Jump to content

Talk:Six-Day War and Talk:Marmaduke: Difference between pages

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
 
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WikiProject Dogs|class=Stub}}
{{talkheader}}
{{comicsproj|Strips-work-group=yes|class=start|importance=mid}}
{{ArticleHistory
|action1=GAN
|action1date=28 September 2006
|action1result=not listed
|action1oldid=78276287


== Character ==
|action2=GAN
|action2date=14:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
|action2result=not listed
|action2oldid=197432086


This article is about Marmaduke the strip, but shouldn't there be an article on Marmaduke the character as well? <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.233.73.251|24.233.73.251]] ([[User talk:24.233.73.251|talk]]) 07:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
|currentstatus=FGAN
}}
{{sanctions}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WP Syria |class=B |importance=High |nested=yes}}
{{WikiProject Israel|class=B|importance=High |nested=yes}}
{{WikiProject Palestine|class=B|importance=top |nested=yes}}
{{WPARAB|class=B|importance=high|nested=yes}}
{{WikiProject Jewish history |nested=yes}}
{{WikiProject Egypt|class=B|importance=Mid |nested=yes}}
{{WPMILHIST|class=B
<!-- B-Class checklist -->
<!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all
major points are appropriately cited. -->
|B-Class-1=yes
<!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and
does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. -->
|B-Class-2=yes
<!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including
a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->
|B-Class-3=yes
<!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->
|B-Class-4=yes
<!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials,
such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->
|B-Class-5=yes
|nested=yes |Middle-Eastern-task-force=yes}}
{{WikiProject Lebanon|class=B|importance=Mid|nested=yes}}
}}
{{archives}}


==GA Review==
== Submissions ==
Unfortunately, I am going to have to fail this article, as it does not meet the GA Criteria at this time. More specifically, some of my concerns are as follows:


One thing that always confused me was the fact that, although "Dog-Gone Funny" is supposedly drawn from fan submissions, never once (to my knowledge) has a submission address been published. An admittedly brief online search for a submission address also came up empty. Isn't it possible that these are simply made up by the author to fill space? [[User:Antepenultimate|Antepenultimate]] 19:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
*Inline citations are missing from quite a few paragraphs and, in some cases, entire sections. This includes, but is not limited to:
**The first two paragraphs of "Suez Crisis Aftermath"
**Much of the first paragraph of "The Straits of Tiran"
**The final paragraph of "The Straits of Tiran"
**The final sentence of "Egypt and Jordan"
**The end of "The drift to war" (which currently reads as original research)
**The final paragraph of "Preliminary air attack"
**Almost everything in "Gaza Strip and Sinai Peninsula"
**Four paragraphs in "West Bank"
**Almost everything in "Golan Heights"
**The entire "War in the air" and "War at sea" sections
**The first, fourth, seventh and eighth paragraphs in "Conclusion of conflict and post-war situation"
**Much of "Allegations of U.S. and British combat support", including quotations
**The second paragraph of "U.S. and British non-combat support"
*The article contains four "citation needed" tags and a "specify" tag *--[[User:Datapolitical|Datapolitical]] ([[User talk:Datapolitical|talk]]) 00:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
*The article is not stable, as there are multiple edits every day.
*The copyright of some images is questionable:
**Image:FCO17473 10Apr67.gif uses a deprecated tag *removed--[[User:Datapolitical|Datapolitical]] ([[User talk:Datapolitical|talk]]) 09:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
**The tag on Image:Arab israeli memo.jpg says that an additional copyright tag is needed *--[[User:Datapolitical|Datapolitical]] ([[User talk:Datapolitical|talk]]) 09:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
**I don't know that a case for Fair Use can be made for Image:Life67.jpg, as magazines should not be used to illustrate text unless the text relates to the magazine itself. *--[[User:Datapolitical|Datapolitical]] ([[User talk:Datapolitical|talk]]) 09:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
*The article lacks consistency in some areas:
**Not all abbreviations are spelled out the first time they are used (eg. UNTSO) *--[[User:Datapolitical|Datapolitical]] ([[User talk:Datapolitical|talk]]) 09:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
**It needs to be either "U.S." or "US" throughout the article; likewise, "U.N." or "UN" *(partly) --[[User:Datapolitical|Datapolitical]] ([[User talk:Datapolitical|talk]]) 09:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
**Most people's names are given in full the first time, but President Johnson's first name is not mentioned in the text of the article at all.
*The article contains several "It should be noted" statements, which are discouraged as per [[Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Words that editorialize]] *--[[User:Datapolitical|Datapolitical]] ([[User talk:Datapolitical|talk]]) 09:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
*Several external links do not work:
**The Corfu Channel Case (Merits), International Court of Justice, ICJ Reports, 1949, pp. 28-29 [icj-cij.org]
**A Campaign for the Books [time.com]
**Bamford Bashes Israel: Conspiracy Theorist Claims Attack on USS Liberty Intentional [std.com]
**UN Resolutions on Palestine [palestine-un.org]
**Israel Defense Forces' History [www1.idf.il]
*The article would benefit greatly from copyediting. There are writing errors that distract from the text. For the most part, it is okay. I found that punctuation errors made quite a few sentences confusing. After a prepositional phrase (eg. "In 1967", "At this time", "After receiving this message", etc.), a comma is needed. Having large amounts of the text in parentheses also makes the article choppy and hard to follow.
*More consistency is needed in the Footnotes section. All online references should have a publisher and access date.


:Well, he does have a publicly available address at the United Media website. [http://www.unitedmedia.com/comics/marmaduke/html/contact_the_artist.html] My guess would be he distributed his address some other way before then, perhaps in his books. [[User:GarryKosmos|GarryKosmos]] 08:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I hope these comments are helfpul. I don't want to be discouraging, as the article is very interesting and I have no doubt that it can become a Good Article. I don't feel it is ready yet, though. I wanted to give detailed feedback with specific items to address, as I saw that people were upset by the comments left during the previous GA review. Best wishes, [[User:GaryColemanFan|GaryColemanFan]] ([[User talk:GaryColemanFan|talk]]) 14:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


Marmaduke is also a personage in the books of [[Jack Vance]].
== Moving to Good Article Status ==
Another Mr. Marmaduke can be found in [[Clifford D. Simak]]'s book ''The Goblin Reservation''.


Could someone add these to the stub, please? --[[User:Oop|Oop]] 19:17, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
So thanks to [[User:GaryColemanFan|GaryColemanFan]] we've got a task list to work off of. I'm going to start going through and starring everything I've finished doing, and anyone else who's working on improving the article can feel free to do the same. My goal is to have this done by the end of the semester.
--[[User:Datapolitical|Datapolitical]] ([[User talk:Datapolitical|talk]]) 09:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


Why don't you?
== Recent additions ==


Also, what is the definition of marmaduke as a regular noun?
An unregistered user has made several contributions to the article yesterday. They are unreferenced, and are placed next to existing references, which might be misleading. Can anyone verify them? -- [[User:Nudve|Nudve]] ([[User talk:Nudve|talk]]) 05:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


Can someone please create a disambiguation page for all articles named Marmaduke? See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Marmaduke&fulltext=Search]. --[[User:Geopgeop|Geopgeop]] 12:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Yea, there are more than a couple. They seem to have been reverted by another unregistered user (or someone who just didn't log in). If the person who made them thinks they're correct, they should list the proposed changes on the talk page or give specific references.


Does anyone else think that marmaduke
I know it'll be a hideous pain to list all content changes on the talk page, but considering that this is a politically charged event, an edit war would not surprise me if changes were made without discussion.
is the dumbbest comic ever? pinky
:No, [[Heathcliff_%28comic_strip%29|Heathcliff]] is -[[User:65.122.209.140|65.122.209.140]] 20:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


What about a reference to Monk, and how he always makes comments about it
Also, references to the US and the Soviet Union seem to have been changed to Nato and the Warsaw pact respectively. I'm not sure who made those changes, but are we sure those are correct? (If it's a registered user, can they explain them on here?) --[[User:Datapolitical|Datapolitical]] ([[User talk:Datapolitical|talk]]) 23:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
:Right. We could give it a few more days, but otherwise, if nobody here can verify them and the contributor cannot be contacted, there might be no choice but to revert. -- [[User:Nudve|Nudve]] ([[User talk:Nudve|talk]]) 05:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


If you have or are around dogs, Marmaduke is funny. If you are a cat person you should not read Marmaduke and should stick to Garfield, because you are just not going to get it.
::The book I've been reading about the Six Day War references the US and the Soviet Union directly, and doesn't talk about pressure coming from the Warsaw Pact at all. I personally think the changes are incorrect, but lets wait until Wednesday before we revert.


Does anyone think a passage about the prevalence of online humor sites making fun of Marmaduke would be a good addition?
::Also, someone changed these numbers:
:::On the eve of the war, Egypt massed around 160,000 of its 300,000 troops in the Sinai. Many Egyptans were witheld from action in the Sinai because Egypt feared another attack by foreign powers like in 1956. No less than a third of them were veterans of Egypt's intervention into the [[Yemen Civil War]] and another third were reservists. These forces had 1,792 tanks, 2,109 APCs and more than 4,500 artillery pieces.<ref> Kenneth Pollack, Arabs at War, 2002, p. 59 </ref>


I do not know a single person who likes marmaduke, including several dog lovers. I've actually asked. Nearly every single strip consists of various versions of "bark" and "woof", followed by a one liner involving regular dog behavior. I'm sorry if I can't find that amusing. {{unsigned|24.141.191.32|23:44, 18 February 2007}}
:::Since the citation didn't change but the numbers did, i'm tempted to revert, but I'll hold off till Wednesday when we can fix everything from the last week as well if it can't be verified.--[[User:Datapolitical|Datapolitical]] ([[User talk:Datapolitical|talk]]) 23:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
:And I'm sorry the Wikpedia isn't your personal blog, so yes, I removed your "trivia" entry about Marmaduke not being funny. I personally can't stand Marmaduke either, but WP isn't the place to get on our [[WP:SOAP|soapboxes]] about it. Also take a look at our policy against [[WP:OR|Original Research]] and our aim to present a [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]]. -- [[User:Antepenultimate|Antepenultimate]] 00:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
::::I don't recall any references to the Warsaw Pact either -- [[User:Nudve|Nudve]] ([[User talk:Nudve|talk]]) 06:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
::::I just pulled out a book from my school's library on the war, Six Days, by Jeremy Bowen, so I'll be checking the stuff we need sourced against that.--[[User:Datapolitical|Datapolitical]] ([[User talk:Datapolitical|talk]]) 06:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


== Semi-protection ==
== Criticism? ==


Some guy working on a webcomic says he doesn't like it, and it is enough to be written in this article as criticism? I don't think so. I'll delete it in a week, if no one has any reason not to.[[User:GodShiru|GodShiru]] 01:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
So I've gotten the article semi-protected for a month so we can fix this thing up without vandalism. I'm confident the edits over the past few days are bogus, so i'm gonna do a revert now. If someone feels that this is in error, please feel free to undo that, but also provide your reasoning here. Specifically in relation to the changes from US to Nato and Soviet Union to Warsaw Pact, those need clarification as there is a material difference between the two.--[[User:Datapolitical|Datapolitical]] ([[User talk:Datapolitical|talk]]) 05:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
:As far as I can see, the changes were wrong or meaningless. "Nato" in the 56 war is ridiculous - it would amount to Britain and France pressuring themselves; India and Yugoslavia is correct, India and South Africa isn't, Egypt wasn't worried about anyone but Israel attacking, etc.[[User:John Z|John Z]] ([[User talk:John Z|talk]]) 07:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


:That guy, [[David Malki]], and his webcomic, [[Wondermark]], are both [[WP:Notable]]. You might instead consider balancing the criticism by adding a "Praise" section with some citations. --[[User:CliffC|CliffC]] 04:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
== Info on a copy-protected image ==


::I respect your opinion, as you have been here far longer than I have, and know more about the rules and guidelines than I do, or rather admittedly, care to learn, but isn't WP:Notable for articles, rather than sources? And I do think that just because someone has a bad opinion on a comic strip and they are known, it doesn't mean a section should be devoted to it. I would take your suggestion and add a list of people who personally like it, and sources, but that would sort of detract from the point of this article, to let people know about Marmaduke, not those who like it or not. But, if you really are sure nothing should be done about it, I'll leave it all be. [[User:GodShiru|GodShiru]] 15:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Since we can't use the Life Magazine image (of the soldier in the Suez Canal) found in this article: http://www.azure.org.il/magazine/magazine.asp?id=387, which was removed for copyright issues, I put a link to that site in our external links section. I'd like to reference the photograph in the article itself and talk about its relevance, so any thoughts on how to do that properly (i'm thinking something on "Images of the Six-Day War" to talk about the significance of the image that headlines the article (of the three soldiers entering the Old City) and of the Life magazine cover.--[[User:Datapolitical|Datapolitical]] ([[User talk:Datapolitical|talk]]) 08:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


:::As far as sources go, it's just a comic strip, so we're probably not going to turn up many Noam Chomsky quotes. For that matter, none of the rest of the article is sourced.
== Sources for apocryphal quote on British tanks ==
:::I've learned not to be too sure of ''anything'' around here, so I took a look at [[WP:Criticism]]. That guideline encourages criticism (IMO, without criticism we wouldn't have much of an encyclopedia), but generally discourages separate criticism sections, suggesting instead incorporating criticism into the body of the article, or as an alternative naming the section something more neutral than "Criticism". I thought of renaming it "Reviews" or "Reception" but those didn't sound right. If anyone has a renaming idea, please go ahead. Meanwhile, reviewing the Malki quote we use, its style seems out of balance with the rest of the article so I have shortened it. --[[User:CliffC|CliffC]] 17:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
:::: I, for one, think it should be integrated somehow into the main body. You have removed most of it already, and it is merely a sentence now. It definitely isn't worth a whole section, especially if it cannot be named for what it really is, criticism. "Reception" and "Reviews" are not befitting, as there is only one person who 'reviewed' it. So, the only way to keep it, in my humble opinion, would be to just integrate it. However, I cannot think of a good way to do it. I am guessing something along the lines of "Some people, notably David Malki[source], creator of the webcomic Wondermark, dislike it, while others, such as Monk series creator, Andy Breckman, who deems it worthy of mention in the aforementionned series, think differently." It sounds very, very wrong to my ears, however, I have no other idea. [[User:GodShiru|GodShiru]] 15:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


:::::[[WP:Criticism]] doesn't say articles "cannot" have a criticism section, it's just generally discouraged. I don't have a problem with incorporating the current bit of criticism somewhere else in the article, as long as its text and links are kept intact. It's already been bowdlerized from<blockquote> In his [[psychoanalysis|psychological analysis]] of the strip at [[Wondermark]]'s ''The Comic Strip Doctor'', [[David Malki]] ranks Marmaduke among "the worst newspaper comic strips" and comments, "In my local newspaper, the crappy square strips -- ''Marmaduke, Heathcliff, Dennis the Menace, and Family Circus'' -- all appear together, in a sort of matrix of suckitude."<ref>[http://www.wondermark.com/wm_stripdoc_index.html The Comic Strip Doctor - Analyzing and improving the worst newspaper comic strips]</ref></blockquote>to the G-rated and rather innocuous <blockquote>In his [[psychoanalysis|psychological analysis]] of the strip at [[Wondermark]]'s ''The Comic Strip Doctor'', [[David Malki]] ranks Marmaduke among "the worst newspaper comic strips".<ref>
This paragraph was in the article and had no source, and clearly needs one. I've been unable in about 20 minutes of searching the web and in searching the four reference books on the war I checked out from the library to find any reference to the story. I've moved the section here, so if anyone can find a source on this, put it back, but I figure it should stay on the talk page until we've got some reference to it.
[http://www.wondermark.com/wm_stripdoc_index.html The Comic Strip Doctor - Analyzing and improving the worst newspaper comic strips]</ref></blockquote>
:::::If you use Breckman for balance, I'm guessing he mentions Marmaduke in some ironic way, or to show off an unusual character trait, similar to when Matt Groening has Homer Simpson silently read the comics at the breakfast table and chuckle to himself "Oh, that Marmaduke!"


:::::Once you have the pro and con quote(s) collected, maybe keep the separate section but name it "Critics and supporters"? Just a thought, and not meant to dissuade you from integrating them into the article. --[[User:CliffC|CliffC]] 15:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
:A possibly apocryphal story was going the rounds that the UK had supplied some Chieftain tanks to the IDF for evaluation. When hostilities broke out, the UK Ministry of Defense, in a panic, called Israel for assurances that the tanks would not approach the border combat zones. Back came the Israeli response, "Don't worry, we've moved the borders!"{{Fact|date=March 2008}}
:::::: As I don't believe we can truly reach a compromise, I will just abdicate and let you handle it, as you know more about it than I do. I know you are probably right, it just doesn't seem right to me, and probably never will. Also, I have to admit that what you says and have done makes more sense. Therefore, we will go your way. Thank you for enlightening me on how it should be done, I will keep it in mind the next time. [[User:GodShiru|GodShiru]] 20:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
(there were a few spelling errors as well which I've cleaned up, and which make me just a bit more unsure about this section)--[[User:Datapolitical|Datapolitical]] ([[User talk:Datapolitical|talk]]) 00:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


I agree with the very first statement in this line of conversation. Did you read the guy's article? He's totally off-base, talking about Marmaduke and rape. Please, it's a cartoon from most people's childhoods. I think his criticisms are more for humor than for actual literary value. If you direct people to this garbage, then you might as well add a criticism section for every single movie, show, book, etc. ever made. And just because a person is wikipedia notable doesn't mean that you need to mark down every thing they ever criticized. -SCW <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/{{{IP|{{{User|208.22.45.148}}}}}}|{{{IP|{{{User|208.22.45.148}}}}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{IP|{{{User|208.22.45.148}}}}}}|talk]]) {{{Time|18:05, August 22, 2007 (UTC)}}}</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== editorializing removed ==


Anyone who doesn't see that Malki's article is intended to be humorous and not actual criticism is a moron.--Josh Miles <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/68.179.173.51|68.179.173.51]] ([[User talk:68.179.173.51|talk]]) 13:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
The political importance of the 1967 War was immense; Israel demonstrated that it was not only able, but also willing to initiate strategic strikes that could change the regional balance. Egypt and Syria learned tactical lessons, but perhaps not the strategic ones,[specify] and would launch an attack in 1973 in an attempt to reclaim their lost territory. [110]


Isn't it common knowledge that Marmaduke is constantly criticized? Everyone who is involved with comics or comedy at all has always known and commented that Marmaduke is among the worst of syndicated comics. MAD's 50 worst things about comedy lists always rank Marmaduke highly, and whenever I have seen it brought up, everyone basically agrees that Marmaduke stinks.
The phrase "but perhaps not the strategic ones" can be considered editorializing, and since the source cited makes no reference to the claim, I removed that clause from the sentence. If anyone can find a reference directly supporting it, please add it back in. --[[User:Datapolitical|Datapolitical]] ([[User talk:Datapolitical|talk]]) 00:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure how extensive a critism section has to be on this article, but I believe it is worth a mention, and perhaps add at least three sources to that section alone. It shouldn't be too hard to find them. [[Special:Contributions/64.130.204.173|64.130.204.173]] ([[User talk:64.130.204.173|talk]]) 17:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


:Yea, I think so too. In fact, just today: http://www.theonion.com/content/news/some_old_man_still_churning_out
== Gulf of Aqaba as an act War ==


== Criticism section is too vague ==
Concerning the closing of the Gulf of Aqaba by the UAR as an act of war, the viewpoint of the UAR has to be considered[http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0080ef30efce525585256c38006eacae/17bdf357679b218f85256c41006ad66d!OpenDocument]


The section on criticism contains referenced notes about people saying that the comic sucks, but has no information about why they think it sucks. In fairness for the comic itself, shouldn't there be some further, more specific details in this section? --[[User:Bando26|Bando26]] ([[User talk:Bando26|talk]]) 01:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
<blockquote>
:The "Joe Mathlete" quote struck me as being unprofessional so I went to read the actual source... for goodness sakes people, this quote has been allowed to remain in the article? I'm fine with the other one but this Mathlete thing is a blog quote from a guy who dedicates an entire blog to hating a comic. If that's allowed, what's to prevent '''anyone''' from creating their own blog and quoting themselves in a Wiki article? Quite frankly, nothing. If there's no (Reasonable) objection I'm removing this within a week. [[User:AncalagonTB|AncalagonTB]] ([[User talk:AncalagonTB|talk]]) 21:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
The Gulf of Aqaba, the representative of the United Arab Republic stated, had always been a national inland waterway subject to Arab sovereignty. Since the Gulf's only three legitimate littoral States - Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Republic - were all in a state of war with Israel, their right to bar enemy vessels was recognized under international law. The claim that Israel had a port on the Gulf had no validity, as Israel had illegally occupied several miles of coastline on the Gulf, including Om Rashrash, in violation of Security Council resolutions of 1948 and the Egyptian-Israel General Armistice Agreement. The Armistice Agreements did not vitiate his Government's rights to impose restrictions on navigation in the Strait; nor had the 1956 aggression changed the legal status of the Gulf of Aqaba or the United Arab Republic's rights over its territorial waters.
::Agreed. I've removed it. Anyone disagreeing with the change should please respond here. --[[User:Iliaskarim|Iliaskarim]] ([[User talk:Iliaskarim|talk]]) 21:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
</blockquote>
:::Well, Marmaduke Explained is a pretty notable blog and pretty well known in webcomic culture. I don't really know how to demonstrate that this meets the criteria, but I'd strongly wager that a lot of people coming to this page would expect to see some sort of reference to it. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Baligant|Baligant]] ([[User talk:Baligant|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Baligant|contribs]]) 16:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::::Agreed, but Wikipedia hates Blogs for some reason because blogs could be above them in Google search engine rankings so they blocked them. Lame. Joe Mathlete explains Marmaduke is the #1 blog on the INternet, I hope all youse die. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/76.117.123.222|76.117.123.222]] ([[User talk:76.117.123.222|talk]]) 04:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


I don't know who put that section back in, or when, but I've taken it out again. A "criticism" section should begin with describing the consensus more mainstream reviews and such; only after that fundamental is covered should we be worrying about adding personal opinions from fringe elements like bloggers&mdash;they may still be notable, but they don't impart the same sort of understanding to the reader that a discussion of mainstream reviews' consensus does. I'm not trying to defend Marmaduke&mdash;I don't really like Marmaduke, and I do like Wondermark, but nevertheless I don't think Wondermark is an appropriate place to be looking for material on the reception and/or criticism of Marmaduke. People can add that stuff in to the article if they want, but not until the more basic stuff is covered. &mdash;[[User:Politizer|Politizer]]<sup><small>(&nbsp;'''[[User talk:Politizer|talk]]'''&nbsp;•&nbsp;'''[[Special:Contributions/Politizer|contribs]]'''&nbsp;)</small></sup> 06:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
<blockquote>
It was further pointed out that the claim that the blockade of the Gulf of Aqaba itself constituted an act of war and justified the Israel aggression as an act of self-defence provided no excuse for the massive assault. The Strait of Tiran had never been opened to Israel until the aggression of 1956. No vital interests had suffered; not an Israel ship had passed through the Strait in the last two and a half years. The action of Israel was not legitimate self-defence within the meaning of Article 51 of the Charter because no armed attack on its territory had in fact occurred. On 5 June 1967, the United Arab Republic had not yet even completed its defensive precautions in Sinai, and a similar condition had prevailed in Syria and Jordan.
</blockquote>

== Arab Belligerents ==
I notice that the list of combatants in the info box keeps changing and I think there must be some confusion about countries and flags, etc. The [[United Arab Republic]] split in 1961, however Egypt continued to be known by that name until 1971. Its flag was the flag now associated with Syria. Following the rise of the Ba'ath party in Syria, in 1963, they adopted the flag used by Iraq at the time. So, the Arab belligerents in the 6 Six Days war are: the United Arab Republic, Syria (with the flag of Iraq), and Jordan (with the flag of Jordan). I don't know why other involved countries were removed (e.g. Iraq and Libya), but I just wanted to raise the issue of naming. [[User:JEB90|JEB90]] ([[User talk:JEB90|talk]]) 07:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

What does Libya have to do with the war? They weren't belligerents. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/134.173.165.226|134.173.165.226]] ([[User talk:134.173.165.226|talk]]) 07:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

I was pretty sure only Egypt (or the United Arab Republic), Jordan and Syria fought against Israel. What did the rest have to do with it? [[Special:Contributions/87.127.157.166|87.127.157.166]] ([[User talk:87.127.157.166|talk]]) 20:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

== [[Waiting period (Six-Day War)]] ==

I stumbled across that article. It has many problems, and it doesn't appear in the main article. What do you suggest be done about it? Should it be merged? -- [[User:Nudve|Nudve]] ([[User talk:Nudve|talk]]) 15:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

== How many Syrians fled the Golan heights ==

Recently, an anon has been an edit warring, claiming that "100 000 Syrians fled the Golan, not 1000" (as it is currently written). He was thrice reverted, once with the "rv uncited change", which I assume means "change to sourced statements" (otherwise this is not a legitimate reason to revert).
My question is, whether the number is really sourced. The ref is "International Committee of the Red Cross, 1998, p. 454.". (possibly dumb question ahead, please correct if so) What is this referring to? The ICRC's 1998 international review? Or possibly the annual report? If the international review, then page 454 does not appear to have contained any meaningful information ([http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/57JPG6 pages 445-453], [http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/57JPG7 pages 455-462]), and adjacent pages don't appear to contain directly relevant information either. The 1998 annual report didn't appear to contain the needed information either. Also, it is important to note that the article's text originally read "about 100,000", but was changed mid-February by an anon, without anyone taking notice.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Six-Day_War&diff=192160056&oldid=192158191]

Wikipedia's article about the [[Golan heights]] states "Between 80,000 and 109,000 of the Golan's inhabitants [...] fled or were driven out during the Six-Day War", citing [[Benny Morris]](2001) and [http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/cc2cfcfe1a52bdec852568d20051b645!OpenDocument&Highlight=0,2252 Report of the UN Secretary-General].

So, given all this, I believe a slight rewrite is in order. If no one opposes, I will modify the sentence to incorporate the above sources. '''''[[User:Rami R|<font color="black">Rami</font>]] [[User_talk:Rami R|<font color="red">R</font>]]''''' 19:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
:I support -- [[User:Nudve|Nudve]] ([[User talk:Nudve|talk]]) 04:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
::The vast majority of the Syrians who fled the Golan Heights were residents of Quneitra, a city which was handed back to Syria in 1974. [[User:Drork|DrorK]] ([[User talk:Drork|talk]]) 07:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The wiki (currently) uses the number of 80,000, using the website http://i-cias.com/e.o/golan_h.htm as a citation. I must protest; the website is clearly non-scholorly and biased. It should also be noted that Syrian settlement of the Golan was limited; following it's acquisition in 1948 of the Golan, Syria contented itself with building military facilities to defend the strategic highlands.
[[Special:Contributions/71.139.195.17|71.139.195.17]] ([[User talk:71.139.195.17|talk]]) 02:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

:::The article on [[Quneitra]] suggests that there were about 20,000 before 1967. This Syrian site[http://www.damascus-online.com/golan/Golan_town.htm] says 60,000; while this one[http://www.made-in-syria.com/al-qunei.htm] says 153,000. Does anyone here have an RS on exactly how many of the refugees were from Quneitra? -- [[User:Nudve|Nudve]] ([[User talk:Nudve|talk]]) 08:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
::::The 20,000 is apparently from [http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9062315 britannica]. Anyway, I have updated the article based with the current available reliable sources. The article can be further updated, if any new reliable sources are found. '''''[[User:Rami R|<font color="black">Rami</font>]] [[User_talk:Rami R|<font color="red">R</font>]]''''' 17:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[Addendum] I was able to find a JSTOR article, from the Journal of Palestinian Studies ("Voices from the Golan", 2000), which put the population of the Golan at 130,000. The article then claims that only 6,000 stayed. Despite the intense bias displayed [towards the plight of the Palestinians in the face of the brutal, puppy-murdering Israelis], facts and sources relating to different numbers would be nominal. Sadly, the truth is that however many Arab dwelled in the Golan, most probably fled in a combination of fear and hate. [[Special:Contributions/71.139.195.17|71.139.195.17]] ([[User talk:71.139.195.17|talk]]) 03:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

== Before / After Map? ==

I think this article would benefit from a before/after map showing the territorial changes as outlined in the info box. Currently:
Israel captured the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt,
the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) from Jordan,
and the Golan Heights from Syria.
[[User:Paulshannon|Paulshannon]] ([[User talk:Paulshannon|talk]]) 15:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

==United Arab Emirates==

I dont see how the [[UAE]] was part of the war as the country was formed in 1971. Before that it was a number of Emirates all being British protectorates with no military force other than the trucial scouts that were under British command.--[[Special:Contributions/81.156.165.31|81.156.165.31]] ([[User talk:81.156.165.31|talk]]) 22:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
:That's true. Plus, since the articles itself has no mention of it, it should be removed. Any objections? -- [[User:Nudve|Nudve]] ([[User talk:Nudve|talk]]) 05:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

== Pre-Emptive Strike ==

The sources cited to support the idea that Israel engaged in a pre-emptive strike are dubious. The likes of "The Economist", CNN, are not the proper sources to cite because they do not specialize in the analysis of history. A draft resolution which would "vigorously condemn Israel's aggression"[http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.nsf/3822b5e39951876a85256b6e0058a478/2795fff6b58b212c052566cd006e0900!OpenDocument] was rejected by 57 votes against to 36 in favor with 23 abstentions. Considering that a large part of the world in 1967 condemned Israel for committing aggression, the "pre-emptive" position in no way represents a consensus; [[User:Nierva|Nierva]] ([[User talk:Nierva|talk]]) 20:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
:Not only are they [[WP:V|reliable sources]], but they also reflect the modern consensus of opinion on the subject. The proposal by the U.S.S.R. you refer to was '''rejected'''. And Egypt didn't "request" that the U.N. force leave, it ordered them out. Please don't remove properly sourced information again, thanks. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 01:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
::The BBC is not an outlet that engages in the scholarly analysis of history but is merely a news outlet that reports current events. "The Economist" does not analyze history but only promotes a particular set of foreign and economic policies. None of these sources are reliable for the subject at hand. The resolution you refer to, despite being rejected, still had substantial support. The results contradict the misleading suggestion in this article that Israel engaged in a pre-emptive attack is supported by a consensus.

::Concerning the presence of the United Nations Emergency Force, it was terminated by a decision of the Government of the UAR. The UNEF had entered Egyptian territory with the consent of the UAR Government and in fact could remain there only as long as that consent continued.

::Your indiscriminate deletion of sourced material is provocative and at the least shows an absence of good faith.
::[[User:Nierva|Nierva]] ([[User talk:Nierva|talk]]) 02:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
:::My "indiscriminate deletion of sourced material"? It was ''you'' who deleted seven reliable sources, in some bizarre attempt to suppress the majority view on this. I've restored them, of course, and added six more sources. I'll quote from one of them:
:::<blockquote>"...Israel launched a pre-emptive strike against Egyptian planes as they stood on the airfields. These events triggered the so-called June war of 1967, but the pre-emptive action of Israel was not condemned by the S.C. - or indeed by the G.A. There appeared to be a general feeling, certainly shared by the Western states, that taken in the context this was a lawful use of anticipatory self-defence, and that for Israel to have waited any longer could well have been fatal to her survival." [[Antonio Cassese]]. ''The Current Legal Regulation of the Use of Force: Current Legal Regulation Vol10'', Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1986, p. 443. ISBN 9024732476</blockquote>
:::This is the view of international law on the matter by Antonio Cassese, the first President of the International Criminal Tribunal For the Former Yugoslavia. You, by contrast, have provided this as a source [http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/egtoc.html], a Table of Contents, and this: [http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/361eea1cc08301c485256cf600606959/17bdf357679b218f85256c41006ad66d!OpenDocument] a speech by Egypt's ambassador to the U.N. And this from someone who is claiming that the BBC and ''The Economist'' are not reliable sources. If you imagine that ''The Economist'' "does not analyze history but only promotes a particular set of foreign and economic policies", what on earth do you imagine the Egyptian ambassador to the U.N. does? Please review [[WP:V]] and [[WP:NPOV]], and do not remove the reliable sources again, nor insert the unreliable ones. Thank you. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 03:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
:::Even if one discounts CNN, The Economist, and the BBC (and no reasonable person will discount those three as reliable sources), the fact that the 6 Day War began with a preemptive strike is sourced to no less than '''19 other sources''', many of which satisfy Nierva's criteria of being "scholarly." For good measure, I'm about to add one more. --[[User:GHcool|GHcool]] ([[User talk:GHcool|talk]]) 03:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

There’s no doubt that the term “pre-emptive” is precise, appropriate and well sourced. -- [[User:Olve Utne|Olve Utne]] ([[User talk:Olve Utne|talk]]) 14:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

::No one has disputed the reliability of the BBC and CNN. What is in dispute is the competence of these popular media organs in the analysis of history and international law. You will not find a citation of CNN in the work of a scholar in order to prove his argument that Israel launched a "pre-emptive" strike. These organs do not specialize in the analysis of history but merely report on current events in a manner that is often biased. While it's reasonable to cite these sources on current events, it is fallacious to consult them on matters of history.

::Nor is anyone actually disputing belief that Israel engaged in a pre-emptive strike. This article makes a misleading attempt to show that this opinion represents a consensus when I have demonstrated the contrary. That there were 36 votes cast in the United Nations General Assembly condemning Israel for having committed aggression means that this viewpoint has to be considered. Whereas I am trying to show the perspective from the other side, many of you stubbornly insist that only one biased view has to be entertained.

::A demonstration of an oppposing point of view is found in the work of the international jurist Henry Cattan who wrote:

<blockquote>
...After the discovery of the true facts about Israel's aggression, Israel invoked two arguments to justify its launching the war. Its first argument was that it acted by way of a preventative strike which, in its view, is equivalent to self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter. Such argument has no basis in fact or in law. In fact, Israel, as we have seen, created the crisis and attacked its neighbors. In law, the Charter recognizes the right of self-defence against an armed attack, but not a pre-emptive strike in advance of any attack. None of the Arab States had attacked or threatened to attack Israel and as D.P. O'Connell observes, the invasion of a neibhoring country's territory is not an exercise of the right of self-defence.
</blockquote> [[User:Nierva|Nierva]] ([[User talk:Nierva|talk]]) 20:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

:::::Aside from the fact that Cattan must have a very selective reading of history (Egypt didn't ''threaten'' Israel? Really?) I think criticism and condemnation of Israel's actions have been fairly covered in the article. We can never know what Egypt, Syria, etc., would have done if Israel had not attacked first. But the term "pre-emptive" must by necessity deal with the motivation of the attack, and you don't seem to be disputing this. --[[User:Leifern|Leifern]] ([[User talk:Leifern|talk]]) 20:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

::::::That is your opinion. There are other opinions that conflict with that view and they should be fairly represented. [[User:Nierva|Nierva]] ([[User talk:Nierva|talk]]) 21:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

:::::::But it is you who are deleting information, not me. I have not tried to omit objections of any kind to Israel's actions. Besides, it is not a matter of opinion whether Nasser threatened Israel. Here's one well-documented quote from the article itself: 'President Nasser, who had called King Hussein an "imperialist lackey" just days earlier, declared: "Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight."' You are also mixing up your arguments. In the introductory paragraph, the attack is merely characterized as pre-emptive and does not state whether it was "legal" or not. --[[User:Leifern|Leifern]] ([[User talk:Leifern|talk]]) 00:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

:::::::Other observations found in the work of the United States scholar John Quigley:
<blockquote>
"Even if Israel had expected Egypt to attack, it is not clear a preemptive strike is lawful. The UN Charter, Article 51, characterizes armed force as defensive only if it is used in response to an "armed attack." Most states consider this language to mean that a preemptive strike is unlawful. India, for one, asserted in General Assembly discussion of the June 1967 hostilities that preemptive self-defense is not permitted under international law. Most authorities agree with that view, though some say force may be used in anticipation of an attack that has not yet occurred but is reasonably expected to occur imminently Israel did not face such a situation.
</blockquote>
[[User:Nierva|Nierva]] ([[User talk:Nierva|talk]]) 21:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

::::::::Nierva commits the [[red herring fallacy]] with his/her argument above. Preemptive strikes are a complex issue in terms of legality, and perhaps an argument could be made that Israel's preemptive attack was illegal. I am not educated well enough in international law to know whether Israel's attack of Egypt was legal or not, but my guess is that it was legal since Egypt violated international law by closing the Straits of Tiran, and which any nation would interpret as a ''casus belli''. The point is that Israel attacked preemptively regardless of whether or not it was legal to, and describing the attack as something other than a preemptive one is uncalled for. --[[User:GHcool|GHcool]] ([[User talk:GHcool|talk]]) 22:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Not that we should determine matters of international law here, but there is no question that a naval blockade is an act of war.--[[User:Leifern|Leifern]] ([[User talk:Leifern|talk]]) 00:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

::The arguments raised here have not sought to dispute historical facts. Rather, they have sought to dispute the suggestion that an overwhelming consensus of scholars believe that Israel launched a pre-emptive invasion when that is clearly not the case as has been thoroughly demonstrated above. In the historiography present in many predominantly Muslim countries the view that Israel engaged in aggression is unequivocal. At best, there is a divide between those that view Israel's attack as illegal aggression and those that saw it as a pre-emptive attack.[[User:Nierva|Nierva]] ([[User talk:Nierva|talk]]) 21:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
:::No, actually, there is a strong consensus that it was a pre-emptive attack, despite the protestations of opinion pieces by [[Galal Nassar]] in ''[[Al-Ahram Weekly]]''. Your argument assumes that the phrase "pre-emptive attack" is completely incompatible with "illegal aggression". In fact, "pre-emptive attack" is a military strategy, "illegal aggression" is a political (and sometimes legal) opinion. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 00:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
::::IMHO, that is exactly right. Hi again Jay, and thanks for the kind words. When one is speaking about legality, "pre-emptive" is inconsistently used with two opposite meanings. (More popularly and more recently in my OR opinion.) "preemptive" (legal) is opposed to "preventative" (illegal) , while international law literature often opposes "anticipatory self-defense" (legal) to "preemptive" (illegal). Cf the relevant pages here and their talk pages - there's a paper cited there with a helpful footnote on this point. Reading legal or older articles can be very confusing until you understand this point, and of course people aren't always talking about legality. So using the word doesn't say anything really about legality, which should be debated elsewhere. Perhaps we should be clearer that we're using it as Jayjg explains.[[User:John Z|John Z]] ([[User talk:John Z|talk]]) 06:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

== Egypt's forces? ==

So what was the makeup of Egypt's forces in the Sinai? From the article, there were seven divisions. One of them was mechanized. But the article contradicts itself on the other six. Either it was four armored and two infantry, or vice versa... I don't have any references, or I'd fix it myself. [[Special:Contributions/70.168.46.226|70.168.46.226]] ([[User talk:70.168.46.226|talk]]) 12:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


== Lebanon? ==

In my opinion, as the article and others refer to Lebanon as being neutral, showing it in the list of oponents of Israel makes no sense. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Lususromulus|Lususromulus]] ([[User talk:Lususromulus|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Lususromulus|contribs]]) 16:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Yes, its inclusion is just plain silly. The other combatants listed in addition to Egypt, Jordan and Syria are presently Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Libya and Algeria. Iraq is the only one which is at all reasonable to include. The others are about as silly as Lebanon. For the real but relatively minor Iraqi involvement, see Oren or Trevor Dupuy's Elusive Victory. Iraqi planes made a raid into Israel, and Israel bombed an Iraqi airfield. So, I changed it, with Iraq listed last and least.[[User:John Z|John Z]] ([[User talk:John Z|talk]]) 05:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
::I've actually found a source that specifically states that Lebanon was '''not''' one of the countries to send troops into Israel. (''Syria & Lebanon'' by Carter, Dunston, and Humphreys, p. 31: "Lebanon may have not sent troops to fight in the 1967 but, along with the rest of the Middle East, was profoundly affected by the conflict.") I'm going to remove them from the infobox. ← [[User:George|<span style="color:#333;font-variant: small-caps;font-weight:bold">George</span>]]<sup> <nowiki>[</nowiki>[[User talk:George|<span style="font-weight:bold;color:#dc143c">talk</span>]]<nowiki>]</nowiki></sup> 08:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
:::I don't think this is a big deal worth edit warring over, but it is certainly not "plain silly" to include Lebanon - it sent aircraft into battle, one of which (a Hunter) was shot down over Rayak. Not major involvement, to be sure, but clearly a participant in combat action. [[User:Canadian Monkey|Canadian Monkey]] ([[User talk:Canadian Monkey|talk]]) 22:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
::::I agree, it's definitely not a "plain silly" issue. Do you have any sources regarding Lebanon sending aircraft into Israel? Was it just a single aircraft? Do sources state that it was actually a "participant in combat action," or would it have just been used for reconnaissance? The article currently states "In addition, one out of 12 of Lebanon's Hunter fighters was shot down after entering Israeli airspace," but it's (a) unsourced, and (b) unclear if this is one of twelve total fighters that Lebanon had, or one of twelve fighters that entered Israeli airspace. ← [[User:George|<span style="color:#333;font-variant: small-caps;font-weight:bold">George</span>]]<sup> <nowiki>[</nowiki>[[User talk:George|<span style="font-weight:bold;color:#dc143c">talk</span>]]<nowiki>]</nowiki></sup> 22:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::After a little digging, I found [http://books.google.com/books?id=Ih5Vcy2PZXQC&pg=PA336&lpg=PA336&dq=1967+lebanon+hunter+israel&source=web&ots=BH293oadN_&sig=mmfk4Q4TPyZNUQYpYv7wKMo4IzU&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result this source], which seems to pretty much agree with any other sources I could find. It states: "On the morning of June 6th 1967 a Lebanese hunter was shot down by an Israeli Mirage IIICJ flown by Uri Even-Nir, near the Lebanon/Israel border." Unfortunately, none of the sources are specific about whether or not it was over Israeli or Lebanese airspace, and whether it was aggressive, or engaged in any "combat action" at the time, so we may never know the details for sure. ← [[User:George|<span style="color:#333;font-variant: small-caps;font-weight:bold">George</span>]]<sup> <nowiki>[</nowiki>[[User talk:George|<span style="font-weight:bold;color:#dc143c">talk</span>]]<nowiki>]</nowiki></sup> 22:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
::::::here is another source for you: "During the first day of the Six Day War, a force of four Lebanese Hawker Hunter fighters ambushed 4 Israeli Mystere jets that were returning from the Golan Heights and one of the Mystere jets was brought down near the town of Nabatiye and its pilot was captured. Israel retaliated by sending four Mirage III jets and shot down a Lebanese Air Force Hunter." [http://www.lebaneseairforce.info/combat1.htm]. [[User:Canadian Monkey|Canadian Monkey]] ([[User talk:Canadian Monkey|talk]]) 23:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Hmm, this sounds like quite an interesting story. Can you find anything to confirm this from a [[WP:RS|reliable source]]? Or even to confirm that one of the pilots was captured - that should have made some headlines for sure. Unfortunately http://www.lebaneseairforce.info/ this website] is just one person's personal account of the history of the Lebanese army, and it's not clear that that person is an expert on the subject. When they're basically saying that a published book on the subject is wrong (in the paragraph precedeing the one you quoted), we definitely need some independent confirmation. ← [[User:George|<span style="color:#333;font-variant: small-caps;font-weight:bold">George</span>]]<sup> <nowiki>[</nowiki>[[User talk:George|<span style="font-weight:bold;color:#dc143c">talk</span>]]<nowiki>]</nowiki></sup> 23:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I am the owner of www.lebaneseairforce.info and I can clarify a few points regarding the Israeli Mystere story. It is not clear how the Mystere was brought down. The Lebanese Air Force says that they have not opened fire on Israeli jets but they did scramble with them a few times. The Mystere could have been downed due to damages sustained over Golan or even by Lebanese ground fire. The Israeli air force operations over Golan was probably causing annoyance for the Lebanese. The Mystere story can be found on the front pages of Lebanese dailies that day and if anyone has access, can read about it and a photo of Lebanese soldiers by the jet is also included. I have seen and read An-Nahar but I don't have it. Also, I can't tell the mystery surrounding this subject and I think a lot more research is needed.
Lebanon didn't go into war after the cabinet voted against it the very day the war started and I doubt that any Lebanese jets violated Israeli airspace. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Vatche|Vatche]] ([[User talk:Vatche|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Vatche|contribs]]) 06:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

==Quigly==
Recent edits by Nierva have introduced a number of POV changes to the article, most of them cited to Quigly. The link provided does not work, and in any case, no page number is given. I am therefor removing these POV edits, and restoring previous consensus version. Please discuss any changes here, giving the exact page number in Quigly. [[User:Canadian Monkey|Canadian Monkey]] ([[User talk:Canadian Monkey|talk]]) 01:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
:You have provided no evidence or argument to explain why the edits are POV. Page numbers should have been given; the information is not difficult to find with the aid of Google Books. The given information is drawn from pages 158-164, as far as I can tell. Some of the language is problematic; "After threatening to invade Syria" in particular does not seem to be supported by the book. The closest I can find is a public declaration by then-IDF Chief of Staff Rabin that Israel could not be secure until the Syrian government was overthrown. Much of the language was not problematic, and seems to me to be a valuable counterbalance to the sort of Abba Eban-Michael Oren melodramatic nonsense about Israel being "strangled" by the Straits closure. &lt;[[User:Eleland|<b>el</b>eland]]/[[User talk:Eleland|<b>talk</b>]][[Special:Contributions/Eleland|edits]]&gt; 02:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
::Here are a few reasons why the changes were POV. The original text had given the time-line, correctly, as Egypt mobilizing and expelling the UNEF on May 16, as a reaction to already existing Israeli-Syrian tension, followed by Israeli mobilization on the 19th. The change "cites" an alleged Israeli threat to occupy Syria on the 19th (which you acknowledge is not supported by the reference) as the first action. Then come numerous "rationalizations" for why the Egyptian blockade of Tiran wasn't "that bad", complete with editorializing on why this was fair and reasonable. You are welcome to your opinion that a respected historian such as Oren is engaged in "melodramatic nonsense", but just like the article does not include claims that Israel was being "strangled" by the Straits closure, it will not include the equally nonsensical language of apologists such as Quigley who are eager to defend violations of international law. [[User:Canadian Monkey|Canadian Monkey]] ([[User talk:Canadian Monkey|talk]]) 02:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
:::A sufficient justification for the deletions made by the user above have not been provided. To describe in detail the decisions taken by the UAR Government concerning its territorial waters in Tiran hardly qualifies as a biased addition. What is biased is to omit important pieces of information concerning the measures taken by the UAR Government and the effects it could have had towards Israel. You are entitled to your opinion of John Quigley as an "apologist", but this should not dictate the content in this article. The motive of these deletions seem to be less concerned with abiding by Wikipedia guidelines than pushing an unattractive agenda.[[User:Nierva|Nierva]] ([[User talk:Nierva|talk]]) 00:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
::::You are incorrect. I have described exactly why your edits were POV, and [[User:Eleland|<b>el</b>eland]] agreed that your claim that Israel was threatening to occupy Syria was unsupported by your reference. The material about the utilization of the Eilat port is already in the article, there's a limit to how much space should be given to this type of apologia. [[User:Canadian Monkey|Canadian Monkey]] ([[User talk:Canadian Monkey|talk]]) 01:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

== List of sources ==
FYI, a list of sources on this subject can be found here: [http://www.jfsc.ndu.edu/library/publications/bibliography/arab_israeli.asp]. [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk:Cla68|talk]]) 03:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

== Photograph ==

Hi. I've not read the article yet, so I'm not going to comment on the neutrality of the text.

However, having glanced at the article it seems somewhat strange to me that the only photograph of combatants is quite an "artistic" one of noble-looking IDF troops. Not only that, but it is sourced from the Israeli government's website and the description notes that its use has been widespread in Israeli media and culture: clearly it has significant sentimental/symbolic/propagandic value for the Israeli side of the conflict.

Now, I'm not saying that this means it should be removed from the article - on the contrary, it seems like a very appropriate image to include. What I find peturbing is that in the rest of the article there is not a single image of Arab troops, even though it seems from the troop numbers cited in the article that there were twice as many Arabs as Israelis involved in the conflict. To a casual observer such as myself, who knows nothing about the conflict, this gives the impression of bias to the article before I've even started reading it, though it might turn out to be completely objective military history.

Perhaps somebody with better knowledge of the subject than me (and indeed more wikipedia experience!) could find an appropriate photograph to balance this one? [[User:Davidkleinfeld|Davidkleinfeld]] ([[User talk:Davidkleinfeld|talk]]) 15:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

== Israel's refusal to host UNEF ==

It is a fact that UNEF was tasked, in part, with supervising the withdrawal of Israeli, British, and French forces that had invaded Egyptian territory. The General Assembly plan called for UNEF to deploy on both sides of the armistice line, but Israel refused to allow UNEF to deploy on their side. The Secretary General offered to redeploy UNEF to Israel's side of the border ten years later, after Israel's ambassador objected to the withdrawal of the force from Egyptian territory.

Some of the editors object to adding that information to the introduction without a full explanation as to why Nasser asked UNEF to go home after 10 years, or why Israel refused to host UNEF. So, the current introduction to the article expresses a commonly-held POV that the withdrawal of UNEF and/or the deployment of Egyptian forces to positions in their own territory somehow threatened Israel and triggered a crisis that served as a casus belli.

That particular theory has been publicly discredited by many observers, including Yitzhak Rabin, who served as the Chief of the General Staff for Israel during the war. In an interview published in Le Monde, on February 28 1968, he explained:<blockquote>"I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent into Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it." cited in [http://books.google.com/books?id=U7YyqRnhW-YC&pg=PA112&lpg=PA112&dq=&source=web&ots=IemfetfBlL&sig=rIvbjliNF5zCyRJRMs758cG35RA One Land, Two Peoples, by Deborah J. Gerner, Page 112]</blockquote>
The same page explains that (a) President Johnson told Abba Eban that the CIA, the National Security Council, and the State Department had each investigated and concluded that no Egyptian attack was imminent; and (b)that Menachem Begin admitted "The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him."

Wikiquotes carries a variation of the Rabin quote under 'Sourced'. The only minor difference being 'We did not...' vs. 'I do not'...and etc. and a verbatim copy of the Begin quote under 'Sourced', Begin Speech at National Defense College, The New York Times, August 11, 1982, p. A6

[http://books.google.com/books?id=yXCkz5OZ7-AC&pg=PA142&dq=&ei=PeXxSOG-OaW0zASCpLWEAQ&client= The Terrorist Conjunction: The United States, the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, and Al-Qā'ida, By Alfred G. Gerteiny, and Jean Ziegler, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2007, ISBN 0275996433, page 142,] quotes General Matityahu Peled: "The thesis that the danger of genocide was hanging over us in June 1967 and that Israel was fighting for its physical existence is only bluff, which was born and developed after the war. ... ...To pretend that the Egyptian forces massed on our frontiers were in a position to threaten the existence of Israel constitutes an insult not only to the intelligence of anyone capable of analyzing this sort of situation, but above all an insult to the Zahal (Israeli military), from Ha’aretz, March 19, 1972.

[http://books.google.com/books?id=bVddOoQbBa0C&pg=PA21&lpg=PA21&dq=&source=web&ots=7AOAPCGlxW&sig=edyzMm8JRDlvQBT0u_T8pOiNzxs#PPA21,M1 The Making of Resolution 242, by Sydney Dawson Bailey, page 21-22], says: "Thant (UN Secretary General [[U Thant]]) raised with Gideon Raphael the possibility of deploying UNEF on the Israeli side of the armistice demarcation line, but this was rejected by Israel as 'entirely unacceptable".... The author observes that alone wouldn't have opened the Suez Canal or Straits of Tiran, but explains: ..."it would have interposed a symbolic barrier to Egyptian military threats from Sinai"... and that ..."Thant believed that if only Israel had decided otherwise, 'the course of history would have been different.'"

[http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:afhwMq-YgUIJ:domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/59c118f065c4465b852572a500625fea/44c971ced20b476705256559005be4a5!OpenDocument&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us&client= An unclassified report] to the Security Council from the Secretary General of the United Nations, S/7906, 26 May 1967, explained:<blockquote>6. It may be relevant to note here that UNEF functioned exclusively on the United Arab Republic side of the Line in a zone from which the armed forces of the United Arab Republic had voluntarily stayed away for over ten years. It was this arrangement which allowed UNEF to function as a buffer and as a restraint on infiltration. When this arrangement lapsed United Arab Republic troops moved up to the Line as they had every right to do.
<br />
7. ''If UNEF had been deployed on both sides of the Line as originally envisaged in pursuance of the General Assembly resolution, its buffer function would not necessarily have ended. However, its presence on the Israel side of the Line has never been permitted.'' The fact that UNEF was not stationed on the Israel side of the Line was a recognition of the unquestioned sovereign right of Israel to withhold its consent for the stationing of the Force. The acquiescence in the request of the United Arab Republic for the withdrawal of the Force after ten and a half years on United Arab Republic soil was likewise a recognition of the sovereign authority of the United Arab Republic. In no official document relating to UNEF has there been any suggestion of a limitation of this sovereign authority'.... ...'President Nasser and Foreign Minister Riad assured me that ''the United Arab Republic would not initiate offensive action against Israel''. Their general aim, as stated to me, was for a return to the conditions prevailing prior to 1956 and to full observance by both parties of the provisions of the General Armistice Agreement between Egypt and Israel.'
</blockquote>

These are significant facts and viewpoints that have been published in reliable sources. [[User:Harlan wilkerson|harlan]] ([[User talk:Harlan wilkerson|talk]]) 10:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
:Regarding your points:
:1) You have not given any credible explanation as to why "Nasser asked UNEF to go home after 10 years" - in reality, Nasser unilaterally pushing UNEF out on short notice.
:2) By the time war broke out the Egyptians had 7 divisions, not 2, massed on the border, and the revisionist political view that Nasser was merely posturing, along with cherry-picked out-of-context quotes from Israeli leaders, can certainly be discussed in the article, but the overwhelming view at the time, and since, was that Nasser's re-militarization of the Sinai, massing troops, concluding pacts with Jordan and Syria, etc., combined with his belligerent rhetoric indicating Israel's imminent destruction, indicated a credible threat to Israel. The CIA's and NSA's assessments have been discussed elsewhere on this page, please review those discussions.
:3) Wikiquotes is the weakest English language Wiki we have; please don't bother referring to it again.
:4) Your inclusion did not, for example, give Israel's reasons for not wanting UNEF troops on its own territories; the article does give the detail.
:5) The detail in general, including the revisionist apologia for Nasser's actions, can certainly go in the body of the article, but it has no place in the lede, which is a summary of uncontested facts. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 18:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

::In no particular order:
::Nasser couldn't 'unilaterally' decide to force UNEF out of the region. He needed Israel to serve as a willing partner in the accomplishment of that task. The introduction fails to make any mention of the Israeli decisions in the matter. In other words, the introduction isn't a summary of uncontested facts. You appear to be working quite assiduously to prevent the mere mention in the lead that Israel might have shunned its responsibility under the ''original'' General Assembly plan to host half of the UNEF forces on their side of the armistice line, and of their subsequent refusal to permit any portion of the force to redeploy there. After discovering those details a reasonable reader might agree with U Thant that if Israel had only decided otherwise, the course of history would have been different.

::Israel asserted its 'sovereign right' as the justification for its original decision not to host peacekeepers from any country. That objection was raised before UNEF forces (as such) from any friendly or 'unfriendly nations' ever arrived. It is self-serving to suggest that Israel had to attack because the UNEF was withdrawn, or that Israel suddenly had concerns about the composition of the peacekeeping force that had been employed on the Egyptian side all along. Israeli intransigence helped create those supposedly dire circumstances.

::U Thant's unclassified report supplies a credible explanation of Nasser's request for UNEF's withdrawal, the desire to return to the status quo ante with both sides observing the terms of the armistice. Egypt had already hosted a force of unwelcome foreigners, on a 'temporary mission', for ten and a half years after it had been invaded. Israel, given the same choice, had refused to tolerate those same peacekeepers for so much as one minute. If you want to start a wild goose chase for a more 'credible explanation' than that, the burden of conducting it is yours.

::The 'Diplomacy and intelligence assessments section' of the article already reports (with admirable NPOV equivocation) that Nasser may have wanted a negotiated settlement: "U Thant, visited Cairo for mediation and recommended moratorium in the Straits of Tiran and a renewed diplomatic effort to solve the crisis. Egypt agreed and Israel rejected these proposals. Nasser's concessions do not necessarily suggest that he was making a concerted effort to avoid war." and: "The U.S. also tried to mediate and Nasser agreed to send his vice-president to Washington to explore a diplomatic settlement. The meeting did not happen because Israel launched its offensive."

::I supplied more than one reliable published source for each of the quotations in order to dispell any misgivings about the use Wikiquotes. You are free to supply some cherry-picked quotations of your own regarding the importance these same men attached to the Egyptian troop build-up, or the withdrawal of UNEF.

::U Thant's report and President Johnson's assessment of the situation can hardly be labeled 'revisionist'. They were submitted on the same day - just prior to the war. The article states that Abba Eban felt the Israeli government assessment delivered during his visit to Washington was 'An act of momentous irresponsibility... eccentric... ...lacked wisdom, veracity and tactical understanding. Nothing was right about it.' Characterizing Menachem Began, and General Peled as historical revisionists doesn't really change the fact that both men were talking about all of the Egyptian forces you have mentioned, and that neither seriously believed that Nasser was going to launch an offensive against Israel. Your claim that the overwhelming view at the time, and since, was that Nasser's re-militarization posed a grave threat amounts to the use of weasel words or concensus in an apparent attempt to forestall the inclusion of a substantial and well published point of view. In light of the fact that the statements I quoted were made by the leaders themselves, including: U Thant, Nasser, Johnson, Rabin, Begin, Peled, et al the possibility exists that the overwhelming majority of us were misled or kept in the dark. [[User:Harlan wilkerson|harlan]] ([[User talk:Harlan wilkerson|talk]]) 02:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:21, 13 October 2008

WikiProject iconDogs Stub‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Dogs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Canidae and commonly referred to as "dogs" and of which the domestic dog is but one of its many members, on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DogsWikipedia:WikiProject DogsTemplate:WikiProject DogsDogs articles
StubThis article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Dogs To-do:

Here are some tasks you can do to help with WikiProject Dogs:

WikiProject iconComics: Strips Start‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Comic strips work group.

Character

This article is about Marmaduke the strip, but shouldn't there be an article on Marmaduke the character as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.233.73.251 (talk) 07:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Submissions

One thing that always confused me was the fact that, although "Dog-Gone Funny" is supposedly drawn from fan submissions, never once (to my knowledge) has a submission address been published. An admittedly brief online search for a submission address also came up empty. Isn't it possible that these are simply made up by the author to fill space? Antepenultimate 19:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he does have a publicly available address at the United Media website. [1] My guess would be he distributed his address some other way before then, perhaps in his books. GarryKosmos 08:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marmaduke is also a personage in the books of Jack Vance. Another Mr. Marmaduke can be found in Clifford D. Simak's book The Goblin Reservation.

Could someone add these to the stub, please? --Oop 19:17, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you?

Also, what is the definition of marmaduke as a regular noun?

Can someone please create a disambiguation page for all articles named Marmaduke? See [2]. --Geopgeop 12:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone else think that marmaduke is the dumbbest comic ever? pinky

No, Heathcliff is -65.122.209.140 20:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about a reference to Monk, and how he always makes comments about it

If you have or are around dogs, Marmaduke is funny. If you are a cat person you should not read Marmaduke and should stick to Garfield, because you are just not going to get it.

Does anyone think a passage about the prevalence of online humor sites making fun of Marmaduke would be a good addition?

I do not know a single person who likes marmaduke, including several dog lovers. I've actually asked. Nearly every single strip consists of various versions of "bark" and "woof", followed by a one liner involving regular dog behavior. I'm sorry if I can't find that amusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.191.32 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm sorry the Wikpedia isn't your personal blog, so yes, I removed your "trivia" entry about Marmaduke not being funny. I personally can't stand Marmaduke either, but WP isn't the place to get on our soapboxes about it. Also take a look at our policy against Original Research and our aim to present a neutral point of view. -- Antepenultimate 00:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism?

Some guy working on a webcomic says he doesn't like it, and it is enough to be written in this article as criticism? I don't think so. I'll delete it in a week, if no one has any reason not to.GodShiru 01:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That guy, David Malki, and his webcomic, Wondermark, are both WP:Notable. You might instead consider balancing the criticism by adding a "Praise" section with some citations. --CliffC 04:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your opinion, as you have been here far longer than I have, and know more about the rules and guidelines than I do, or rather admittedly, care to learn, but isn't WP:Notable for articles, rather than sources? And I do think that just because someone has a bad opinion on a comic strip and they are known, it doesn't mean a section should be devoted to it. I would take your suggestion and add a list of people who personally like it, and sources, but that would sort of detract from the point of this article, to let people know about Marmaduke, not those who like it or not. But, if you really are sure nothing should be done about it, I'll leave it all be. GodShiru 15:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as sources go, it's just a comic strip, so we're probably not going to turn up many Noam Chomsky quotes. For that matter, none of the rest of the article is sourced.
I've learned not to be too sure of anything around here, so I took a look at WP:Criticism. That guideline encourages criticism (IMO, without criticism we wouldn't have much of an encyclopedia), but generally discourages separate criticism sections, suggesting instead incorporating criticism into the body of the article, or as an alternative naming the section something more neutral than "Criticism". I thought of renaming it "Reviews" or "Reception" but those didn't sound right. If anyone has a renaming idea, please go ahead. Meanwhile, reviewing the Malki quote we use, its style seems out of balance with the rest of the article so I have shortened it. --CliffC 17:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I, for one, think it should be integrated somehow into the main body. You have removed most of it already, and it is merely a sentence now. It definitely isn't worth a whole section, especially if it cannot be named for what it really is, criticism. "Reception" and "Reviews" are not befitting, as there is only one person who 'reviewed' it. So, the only way to keep it, in my humble opinion, would be to just integrate it. However, I cannot think of a good way to do it. I am guessing something along the lines of "Some people, notably David Malki[source], creator of the webcomic Wondermark, dislike it, while others, such as Monk series creator, Andy Breckman, who deems it worthy of mention in the aforementionned series, think differently." It sounds very, very wrong to my ears, however, I have no other idea. GodShiru 15:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Criticism doesn't say articles "cannot" have a criticism section, it's just generally discouraged. I don't have a problem with incorporating the current bit of criticism somewhere else in the article, as long as its text and links are kept intact. It's already been bowdlerized from

In his psychological analysis of the strip at Wondermark's The Comic Strip Doctor, David Malki ranks Marmaduke among "the worst newspaper comic strips" and comments, "In my local newspaper, the crappy square strips -- Marmaduke, Heathcliff, Dennis the Menace, and Family Circus -- all appear together, in a sort of matrix of suckitude."[1]

to the G-rated and rather innocuous

In his psychological analysis of the strip at Wondermark's The Comic Strip Doctor, David Malki ranks Marmaduke among "the worst newspaper comic strips".[2]

If you use Breckman for balance, I'm guessing he mentions Marmaduke in some ironic way, or to show off an unusual character trait, similar to when Matt Groening has Homer Simpson silently read the comics at the breakfast table and chuckle to himself "Oh, that Marmaduke!"
Once you have the pro and con quote(s) collected, maybe keep the separate section but name it "Critics and supporters"? Just a thought, and not meant to dissuade you from integrating them into the article. --CliffC 15:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I don't believe we can truly reach a compromise, I will just abdicate and let you handle it, as you know more about it than I do. I know you are probably right, it just doesn't seem right to me, and probably never will. Also, I have to admit that what you says and have done makes more sense. Therefore, we will go your way. Thank you for enlightening me on how it should be done, I will keep it in mind the next time. GodShiru 20:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the very first statement in this line of conversation. Did you read the guy's article? He's totally off-base, talking about Marmaduke and rape. Please, it's a cartoon from most people's childhoods. I think his criticisms are more for humor than for actual literary value. If you direct people to this garbage, then you might as well add a criticism section for every single movie, show, book, etc. ever made. And just because a person is wikipedia notable doesn't mean that you need to mark down every thing they ever criticized. -SCW —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.22.45.148 (talk) 18:05, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who doesn't see that Malki's article is intended to be humorous and not actual criticism is a moron.--Josh Miles —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.179.173.51 (talk) 13:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it common knowledge that Marmaduke is constantly criticized? Everyone who is involved with comics or comedy at all has always known and commented that Marmaduke is among the worst of syndicated comics. MAD's 50 worst things about comedy lists always rank Marmaduke highly, and whenever I have seen it brought up, everyone basically agrees that Marmaduke stinks. I am not sure how extensive a critism section has to be on this article, but I believe it is worth a mention, and perhaps add at least three sources to that section alone. It shouldn't be too hard to find them. 64.130.204.173 (talk) 17:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I think so too. In fact, just today: http://www.theonion.com/content/news/some_old_man_still_churning_out

Criticism section is too vague

The section on criticism contains referenced notes about people saying that the comic sucks, but has no information about why they think it sucks. In fairness for the comic itself, shouldn't there be some further, more specific details in this section? --Bando26 (talk) 01:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "Joe Mathlete" quote struck me as being unprofessional so I went to read the actual source... for goodness sakes people, this quote has been allowed to remain in the article? I'm fine with the other one but this Mathlete thing is a blog quote from a guy who dedicates an entire blog to hating a comic. If that's allowed, what's to prevent anyone from creating their own blog and quoting themselves in a Wiki article? Quite frankly, nothing. If there's no (Reasonable) objection I'm removing this within a week. AncalagonTB (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I've removed it. Anyone disagreeing with the change should please respond here. --Iliaskarim (talk) 21:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Marmaduke Explained is a pretty notable blog and pretty well known in webcomic culture. I don't really know how to demonstrate that this meets the criteria, but I'd strongly wager that a lot of people coming to this page would expect to see some sort of reference to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baligant (talk • contribs) 16:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but Wikipedia hates Blogs for some reason because blogs could be above them in Google search engine rankings so they blocked them. Lame. Joe Mathlete explains Marmaduke is the #1 blog on the INternet, I hope all youse die. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.123.222 (talk) 04:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who put that section back in, or when, but I've taken it out again. A "criticism" section should begin with describing the consensus more mainstream reviews and such; only after that fundamental is covered should we be worrying about adding personal opinions from fringe elements like bloggers—they may still be notable, but they don't impart the same sort of understanding to the reader that a discussion of mainstream reviews' consensus does. I'm not trying to defend Marmaduke—I don't really like Marmaduke, and I do like Wondermark, but nevertheless I don't think Wondermark is an appropriate place to be looking for material on the reception and/or criticism of Marmaduke. People can add that stuff in to the article if they want, but not until the more basic stuff is covered. —Politizer( talk • contribs ) 06:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ The Comic Strip Doctor - Analyzing and improving the worst newspaper comic strips
  2. ^ The Comic Strip Doctor - Analyzing and improving the worst newspaper comic strips
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Six-Day_War&oldid=244935495"