Talk:Mallard Fillmore

message: What 'copyright infringement' is at issue here?  You can't copyright a name! 72.128.16.232 18:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright infringement?

message: You cannot find the j@#k, in order to feed him some of his out of context comments back to him.
This is what I found looking for the answer to his cartoon dated 7-10.
Here's the only email that I found for him.
kfs-cartoonists@hearst.com
HIS CARTOON
Brittany McComb valedictorian of Foothill High School, had her microphone cut off during her graduation speech for thanking Christ.
NOT!!OUT OF CONTEXT
In the 750-word unedited version of McComb's speech, she made two references to the lord, nine mentions of God and one mention of Christ.
In the version approved by school officials, six of those words were omitted along with two biblical references. Also deleted from her speech was a reference to God's love being so great that he gave his only son to suffer an excruciated death in order to cover everyone's shortcomings and forge a path to heaven.
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/Jun-17-Sat-2006/news/8014416.html
:Tinsley has published his e-mail address several times in the strip, including this one. It's Mallardmail@yahoo.com --Rubber cat 05:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 7/10 Strip

message: I'm not going to just jump in here and write it, but it seems that Tinsley has a new item for the "Events" part of this page. It looks like he forgot about Veterans Day this year: he just posted his standard "thank the vets on this special day" cartoon today, a week and a half after Veterans Day. Obviously he simply forgot about the holiday a month or so back when he normally would have written the cartoon. 
Of course this is a terrible embarrassment for Tinsley, as it undermines his mission to convince people that right-wing folks like him are especially patriotic and supportive of the troops. It's quite possible that he was simply too distracted by the elections to remember the troops this year.
====================
For that matter, there should also be an Events listing for the August 7, 2004 cartoon 
http://seattlepi.com/fun/mallard.asp?date=20040807
in which Tinsley falsely claimed that a Max Planck Institute report suggested that global warming is caused by cyclical variations in the output of the sun. In fact, the Planck Institute report
http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDocumentation/documentation/pressReleases/2004/pressRelease20040802/genPDF.pdf
clearly states "the Sun is not the cause of the present global warming". Tinsley apparently did not read the report he was claiming as his source, and instead got his misinformation from a deliberately deceptive article on Telegraph.co.uk: 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml
--Sylvie369 15:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forgetting Veterans Day 

message: For that matter, there should also be an Events listing for the August 7, 2004 cartoon 
http://seattlepi.com/fun/mallard.asp?date=20040807
in which Tinsley falsely claimed that a Max Planck Institute report suggested that global warming is caused by cyclical variations in the output of the sun. In fact, the Planck Institute report
http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDocumentation/documentation/pressReleases/2004/pressRelease20040802/genPDF.pdf
clearly states "the Sun is not the cause of the present global warming". Tinsley apparently did not read the report he was claiming as his source, and instead got his misinformation from a deliberately deceptive article on Telegraph.co.uk: 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml
--Sylvie369 15:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ========

message: I thought this section was good, but deleted the explanation on the senators views. I felt that this was not germaine to the intent of the article and was primarily placed as a means of implying that the creator of Mallard Fillmore has political views that are fully consistent with the Senator from Oklahoma. If one could substantiate this view with further evidence of these views, say from a mallard fillmore strip, then I would have no objection to the paragraph. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.123.233.230 (talk • contribs) 
:I've reverted your deletion for the moment. The fact that he went out of his way to endorse a candidate within the strip is notable, which makes the political beliefs of that candidate relevant to the event. It might be more neutral to rewrite it somewhat, and point out the controversial aspects in a link to the Senator's page. -- Kesh 01:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Senator Endorsement

message: I noticed that my local paper has been running MF repeats the last couple of days. Fortunately for all of us who just can't get enough of the zany avian red-stater, the current strips they dropped can be found on the Jewish World Review Web site, where we see that Mallard has decided to side with his pals the doggies -- including a name-check to another surprising ally (surprising for Tinsley, that is, not necessarily for a duck): PETA.  Apparently the Merc, located in an area with a large Asian-American populace, wasn't having any of this.--NapoliRoma 21:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New theme / controversy: "fat Chinese kids eat dogs" 

message: I mean, I know that on the surface this seems to be POV...but I think I can empirically prove that Mallard Fillmore is indeed neither entertaining nor informative.  Well, I suppose constantly portraying Republicans as victims is slightly humorous... KyuzoGator 04:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There may be an issue in the sense that the strip hardly has any narrative anymore:  I usually can't avoid Mallard Fillmore, and I notice what story-telling aspects the strip had have been replaced by an increasingly bitter series of rants against whatever it is Tinsley is mad about.  The list of characters in the article hardly matters anymore; it's a man screaming about all the conspiracies around him.  Sad.--Idols of Mud (talk) 23:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should it be mentioned that this comic strip isn't funny? 

message: There's been a non-NPOV dispute tag on here for a while - it would be good if somebody could elaborate on why they consider it non-NPOV. --Tombomp (talk) 09:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Removing the POV tag for the time being, pending a concrete and demonstrable problem. There's been plenty of time for somebody to point out what's wrong. No objection to putting it back up if it can be justified. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality dispute 

message: Whoever did this. Fucking hilarious. But this is an encyclopedia, not an uncyclopedia. I'd fix it, but I think it's just too damn funny to take out. Plus, I'm not NPOV to be able to be able to tell what stays and what goes. Honestly though, I think the whole section should go
:Liberals?!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.151.193 (talk) 16:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Recurring themes of Mallard Fillmore

message: I added a section to criticism detailing the frequent attack on MF as not being funny. like it or not, this is legitimate criticism of the strips humor value. I have provided references and links. Please notify me before removing this section. Thanks. Wikilost (talk) 23:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Humor Section 

message: There's a discrepancy between the history of the strip on this page and on Tinsley's bio page.
The Tinsley biography page says:
Jay Kennedy, a liberal-leaning comics editor working for King Features, saw Mallard Fillmore in the Washington Times and contacted Tinsley, as Kennedy had been looking for the conservative response to Doonesbury. Kennedy was convinced that Mallard Fillmore should be in syndication. (Kennedy would later rise to editor-in-chief at King Features before his death in 2007.)
This page in the history section says:
Tinsley started sending samples of Mallard Fillmore, then known as The Fillmore File, to newspapers across the country and was eventually picked up by The Washington Times, who began running it in 1992. The strip was soon later picked up for national syndication by King Features Syndicate, who began distributing it in May 1994.
The bio gives the impression that Tinsley was invited to have his strip published by King Features, whereas the Mallard Filmore page makes it sound like he was shopping it around.  Which is correct, especially since the history section doesn't cite its sources?(208.58.207.32 (talk) 04:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section question 

message: Atacking Mallard Fillmore for its political perspective makes sense if you disagree with it -- as it is to attack any other comic strip with a political perspective you disagree with -- but since when are all comic strips supposed to be "funny?" 
Would anyone claim that Prince Valiant or Dick Tracy or Alley Oop or Mary Worth or Terry & The Pirates or Steve Canyon were ever intended to be "funny" comic strips? Is Luann a "funny" comic strip? Is "Doonesbury" a "funny" comic strip? 
Some editorial page comics may be funny or humorous, but many others are not. If we assume that Mallard Fillmore is intended first and foremost to be a political comic strip -- and I think we can all agree that it is -- there is no logical reason to expect it to be "funny," and no logical reason to attack it because it isn't. (71.22.47.232 (talk) 11:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If something's clearly intended to be funny, then yeah, it's supposed to be funny. Doonesbury is supposed to be funny and thoughtful at the same time and its fans seem to feel it hits the mark more often than not. Mallard Fillmore? The style seems to imply an intent to be witty by the author, though I've yet to find anything particularly funny about it and it may be I'm misunderstanding the intent. Glenn Beck describes himself as a clown, and Rush Limbaugh has made similar statements about his own show, so it might just be that right-wing "humor" requires a particular mindset to enjoy it. 98.254.202.225 (talk) 14:52, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Since when are all comic strips supposed to be "funny?" 

message: Point 1: I thought controversy sections were going away, but apparently not.
Point 2: One of the points here is Tax burden overstated. If you're getting your news on tax matters from a comic strip, you belong in a home -- and I don't mean your mom's basement. 155.213.224.59 (talk) 14:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur. The current selection is pretty sad -- akin to saying the author's socks are different shades of blue. Pitiful, but I guess someone is determined to have a "controversy" section for all conservatives.  155.213.224.59 (talk)   — Preceding undated comment added 17:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

text: I agree, too.  Paul Krugman - who is hardly an unbiased source - essentially said, "The tax burden for most Americans isn't 50%; it's only 25%."  Gee, that's comforting (sarcasm intended). 67.45.113.91 (talk) 16:02, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grasping for straws in controvery section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mallard Fillmore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929091221/http://www.gawker.com/news/media/if-it-walks-like-an-antisemite-and-quacks-like-an-antisemite-029098.php to http://www.gawker.com/news/media/if-it-walks-like-an-antisemite-and-quacks-like-an-antisemite-029098.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:06, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mallard Fillmore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050711000623/http://www.kingfeatures.com/features/comics/mallard/about.htm to http://www.kingfeatures.com/features/comics/mallard/about.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I came to this article because I was curious what the strip had done with regard to Trump -- in favor of him, against him, or perhaps trying to ignore him (which would be noteworthy in itself for a political cartoon). Someone should write a section on that topic.
108.26.137.211 (talk) 12:35, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Views on Trump?