Talk:Bruce Tinsley

Hit piece

Tinsley is a no-talent lush. He's less talented than that jackoff Chris Muir and the corpse of Johnny Hart. Why would anyone want to defend this dick? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.205.140 (talk) 19:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

From the mug shot to the writeup of the entire entry, this is a hit piece on Tinsley and conservatism in general. It's not the factual content, it's the supercilious manner in which it is presented. Horologium 16:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, there just isn't a lot of information about Tinsley outside of the arrest. Also, the only other image of him I've ever seen other than the mugshot is this poor-quality - and non-public domain, I might add - image on the King Features website. I don't see how it is a "hit piece on... conservatism in general," though. --Rubber cat 06:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the mug shot and and re-added the NPOV tag. Per Rubber cat's comments, I can see the difficulty in making the article more balanced and NPOV given the lack of available information. However, would it not be better that no photo at all appear on the page than having the only photo of the subject be a mug shot?. Also, while the information about the arrest may be factual and relevant, it comprises about half the article. This gives the apprearance of being a personal smear on Tinsley, whether or not that was the intention. Further consideration needs to be given as to how the make article more balanced and neutral. Hence, the NPOV tag.--JayJasper 20:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Tinsley has only done two things sufficiently notable to merit mention in an article: he created a popular comic strip and he ironically drove drunk. There is some truth to the idea that this is an negative piece, but it is not biased against conservatism in general. Mallard Fillmore is a deeply flawed cartoon from a technical standpoint (no backgrounds,skewed perspectives, confusing scale, and an overly crowded panel), even without taking content into account. A typical Mallard Fillmore contains several largely motionless panels featuring Mallard interviewing a public figure or a stereotypical "egghead professor", "hippie", "godless scientist" or generic liberal. This person is a "straw man" who makes the weakest possible form of an argument or statement. Mallard then retorts in the last panel, leaving the intellectual/doctor/city dweller to look foolish and defeated. Mallard Fillmore is never funny, and even conservatives are aware of this. Thoughtful conservatives are embarrassed by the smug, anti-intellectual, crypto-racist, reductionist tone. Fillmore is generally picked by newspaper editors to run opposite a "liberal" strip like Doonesbury or The Boondocks and is intended to provide political balance, not chuckles. I say without hesitation that it is the single worst major comic strip in print (including "Family Circus" which is unfunny but at least well drawn and good-hearted). 67.163.163.28 (talk) 05:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Removing Tag

I am removing the NPOV tag, because the rewrite I did (removing the Limbaugh reference) removed the major problem I had with the piece. Horologium talk - contrib 22:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I have re-added the tag. See comments in the above section.--JayJasper 20:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Misleading and false comment on compact flourescent bulbs in Mallard Fillmore

Bruce Tinsley has again used his strip to push in nonfactual arguments against the green moment (What has conservative movement has against saving energy anyay?)

In any case this strip on 06/30/2007

Strip on Compact Flourescent Bulbs [http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/fun/mallard.asp?date=20070630 ] says that CFLs require frequent replacement. I have used many and not even one has lasted less than a conventional one. In fact most of them go much longer than the incandescent one.

It would be nice to stop this misleading and false propaganda for the benefit of all.

In response, I would suggest that these types of discussions be left on forums, not wikipedia. There is some concern about the Mercury that is present in CFLs. This could pose a toxic predicament in the long run once CFLs become more widespread. Just to add my opinion: We should not regulate what kind of light bulb should be used.

Fair use rationale for Image:Tinsley-Editorial.jpg

Image:Tinsley-Editorial.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 16:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)