd the section, but I did not mean to cause any offense by using "COI" in my note. Unitanode 17:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
The material in question fails the COI test because it isn't "notable." If this were an article about the social significance of comics, sure. But as mentioned before, it's trivia. Not just trivia, it's recondite trivia. And not just recondite trivia, it's bulky trivia. I think moving the section to the end is a good compromise, but I don't think Phil Sandifer should re-insert his stuff. It's more impenetrable than the Kuznets quote. Besides, it's simply a good test of whether something is noteworthy, that someone besides the author must like it enough to put it in. And I don't think we'd have the Kuznets stuff there if it hadn't been included as cover for the Sandifer stuff.
Besides all that, articles aren't supposed to be anthologies of lengthy excerpts. Just think what movie articles would be like if they were cobbled together from chunks of different movie reviews. I think Phil Sandifer is making too much of this being published in a peer-reviewed journal. That makes it a credible source for a short, pertinent summary or paraphrase. But it doesn't justify thrusting in the excerpt. And now that I think of that, that makes the Kuznets material irrelevant as well. If there really is a significant amount of academic interest, then someone could put together a subsection that summarizes all that discussion, enlivened with some short, pertinent quotes. Phil points out that there is only a single journal discussing comics in general, so that indicates C&H doesn't have enough unique discussion to merit a subsection describing an "academic response." There is an academic response to comics, but one or two papers doesn't indicate an academic response to a single comic. Phil ought to start an article on the cultural significance of comics, and doubtless some of his own work would fit in there. In the C&H article it would merit a mention and a link.
I'm re-deleting the subsection on academic response. If someone has a good argument for why a couple of paragraphs in an obscure journal deserve duplication in this article, I won't re-delete without consensus.
Last of all, Phil, you have my respect for editing under your own name. I'm in a discussion with another user -- he's more of a peer of yours than I am -- who feels strongly about that. Rather than reviving the somewhat inflammatory article on Wikichickens, we're considering making a barnstar and/or userbadge for people who edit in the open. --Preston McConkie (talk • contribs) 18:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Are the paragraphs from the journal actually duplicated, as you say, or are they paraphrased and/or summarized? Omnedon (talk) 19:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
You're right, they're not simply dropped in as block quotes. But they are summarized in dense academic language. I'm not afraid of big words, but if the concept can't be translated into simple English it's questionable whether there's really a concept at all, or whether it's just a collection of fancy words. Maybe if Phil had a go at making the material accessible to people besides the peers reviewing the source journal, it would at least be useful in an article dealing with that journal's overall subject. My reasons for removing the section are not solely based on whether an excerpt is too long to be considered "fair use." --Preston McConkie (talk • contribs) 19:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Having just re-read the paragraph, it doesn't seem to be especially inaccessible; I have no particular background in the field, and I can certainly understand what is being said. It appears to be properly sourced, so it is not original research; it comes from a published source. Perhaps some rewriting might help, but I see no reason for it to be excluded entirely. The section is not vital to the article, but I am wondering why the objection to it is so strong. Omnedon (talk) 20:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
If there becomes consensus that it's accessible, that's one point in its favor. But I still maintain that it's bulky trivia and only invites adding more obscure, special-interest stuff. There's no blanket rule against trivia, but we are discouraged from making trivia lists and I like the trend of streamlining out all the neverending trivia and "You know what this makes me think of?" lists. You could say this one small section has been bumped harmlessly to the bottom, but this is already a pretty huge article and, if anything, could use either to be trimmed or have more subsections spun off as independent articles.
Also, just because you personally found the section understandable, doesn't mean you can call it accessible. Editors tend to have pretty high vocabularies, and we need to keep the readers in mind first. If you said you thought this section was "accessible to readers" I'd just wonder what type of rarefied crowd you hang out with. --Preston McConkie (talk • contribs) 20:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest that you remember we are not writing for Simple Wikipedia. Having scholarly sections in an article is not a problem here. Unitanode 20:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest that there is a limit to the accessibility of technical scholarly writing, and that this is not a problem. We allow far denser sections on math and science topics as a matter of routine course. I'll grant that there may be ways to clarify the language in question, but I am rather starkly unsympathetic to the notion that academic and scholarly material should be removed as "too hard." Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm struggling to understand why there's such pushback on an "Academic response" section. In principle, I see very little difference between that and similar "Critical response" sections in film articles. One thing I do not buy into is that it's nothing more than trivia. It's an academic take on the comic. I see no inherent problem with the section as a section, and was assuming the main debate was whether or not Sandifer's material belonged in it. Unitanode 20:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Don't worry about my motives, just come up with logical support for an opposing position. If it's not important enough to throw out, it's not important enough to keep in. I could ask the same question of everyone who's arguing for it, except for Phil, who has personal reasons.
Discussing motives is a distraction. If editors weren't anal to some degree, these articles would just balloon endlessly. The purpose of Wikipedia isn't to have maximum input, it's to use community collaboration to create good articles.
I am arguing that there isn't enough academic response to this single comic to merit a section on it. Two papers in a little-known journal just aren't worthy of inclusion in a general article. I'm suggesting their proper home is in an article on the subject of academic response to comics, since that has spawned a whole journal on the subject. And I don't think there's a comparison to "critical response" sections. Critical response is a huge issue with movies. Nearly everyone listens to critics. Many people consult critics before deciding what to see, and critical response has a huge effect on how much money movies make and how many people see them. Also, there is discussion of critical response already in this article.
There could be a legitimate place for this stuff in Wikipedia, I'm saying it isn't in this already humongous article. Please address my arguments before dismissing them by implying it's ridiculous to care as much as I do -- and, apparently, as much as you do. --Preston McConkie (talk • contribs) 21:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
You read much more into my reply than is there. I don't even hint that it's "ridiculous to care as much as [you] do." Nor does anything in my reply hint that I care nearly as much as you do. I don't. I was simply trying to understand why you feel there shouldn't be an academic response section. Nothing more than that. Unitanode 21:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I will actually explain my motive, because it might be enlightening. When I first started editing a few years ago, articles on movies were getting out of control because editors were bulking them out with deconstructions, quoting every imaginable article where someone talked about the Freudian/Jungian/whatever imagery of this and that. I spent hours combing this type of stuff out of the body of the C&H article. A lot of that stuff was just POV comments invented by editors, but that isn't the only criteria for removing it. It really does need to be pertinent, and just because it's picked up second-hand from a published source doesn't make it pertinent or non-POV. --Preston McConkie (talk • contribs) 21:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Unitanode, I shouldn't take your remarks as insulting, perhaps, but when someone says "I don't know why you think this is important," it sounds to me like they're implying I should shut up and go away. I wasn't assuming good faith, I suppose, or I would have taken that as a request for clarity. I hope my previous response provides it. If not, I will try again. --Preston McConkie (talk • contribs) 21:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
There is some kind of disconnect here. Where did I write anything like "I don't know why you think this is important"? Are you confusing me with one of the other editors? I'm seriously a bit confused here, as I really was simply "struggling to understand" your reasoning, as I put it above. Your subsequent posts certainly have clarified your position, and for that I'm appreciative. I still disagree a bit, as I've always enjoyed a well-written "scholarly deconstruction" of pop culture icons, but I do understand where you're coming from as well. Unitanode 21:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Unitode, clearly I misread you. I hoped you would take my earlier remarks as acknowledgment of that. To clear up whether I mean "I'm sorry," I am. This is why we're reminded to assume good faith. --Preston McConkie (talk • contribs) 00:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I feel obliged to point out that these "two papers in a little known journal" are in fact one paper in the top journal in the relevant field and a chapter of a book published by Yale University Press. This last error on your part troubles me - the first three words of the section are "In her book," so it does not take a lot to notice that we are dealing with a book rather than a journal article. This suggests to me a shocking lack of actual attention or care in looking at this material.
Furthermore, I have been editing popular culture articles on Wikipedia since 2004. I can honestly say, there has never been a period of time when any popular culture articles have suffered from an excess of references to peer-reviewed academic sources. This is simply not a problem we have ever had. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
OK, you snagged me on a detail. If you can undo the kernel of my point with those details, rather than just act shocked and appalled, please proceed. And obviously your opinion differs from mine about how much ivory tower chin-rubbing and chattering is too much. If you mistake a difference of opinion for a refutation, I must express my SHOCK at your APPALLING lack of academic discernment. --Preston McConkie (talk • contribs) 00:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Given that the overwhelming problem with the vast majority of our fiction articles is and always has been that they are full of unsourced fan-wankery of the stupidest sort, I have trouble imagining what level of academic criticism you consider acceptable, beyond perhaps "none at all," an opinion you have justified with little more than broad frothing about elitism and the ivory tower.
Please, explain how your position is more than simply anti-academia POV pushing. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • My view here is this: for now, the book stuff stay in, as it's clearly referenced, and adds texture to the article. I don't even have a real problem with Sandifer's information, but I think that it should be someone other than Sandifer himself that places it back in the article, if only for the sake of appearances, which can be important. Unitanode 00:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Funny, Phil. The edit comment I've restrained myself from making is that the academic response sounded like professors jerking off for each other's benefit. But I guess "wankery" sums it up just as well. --Preston McConkie (talk • contribs) 03:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
This is completely, wildly, and wholly inappropriate. Unitanode 03:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
True, unsourced wankery is the kind that's easiest to delete. But you're deliberately ignoring the multiple substantive reasons I've given for why the material doesn't belong, and you haven't responded at all. I mean, if you think your material is so important, why don't you consider it important enough for a stand-alone article? You really should address that. --Preston McConkie (talk • contribs) 03:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I haven't addressed that because there is nothing resembling a policy that everything worthy of mention in an article is also worthy of a stand-alone article. Phil Sandifer (talk) 12:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Preston, your comment beginning with "Funny, Phil" is, as Unitanode says, entirely inappropriate. This prompts me to point out that in your recent massive edits to this article, something like 90 edits in a row, the actual edits were generally good and simplified and clarified the article's text; but your edit summaries were often highly questionable. You may disagree with the way something was written by some other editor, and Wikipedia encourages you to be bold and fix it if it needs fixing; but you're not empowered to insult the other editors along the way. Summaries like this exemplify what I'm talking about:

  • Prominent? Okay, someone's seriously jacking around with the English language here.
  • I wonder if a rubber hose was needed to extort this extraordinary confession.
  • Watterson's work is interesting enough that we hardly need a Wiki editor to prompt us with the condescending, "Interestingly enough."
  • Not only is that philosophically deep, it would never be apparent to any reader with less than a preschooler's brain development
  • Should have been labeled "Irrelevant Academic Navel-Gazing." Kill it.
  • More recursive blather about things already said or that don't need to be stated.
  • Lips off bum, please.

That kind of thing is unnecessary and doesn't aid the process. However, your "Funny, Phil" statement above takes the cake. In future, I would ask that you make your edits without sarcasm, and in talk page discussions, please remain civil. You're one of many editors trying to improve Wikipedia. Omnedon (talk) 13:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggested rewrite of Academic response

Ahem. Vitriol aside, I've taken a stab at a rewrite of the problematic section that hopefully distills the essence of the scholarship (both Phil's and Kuznets's) into less verbose phrasing, and I added a mention of the 2001 museum exhibit of Watterson's work at OSU. Here's the rewrite -- I offer it here for discussion before adding it to the article so as to avoid even the appearance of a fait accompli. Phil, you're most familiar with the works cited so I hope you can let me know if I'm fairly representing the gist of them or not. I'm happy to tweak as long as it doesn't make the prose much longer or denser than I've got it; I'd like to think it hits a good spot in terms of readability and informativeness. But you all may be the better judges of that. alanyst /talk/ 03:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

There has been a modest amount of critical scholarship that deals with Calvin and Hobbes. In her book When Toys Come Alive, Lois Rostow Kuznets says that Hobbes serves both as a figure of Calvin's childish fantasy life and as an outlet for the expression of libidinous desires more associated with adults. Kuznets also looks at Calvin's other fantasies, suggesting that they are a second tier of fantasies utilized in places like school where transitional objects such as Hobbes would not be socially acceptable.[1] Another academic critic, Philip Sandifer, used Calvin and Hobbes as the main example for a reading of comic strips based on the psychoanalytic theories of Jacques Lacan, examining the Lacanian concepts of the Imaginary and the Real, and their interplay with the strip's depiction of time.[2]

A collection of original Sunday strips was exhibited at The Ohio State University's Cartoon Research Library in 2001. Watterson himself selected the strips and provided his own commentary for the exhibition catalog, which was published widely as Calvin and Hobbes Sunday Pages 1985-1995.

If everyone could discuss this in a detached way, that'd be great. alanyst /talk/ 03:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I like the rewrite. My only suggestion is to substitute "sexual" for "libidinous," because the latter has essentially the same meaning. "Libidinous" functions as a euphemism, so that could be a reason for retaining it, but my general philosophy is to not force people to look up words just because they sound cool. I speak as a professional journalist, by the way, for those who think I'm afraid of words. --Preston McConkie (talk • contribs) 03:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I love the word, and am a big fan of beautiful writing, to which the word "libidinous" lends itself quite nicely. Unitanode 04:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't presume to press the point. --Preston McConkie (talk • contribs) 04:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Libidinous is a lovely word for sesquipedalians, and I personally like it -- but I think Preston's instincts are probably worth heeding here; I'd support changing it to "sexual", with no hard feelings toward "libidinous". alanyst /talk/ 04:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
All joking aside, I find it rather sad that we feel we have to tame good writing, for the sake of a couple of seconds that a reader might spend at dictionary.com. Unitanode 04:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Many journalism students feel like that to begin with, but it gets hammered into them that good writing is clear writing, not beautiful writing. Clarity comes first. Now, if writing can be both clear and artistic, then you have a rare and wonderful thing. Ernest Hemingway managed, but naturally there were those who called him unsophisticated because he didn't "challenge" readers. --Preston McConkie (talk • contribs) 05:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Not all writing is journalism. And when attempting to fairly give an overview of a form of writing where over-simplification is seen as a far worse vice than difficulty, there are serious issues. Academic writing in the humanities is characterized by an extreme commitment to nuance and subtlety. Over-simplification in summaries of it violates NPOV by badly misrepresenting the core of the arguments. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Within psychoanalytic theory and criticism, there is a distinction between the libidinal and the sexual, with the libidinal being a broader category. My sense of Kuznets is that she is not reducing Calvin and Hobbes to the basely sexual, and that "libidinal" better captures her meaning.
I'm also concerned that this wording might, ironically, be more impenetrable for readers, as it introduces very large concepts without context or explanation. I will grant that my original wording was probably more verbose than is necessary, but on the other hand, I think there was a virtue in a phrase like "parallel between Hobbes's status as an imaginary friend and the Lacanian concept of the Imaginary," which at least helps indicate both some of the larger shape of the argument and, to my mind usefully, flags for the reader that the Lacanian Imaginary is a specialized term that does not mean what it looks like it would mean at first glance. Similarly, I think the Kuznets section is poorer for not providing the specific example of Hobbes's saxophone cabaraet, which I think gives a good sense of the tone of her argument. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay, addressing your concerns point by point:
  • Maybe we should keep "libidinous" but wikify it (libidinous) to give the reader a quick outlet if that term is unfamiliar. An acceptable middle ground?
  • I think the phrase "examining the Lacanian concepts of the Imaginary and the Real", with its capitalization and the earlier wikilink to Jacques Lacan, is enough of a signal to the reader that it's a bit different from the usual concept of "imaginary". I'd keep out the verbiage about Hobbes's status being a parallel.
  • I think it's better to avoid repeating the scholars' uses of specific examples in this section -- it doesn't feel right, almost as if we're echoing the scholars' efforts to be persuasive rather than just reporting the gist of their positions. Not that that's what you intend, but I think some readers would feel a need to dispute whether the specific example really supports the scholar's position, and that would be a distraction from the tone of the rest of the article.
  • All that said, if the scholarship is in any way being misrepresented or distorted, I'm very open to getting that fixed. alanyst /talk/ 14:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
OK, going point by point then. :)
  • The libido wikilink, I think, is a very good idea.
  • To my mind, this hinges on whether or not I was using Calvin and Hobbes as an example for a larger structural argument about comic strips, or whether I was arguing that there was something uniquely Lacanian about Calvin and Hobbes. If the former, you're right - the parallel is a rhetorical flourish. If the latter, however, the parallel is a significant part of the argument. And let me say, this is four year old research for me, and I honestly do not remember it well enough to speak ex cathedra on that issue, so I'm looking back at the actual article to try to answer that. (Speaking as a scholar four years older than the one who wrote that, I am inclined to view the Lacanian view as holding broadly for serialized comic strips, but I don't know that that's what I was doing four years ago.) That said, as I look at it, I think that the essay in question is identifying something specifically Lacanian about the strip. I base this on the way that the essay makes a transition from talking about Hobbes in terms of Calvin's psyche (paragraph 13 is a good example of this) to talking about Hobbes as a structural element of the strip (a transition that has happened by paragraph 16). It seems clear to me, looking at that transition, that the core of the essay is not merely using Calvin and Hobbes as an example. The last paragraph of the essay makes a rhetorical move towards applying this methodology more broadly, but I think the core of the essay is arguing something specific to Calvin and Hobbes, rather than simply using it as an example. But I'd be open to a more careful discussion of this point.
  • As for the re-use of examples, I have to disagree. Yes, a reader may well dispute the applicability of the example. But I think that's OK - readers should be given enough information to start to evaluate a position presented to them. I think it's important to give a clear sense of the arguments. A paper is more than its conclusions, and giving a sense of the scope of the paper instead of the first and last paragraphs is, I think, important. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

[Outdent.] Here's a new version. I wikilink "libidinous" and aim for a better summary of Phil's paper. See what you think. alanyst /talk/ 14:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

There has been a modest amount of critical scholarship that deals with Calvin and Hobbes. In her book When Toys Come Alive, Lois Rostow Kuznets says that Hobbes serves both as a figure of Calvin's childish fantasy life and as an outlet for the expression of libidinous desires more associated with adults. Kuznets also looks at Calvin's other fantasies, suggesting that they are a second tier of fantasies utilized in places like school where transitional objects such as Hobbes would not be socially acceptable.[3] Another academic critic, Philip Sandifer, using the psychoanalytic theories of Jacques Lacan, identifies the strip's depiction of time within Calvin's real and imaginary worlds as a manifestation of the Lacanian concepts of the Imaginary and the Real.[4]

A collection of original Sunday strips was exhibited at The Ohio State University's Cartoon Research Library in 2001. Watterson himself selected the strips and provided his own commentary for the exhibition catalog, which was published widely as Calvin and Hobbes Sunday Pages 1985-1995.

Much improved. The only thing i would change is the very end, to include the Symbolic with the Imaginary and the Real, as the concepts are tightly interlinked. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

What qualifies an item as "Calvin and Hobbes merchandise"?

Here is an issue for discussion raised by the inclusion of the book The Fallacy Detective in the "Merchandising" section of the article.

The Fallacy Detective has 214 pages, but it reprints only about a dozen strips total of Dilbert, Peanuts, and Calvin and Hobbes combined -- is this significant enough to classify the book as "Calvin and Hobbes merchandise"?

If so, then other items that reprint Calvin and Hobbes strips must be considered. The philosophy book Open Questions (ISBN 978-0312416355) reprints and provides analysis of a Calvin and Hobbes Sunday strip -- is this book also to be listed as "Calvin and Hobbes merchandise"?

The magazines Comics Revue, Comic Relief, Zoo, Serie Paraden, and Mangajin all reprinted Calvin and Hobbes strips -- shall these magazines also be listed here as "merchandise"?

I propose that The Fallacy Detective, Open Questions, and other books that reprint a negligible number of strips not be listed as "merchandise."

As an alternative, I propose that a sentence along the lines of the following be included in the article:

"In recent years, Calvin and Hobbes strips have appeared in textbooks on philosophy and formal logic," citing Open Questions and The Fallacy Detective as sources. --Rubicund 99 (talk) 23:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you -- they do not seem to qualify as "merchandise". I also like your proposal about mentions of the strip in textbooks; the Academic Response section would be a great place for that. Adding a bit more detail about what the textbooks said about the strips they cited would be nice, if you have access to those sources. alanyst /talk/ 20:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

How about the framed and matted strips at [ http://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/ ]? are those merchandise? 75.84.238.18 (talk) 09:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I just edited the article -- the Merchandising, Books, and Academic Response sections -- incorporating the following points:
--the GoComics.com framed and matted strips are genuine licensed merchandise, produced by Watterson's publisher/syndicate
--sourced the USPS postage stamp of Calvin and Hobbes
--added two books as sources that reference the Teaching with Calvin and Hobbes textbook: Nevin Martell's new book and a resource book for teachers
--Fallacy Detective and Open Questions are cited with some detail in the Academic Response section
Regarding the supposedly licensed Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) T-shirt of Calvin and Hobbes that is mentioned in the Merchandising section: another editor had previously placed a "Citation Needed" note on this shirt. I have been looking, but I have been unable to find any substantial information about this shirt. All that seems to exist is this photograph: [ http://ignatz.brinkster.net/cimages/cmoma.jpg ] It is possible that the notion that this T-shirt was actually licensed may be a myth, one that has been repeated so often (including in this article) that it is regarded as canon. (Anyone can print a shirt with "Museum of Modern Art" written on it, after all.) At any rate, it doesn't seem to be verifiable, and maybe should be removed. 71.34.71.149 (talk) 11:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Busted Reference

Reference #4 looks to be a broken link to a website in a different language.

^ Watterson, Bill (1990). "Some thoughts on the real world by one who glimpsed it and fled". http://home3.inet.tele.dk/stadil/spe_kc.htm. Retrieved 2006-03-16.

--Adam Wolbach (talk) 23:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


More Recurring Elements

There are several ideas that are used VERY often in the Calvin and Hobbes comic strips that I think would be a disappointed not to include in the article:

Sugar Bomb Cereal
Saturday Morning Cartoons/ Television
Dinner Table Meals
Babysitting

I think we can all agree that these things are major components of many of the comic strips.
If someone could add these things in the "Recurring Elements section" (perhaps with more detail), it would benefit the article greatly.
Or if someone could find a way to better organize these topics or integrate them into what is already in the section, that would be great too.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.28.105.237 (talk) 05:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

All of this is highly problematic. The article is overwhelmed by original research and trivia, some of which got removed per the "Total Gutting" discussion above, and much of which has apparently found its way back into the article. I'm a huge C&H fan, and have a keen appreciation for all the trivia, but it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article.Fladrif (talk) 21:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

john calvin and thomas hobbes

I think that I understand why Hobbes is named after Thomas Hobbes; it would make sense that a tiger would see life as brutal and short. However, though I have enjoyed the strip, I have always wondered why Calvin would be named after John Calvin, the proponent of predestination, etc... Reading Calvin, I always thought of him as a stern, hard-nosed type - quite unlike the Calvin of "Calvin and Hobbes." Any theologians out there? Maybe I'm reading more into it than there is. I would appreciate a discussion on the origins of the names from those in the know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.25.30.112 (talk) 07:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

adverbs/adjectives

If you already have a strong verb or noun, do not use an adverb or adjective. This entry is wordy.

adverbs/adjectives

If you already have a strong verb or noun, do not use an adverb or adjective. This entry is wordy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asidemore (talk • contribs) 10:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Calvin and Hobbes/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Initial review. :)

Reviewer: km5 (talk) 21:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    Style and prose up to encyclopedia standards, and consistent throughout the article.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

First pass (prose and style) done as of Aug 19. --km5 (talk) 12:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Completed images review + neutrality check. --km5 (talk) 23:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Coverage OK, edit wars none (OK). Unless we have a surprise with references, this article definitely deserves GA status... We'll see! --helianthi (talk) 21:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem with this article. Deserves GA standard. --helianthi (talk) 12:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Adult-2-Kid Transmogrifier on Second Life

One thing I'm a mite surprised hasn't been mentioned here yet: For some while now, on Second Life, there has been this thingidoodle called the Adult-2-Kid Transmogrifier, which is clearly inspired by Calvin & Hobbes' device. It is a large device consisting of cardboard box with the words Adult-2-Kid Transmogrifier written in large letters in felt tip onto the box, and a large button on the side. You stand inside it, start it up, and it presents you with a selection of different avatars to choose from in a dialog box. When you select one of these avatars, a folder containing that avatar (shape, skin, clothes, etc) is sent to your inventory. During all this, the box is making various sorts of goofy sound effects, wiggling around, and stuff. You are then instructed to wear that avatar, and on cue you step out of the box in your new form with the appropriate fanfare (a "Tadaaa!" music cue). It is a fun and fanciful way for someone who's not tried being a virtual kid in Second Life to try it out for free, and has a selection of different kid-avs of various ages and both sexes to choose from. I get the impression the device originated in 2008 at the SL5B, though I might be wrong about that. (It was before I came on the scene on Second Life.) ----Nomad Of Norad (talk) 01:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Steven Spielberg and Bill Waterson

See here: Why Would I Want to Talk to Steven Spielberg? --89.160.147.231 (talk) 09:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

  1. ^ Kuznets, Lois Rostow (1994). When Toys Come Alive. Yale University Press.
  2. ^ Sandifer, Philip. "When Real Things Happen to Imaginary Tigers". Imagetext Interdisciplinary Comic Studies. University of Florida. Retrieved 2008-08-10.
  3. ^ Kuznets, Lois Rostow (1994). When Toys Come Alive. Yale University Press.
  4. ^ Sandifer, Philip. "When Real Things Happen to Imaginary Tigers". Imagetext Interdisciplinary Comic Studies. University of Florida. Retrieved 2008-08-10.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Calvin_and_Hobbes/Archive_10&oldid=1151015592"