Talk:Willie and Joe

Merge?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

From its creation, this has been little but a reiteration of coverage in the Bill Mauldin article, is there any good reason why it should not to merged and re-directed? Anmccaff (talk) 19:01, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support - I have read both articles and agree that this could be and should be merged into the Bill Mauldin article. Parkwells (talk) 14:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
• Convince Me I am leaning towards Weak Oppose, and having the Publication history section deleted or TNT, as it appears to be more about Mauldin than Willie and Joe. I definitely think there is a need for two separate articles.L3X1 My Complaint Desk 13:15, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - The characters are notable outside of their creator. They were referenced by the Buffalo News two months ago without mentioning Mauldin. The Willie & Joe book was reviewed by NPR. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose - The characters are definitely notable outside their creator. What this article needs is actually more detail, especially on their legacy. TeriEmbrey (talk) 17:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
• Weak support for merge unless substantially more sourcing can be found to establish both 1) their independent notability and 2) an argument that they are best understood, as an encyclopedic topic, separately from Maudlin. At present there is exactly one secondary WP:reliable source for this article, which supports just one statement; the rest of the sources are primary, leaving virtually the entire article un-verified. And while I applaud Argento for at least trying to uncover those sources, an offhand reference in an article about an entirely different topic (Ernest Hemingway) and a routine book review of a commercial reprint are not establishing the demands for WP:Notability. Further leg work could justify an independent article if the right sources are found, but that case has not yet been made, and until it is, merger is the way to go under all of the relevant policies, no matter our gut reactions that the topic "must" "definitely" be notable in encyclopedic terms, because we've heard of it. Snow ^{let's rap} 20:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Woops, I missed the Library of Congress source. It's not exactly deep, but it does provide some summary of Willie and Joe as a topic of significant cultural relevance, which puts me closer to neutral on this one. I'd still like to see more sourcing before switching my !vote altogether, however; there's still an argument to be made that this topic is better discussed as part of Maudlin's article. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: The Hemmingway article wasn't intended to be a prime example of notability, just evidence that the characters are notable independent of the cartoonist. They're namedropped and Maudlin isn't, meaning the reader is expected to know them without a reference to the author.

A basic search turns up other sources. According to CNN, one of Maudlin's Pulitzer Prizes was specifically for Willie and Joe. The cartoon in question can be seen here (search for "that last" to find it quick). There's a group of war historians called the Friends of Willie and Joe. Willie and Joe's influence on GIs was discussed in a 1971 issue of Life Magazine. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Alright, fair enough--I've struck my original !vote; the fact that one of Maudlin's Pulitzer Prizes is specifically for a Willie and Joe cartoon changes the equation for me, and some of my own searching has turned up some additional sources which also focus on the unique role of Willie and Joe ([1], [2], [3], for example), though I could not thoroughly check the content of all of them. I'm still not sure on the issue of where the most pragmatic space is to discuss all of this, but I'm sufficiently swayed that notability is not a concern, so (until I can look into just how much material there is and whether an independent article is strictly speaking necesary/advised) I'm not opposing or supporting and changed my !vote accordingly. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

You did note the author of the Life article? Some guy named...oh, yeah. "Bill Mauldin."

The Hemingway book review also does nothing to assert separate notability; it's equally possible that author assumed the audience need not be told "Mauldin."

As for the Friends of Willie and Joe, here is how they describe themselves "Friends of Willie & Joe" is a living history group that mostly depicts the regular "dog face" infantryman of WWII, usually as members of Bill Mauldin's 45th Division..., and as The only WWII U.S. Living History Group Officially Sponsored by Bill Mauldin Anmccaff (talk) 16:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I did note the author in the Life article. The fact that Mauldin wrote it does not change the fact that Life thought he and his characters were worth covering.

I agree with you 100% on the Hemmingway piece - the author assumed the audience knew who Willie and Joe were without naming their creator. That indicates they are notable independent of the author.

I read the description for the FoW&J, but thanks for repeating it. Did you have a point?

Considering how lop-sided your deletion discussion was two years ago, I think you should try harder to put forward an argument here. So far, you're just pointing out that W&J and Mauldin are often discussed at the same time. No one's denying that they're related. Which part of WP:GNG do you think W&J fail? If you want to make a WP:NOPAGE argument, you need to explain it. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Argento that this is basically a NOPAGE issue. I was concerned about notability at first--that is to say, as a product of the sources; I was aware enough of both Mauldin and Willie and Joe to know their general cultural influence, but wasn't sure the right sources would be available to describe these particular cartoons as independently notable, for the purposes of WP:N. The more I dug into that, however, the more obvious it became that there are more than sufficient sources to satisfy GNG. However, I still think there is a question of where the "smart" place to discuss these particular characters is, though--and I have not yet seen a particularly compelling argument, based on context and the scope of the content, either way. I will say that is is hard to make an argument for an independent article under WP:SUMMARYSTYLE when so much of the current content of this article is supported only by primary or non-RS sourcing. Until there is a stronger 1-to-1 correlation between verifiable content and sources that do indeed verify it, it's hard for me to get behind the independent article, even if (longterm) I think it may be an inevitable result. Hope that makes sense; my position is nuanced because of the interplay of several related policies in this instance. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:35, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Essentially this is a standalone page issue, yes. There is nothing here yet that should not be in the Mauldin article; having two separate ones has no advantage, but has several disadvantages. This started out as a POV fork, and will doubtless swing back into one if left alone here. Anmccaff (talk) 04:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

For the record, every article that links to Willie and Joe also links to Bill Mauldin, but not vice-versa. Most of the W&J links are included when describing Mauldin, not independently mentioned. Their page views are also very different. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:37, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I did note the author in the Life article. The fact that Mauldin wrote it does not change the fact that Life thought he and his characters were worth covering.

No, Life didn't say that. You did. It's worth noting that the particular piece centered on in Patton's confrontation with Mauldin -the USO Stage Door cartoon- seems to be Willieless and Joe-free. The Pullitzer piece isn't a "Willy and Joe" piece either, The guard might -or might not - be a solitary Joe. So might the rightmost German. In War Stories: Myths of World War II, Samuel Hynes thinks the American figure might be either, or perhaps both: "Willie (or is it Joe?) shuffles along beside a column of captured Germans..." What might be his finest cartoon, the old Cav topkick putting his jeep out of its misery, is clearly neither Willie nor Joe, even in spirit; he was a Regular, and it was what Mauldin saw as his best piece of the era. Mauldin never saw his WWII work as "Willie and Joe" in the way that people trying to profit off his work since his death have.

I agree with you 100% on the Hemmingway piece - the author assumed the audience knew who Willie and Joe were without naming their creator. That indicates they are notable independent of the author.

That's certainly one way of looking at it; it's equally valid, from a different POV, to say that it proves that Mauldin doesn't even have to be named, ergo he is the more noteworthy. Both ideas, I'd submit, are wrong, just confirmation bias in action.

I read the description for the FoW&J, but thanks for repeating it. Did you have a point?

Of course. that using an organization that makes so much of its connection to Mauldin might not be the best way to show his creatures are independently notable. Anmccaff (talk) 04:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose merger. Summoned by bot. The "Willie and Joe" characters are independently notable, as is amply indicated in this article, and even were the subject of a motion picture, Bill Mauldin, the creator, had an extensive and distinguished postwar career, quite independent of these initial characters. Coretheapple (talk) 03:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

First, no is claiming that Mauldin is not notable; quite the opposite. Next, as mentioned above, some subjects, even if independently notable, are still best covered in a combined article. See [Whether to create standalone pages]. Next, as mentioned in all three articles, Mauldin certainly did not believe that a film was ever made about his characters; he thought that Hollywood had bought their names, and pissed over them. Finally, your vote seems, in a sense to counteract User:TeriEmbrey's: she feels the article needs a good deal more detail to establish what she sees as their real notabilty, yet you see what is here as more than enough. Why? Anmccaff (talk) 15:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Mauldin's opinion of the films isn't relevant. Alan Moore hated the V for Vendetta film so much he had his name taken out of the credits and refused any royalties, but we still have an article for it. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Of course Mauldin's opinion is relevant; it just isn't governing or dominant in a discussion of the notability of the film. Critics, popular opinion, boxoffice, derivative works, and so forth all would each have a much larger say. On the other hand, Mauldin, like Moore, rightly has a larger part in a discussion about whether a derivative work is about his created character, or someone else's bastardization of it. Anmccaff (talk) 15:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Coretheapple said that because W&J were the subject of a motion picture, which indicated they were independently notable. You responded by saying that Mauldin did not believe such a film was ever made. I assume you're unfamiliar with The Death of the Author. Mauldin's opinion of the film should be discussed in the article(s), but his opinion of it is irrelevant to its existence or notability. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

On Barthes count me one of the Paglia-cci. I first ran into the idea academically in '72 of so, and I'm not sure if I hadn't run into it before personally. It's an essay, not scripture. Useful as a guide, sometimes; utterly useless as infallible doctrine. I hope the central point is obvious: secondary work disavowed by an author and only basking in the original maker's reflected glory isn't neccesarily particularly noteworthy.

@Anmccaff Why? Because I was summoned by bot and that's my opinion after reviewing the article. I'm not forming a coalition with other editors and the comments in other oppose !votes are irrelevant. Lastly, hassling independent editors who take the time to comment in RfCs is tacky. Coretheapple (talk) 13:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

My apologies for the lack of signature. No one is accusing you a forming a Sekret Cabal!!! (tinsc). (Well, at least I am not.) I'm pointing out that someone else looking at the same articles (I assume the singular article you wrote was a slip-up) drew an entirely different conclusion, and I am asking what you saw that they presumably did not. That is, whaddaya see here that isn't, and shouldn't be, in Bill Mauldin, and is that enough to justify a standalone piece, with all the problems that entails? Anmccaff (talk) 15:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

What "problems"? We are all volunteers. Assuming the subject of this article is independently notable, as I believe it is, those of us interested (and I may be) can build up this article. Those not interested can do something else. There is WP:NODEADLINE. I assume that neither this article nor the Maudlin one are necessarily repositories of all man's knowledge on the subject of this cartoon character. This article can and should be expanded. And that's that. I don't quite get your missionary zeal to get rid of this one. Hell, I thought I was a deletionist until the bot summoned me to this page. Crikey! Coretheapple (talk) 14:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• I'd suggest having the !votes under a "survey" subsection and having chitchat in a separate "discussion" section. Jumping on people coming by to offer an opinion is cheesy. Coretheapple (talk) 21:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

False Peanuts info

This article contains the claim that Mauldin came out of retirement to draw the characters in a Peanuts strip.

The claim is false; Schulz just copied material from a 1944 cartoon and pasted it in. This can be verified on my blog. (Yes, it's a self-published source, but as neither Mauldin nor Schulz is a living person, and as I'm a recognized information source regarding Peanuts, this should get around WP:SPS) and in this tweet from Benjamin L. Clark, curator of the Charles M. Schulz Museum (also an SPS, but again, clear recognized expert.) Could someone please remove the false claim, which is in both the body of the article and alluded to in the intro (with the drawing-until-1998 date)? I am carefully trying to avoid coming out of my own Wikipedia retirement. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

requested corrections

As I detail in the prior section, the article currently includes incorrect claims that Maudlin came out of retirement to draw Willie and Joe in a Peanuts strip. I am requesting a pair of edits to correct this situation.

1. The second sentence of the article, They were created and drawn by American cartoonist Bill Mauldin from 1940 to 1948, with occasional additional drawings until 1998., should have its ending changed to additional drawings later.
2. In the "Publication history" page, the final paragraph currently reads "Mauldin retired in 1991 and drew the pair for the final time in 1998, as part of a [[Veterans Day]] strip for the popular comic ''[[Peanuts]].'' Its creator, [[Charles M. Schulz]], was a personal friend of his. Schulz considered Mauldin a hero of his own.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.gocomics.com/peanuts/1998/11/11|title=Peanuts Comic Strip, November 11, 1998 on GoComics.com|author=Charles Schulz|work=GoComics}}</ref> That should be replaced with Mauldin retired in 1991. The pair reappeared in a 1998 [[Veterans Day]] strip of the popular comic ''[[Peanuts]]'', using art that had been copied out of a 1944 ''Willie and Joe'' panel.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://aaugh.com/wordpress/2006/09/that-schulzmauldin-collaboration/|title=That Schulz/Mauldin collaboration|website=The Aaugh Blog|last=Gertler|first=Nat|date=September 4, 2006}}</ref> [[Charles M. Schulz]], creator of ''Peanuts'', was a personal friend of Mauldin's and considered him a hero.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.gocomics.com/peanuts/1998/11/11|title=Peanuts Comic Strip, November 11, 1998 on GoComics.com|author=Charles Schulz|work=GoComics}}</ref>

I am not making this edit myself because I have a conflict of interest with it, as I am inserting my own work as a source. The blog is, yes, a self-published source, but I believe falls under the WP:SPS exception "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." I have written histories of Peanuts for several publishers -- you can see one such book being cited by the Charles M. Schulz Museum And Research Center on this page] - and my writing on Peanuts and other comic strip topics have been published by reliable sources --here's an article that appeared in the print edition of American Heritage, here's one that appeared in the print edition of Hogan's Alley]. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done because the source was cited on the page. Thanks, Heartmusic678 (talk) 13:35, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Print history

Mauldin's cartoons were reprinted in book form. I believe the first printing was in paperback form, This Damn Tree Leaks. It uses French quotation marks (a.k.a. double angle brackets), so I've always assumed the first printing was in France, or at least in Europe. (My Dad's copy has autographs from men in his company, so I further assume he obtained his copy in Europe.) The second book reprint was as illustrations in his memoir Up Front. I doubt either printing contains all of the cartoons that featured Willie & Joe -- although the first contains Mauldin's tribute to Ernie Pyle. -- llywrch (talk) 16:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC)