Talk:Mad (magazine)/Archive 1

Arnold vs. Alfred
Need to also mention Arnold E Neumann. -- Tarquin 03:48, 21 August 2002 (UTC)


 * Alfred. --KQ

That's why I didn't add anything to the article myself. I know I always get the name wrong ;) -- Tarquin


 * I thing Tarquin was confusing Alfred with the governor of California.64.165.203.35 02:52, 9 April 2005 (UTC)



Image
A picture would brighten up the article. Does anyone have a copy of the famous first front page of MAD #1 that they could scan? Mortene 03:45, 8 October 2004 (UTC)

--Or you could put it in the Wikipedia entry for Melvin. Pittsburgh Poet (talk) 02:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

IND
Has anyone ever figured out what the letters "IND" on the cover of each issue stand for? Rad Racer | Talk 02:27, 7 April 2005 (UTC)

Actually the IND on the cover of MAD means Independent News Distribution Metlover21 20:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * "IND" is the logo for the company that distributes MAD. It's "Independent Magazine Distribution", if I recall.  Early issues also had a small logo depicting North America with "ANC" written it it, as it used to be distributed by the two comapnies, then American National folded, leaving just IND.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Revme (talk • contribs) 19:07, 23 June 2005 (UTC)
 * _ _ (under the "comic prohibition heading) is one source on this.  I came close to that name from memory, after decades, and i have the feeling it was given in the answer to a question from a reader.  I added it under a new Trivia section (which may also deserve a Murphy Brown reference).
 * _ _ I wasn't prepared to vouch for the fact that the IND is still there; no doubt a colleague will check the latest copy & make an edit that includes an as of 2006 link. --Jerzy•t 23:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

24.239.177.198 04:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)The "IND" is indeed still there, though the pointing centaur has been retired for decades.
 * When I was a kid I always thought that MINDAD was "Mind Ad", as in some sort of subliminal advertising message that MAD wanted to get across to us kids. Oh youthful innocence and conspiracy theories... --  Valley   2   city   ₪‽ 08:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

What is a centaur i have Old magazines and dont know what it is Metlover21 00:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

A centaur is a sexually-charged mythological creature that has a man's torso on a horse's body. One of MAD's old logo designs waS filled with a herd of centaurs chasing young ladies through the lettering and ravishing them. Incidentally, it's a lady pointing at the IND, not one of the centaurs.

Alfred E Neumann, Nazi racial propaganda?
I believe I read somewhere that the image of AEN was based on NAZI propaganda about "idiots" and "racial defectives" as an example. I saw it in a book on MAD, browsing in a bookstore. Can anyone confirm this?64.165.203.35 02:52, 9 April 2005 (UTC)

Found one http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v12p162y1989.pdf Carl Djerassi 64.160.47.75 04:31, 28 April 2005 (UTC)


 * That is an extremely interesting story. I've read, myself, that the face has been around since the turn of the last century and was used to symbolize the "idiot" in voting campaigns in Britain and the US as well.  I doubt it originated as a Nazi symbol but was adopted by them, as many other symbols were, for their own evil ends.  Also, as an avid MAD reader, I can tell you that their gross humor is aimed mostly at the conservative reactionary right.  Homosexuals and Jews do sometimes find themselves underfire from MAD jokes and barbs but these are mostly gentle silly humor compared to the all-out attacks on such things as the Republican Party.  For instance, MAD magazine's parody of "Brokeback Mountain" was almost reverent in how it was treated - the jokes being mainly on the audience and people who didn't like the film for being about homosexuals.  So, in MAD's defense, I'd say, even if "the face" had been used by the Nazi's, MAD magazine either didn't know about it when they adopted the symbol or did not intend it to be a secret symbol that MAD Magazine supports secret Neo-Nazi movements. Yanqui9 18:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I think Bill Gaines was Jewish. Having Nazi Propaganda around probably wouldn't be a plus in his case... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.47.198 (talk) 11:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

bill gaines was jewish. if alfred's face was a nazi secret weapon and he knew it was probably intended as a defiant rubber/glue gesture


 * Both Bill Gaines and Harvey Kurtzman were Jewish, as well as several of the magazine's main writers and artists. (Will Elder, Al Jaffee, Dave Berg etc.) Most of the Jewish references would rather be self-mocking than ani-semitism. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 12:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Uppercase/lowercase MAD logo
The nuances of the MAD logo, while interesting, aren't normally the sort of thing that go into the introductory paragraph of an article. Even the 9th paragraph seems high, but what the heck. Please let the sentence enjoy a happy life with the other sentence about the logo's italicization. 24.215.152.211 (talk) 11:08, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Recurring Images and References
I believe Max Korn is the name of Nick Meglin's grandson. Can anyone confirm? 143.127.3.10 (talk) 19:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, someone can confirm. Unfortunately, that someone would be Nick Meglin's grandson. And he's not here.

Planet Tad addition
I mostly deleted the part about LivJournal versimilitude because visual accuracy is not a notable departure for MAD. The obituaries really look like newspaper clippings, the CD warning labels look like the real thing, the "Year in Film" uses the correct fonts for the movie titles, the coupons are designed correctly, the eBay parodies look like an eBay screen, and so on, and so on. It's no surprise that they made a blog look like a blog. 69.86.192.97 (talk) 06:27, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Max Korn Revealed?
Maybe or Maybe Not but in issue # 299 in the Jock Nicolson Article in the background is a poster of a guys face with Max Korn as a caption on top. is this the identity or did MAD Play a trick on us to get us all hyped up. if anybody else plese tell me if im right or wrong i'm gonna write to MAD and tell them about it. :D 68.45.51.119 (talk) 01:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

And In issue #263 in Dave Berg's Lighter Side of a man is trying to get a job and the mans name is MR.KORN do you think it's him :[

Bar code gags
I seem to remember there were gags explaining what the bar code supposedly was. Probably during the '80s when I bought a few copies. Does anybody know about this or was it some other mag? &mdash; Hippietrail 18:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Correct The Bar Code Gags wre around in the 80's and Late 90's just before MAD had changed in 1997


 * IIRC, the barcodes contained letters that spelt out words akin to RIPOFF, etc. Something similar... 81.232.72.53 12:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I know exactly who Max Korn is. (He is extremely hot by the way) But I think I would be upsetting some people whom I don't even know by saying who he is.

Keep guessing. 71.111.226.133 (talk) 01:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Foreign editions
The bit on foreign editions seems a bit negative. The one I'm familiar with, Sweden's Svenska MAD, was very popular at least back in the 1980s, and had as I recall it good native material (although Don Martin seemed to be most people's favorite). Earlier, in the 1960s, nationally important satirists and humorists like Lasse O'Månsson ran it, so you might argue that it was important in at least some places outside the US.

I have an anniversary issue detailing the history in .se stored away somewhere ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgrahn (talk • contribs) 22:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

MAD Indian Version in Hindi Back in mid70's and early 80's ;there was a HINDI version of MAD magazine titled "DEEWANA"(literally means MAD in Hindi) with A.E.Neuman as on the covers.It included the usual articles and some altered to suite Indian readers.Like "Madhosh Hosh Mein Aaa !"( translated in english="Get Sober You Boozer...) which had a character constantly drunk and then he will see something that his drunken state would show as something distorted...and when he went for it,he got a slap and the Caption read "Madhosh..." and then the actual thing that he mistook was shown (e.g. An elephant's trunk mistook for a fire hose...and a lady's bosom as ....)--asydwaters 10:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The article says:

United Kingdom (35 years), the Netherlands (32 years) and Brazil (31 years and counting) have produced the longest uninterrupted Mad variants.

Actually, the Brazilian Mad had two runs; the first one ended in either the late 70's or early 80's; I believe the publisher (Vecchi) went bankrupt or something. It started anew on Record, in the early 80's. Would someone please correct the article? I don't have time now. Thanks in advance. --Cotoco 03:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Religous Leaders and foodstuff
Although I haven't time to do it myself right now, MAD's contribution to the Danish Cartoons debate, by depicting Mohammed (PBUH)in a Pancake as well as other reliegious figures on other foodstuffs deserves a mention. Epeeist smudge 05:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Black & White Contents Only era Vs. The Full Colour Contents (except for the ads.)
Perhaps ,the most unique aspect of the MAD magazine was the use of no-colour illustrations in its pre-2000 issues.This was the most creative era ;as the b/w and gray inks had more visual appeal and added to the article's creative.The artists techniques were more highlighted and the impact of the articles was powerful.Though the cover arts and other -in lays /posters/pull outs/fold-ins were in fact in colour but that only added to the appeal. However since the late 1990's the decision to use digital colouring/manual renderings of the articles that have been a regular has generally degraded the quality and artworks of the MAD's usual gang of idiots.The most horrific being "Spy vs.Spy";it should have been given a decent funeral with the death of Prohias instead they went ahead and use this awful ideas/artwork of some new artist.--asydwaters 09:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Monroe
Monroe has not appeared for several issues. Has he been dropped from the magazine? Czolgolz 03:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't know what became of the "Monroe" cartoons. It's fine with me if they haven't appeared lately. I've felt like I'm Monroe. Chris 21:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Monroe's back... drawn by Canadian artist Tom Fowler. Deakat 02:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

9/20/06 edits
24.215.152.197 18:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)1. The information about Prince Charles' letter to Mad is contained in each of the published histories: Maria Reidelbach's "Completely Mad," and Frank Jacobs' "The Mad World of William M. Gaines."

2. I've restored the "Mad Mumblings" website, because it fits the criteria: "Links to be used occasionally: On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate, marking the link as such." Also, the Mumblings site does not contain any of the prohibitions in "Links normally to be avoided."


 * Actually, WP:EL clearly states Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to unless mandated by the article itself. MadMumblings is a forum and therefore it has been removed. IrishGuy talk 20:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

It is counterintutive to include the juvenile "Official Mad Message Board" as an external link, while deleting "Mad Mumblings," which is more serious of purpose and far more aware of the magazine's history. I hope the slight edit under "Go Fetch" will be satisfactory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.152.197 (talk)


 * The official forum is just that...official. Mad Mumblings is a fan site. It is a forum. Therefore it has been removed. IrishGuy talk 15:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

24.215.152.197 05:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)I believe you are concentrating on one word-- "forum"-- while overlooking the spirit of the rule. WP: EL also states that there should be a link to "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, then the link would remain as a reference, but in some cases this is not possible for copyright reasons or because the site has a level of detail which is inappropriate for the Wikipedia article."

The "official" Mad message board is toploaded with one-sentence-long posts asking "Who else likes Spy vs Spy?" or "Anybody know any jokes?" Whereas the Mad Mumblings webpage includes numerous interviews with Mad contributors, obituaries of same, lengthy information about themes and articles in past issues, business and circulation details, listings of content from various issues, and so forth. It would be unwieldy to link to each specific subpage of merit, so one catch-all listing seemed sufficient.

But as you seem adamant, I have deleted the other forum as well. There is already an "official" Mad link at the top of External Links.

170.141.109.33's Neuman re-re-re-re-re-re-re-edit
The user has deleted the Neuman/Bush/Nation/Clinton-etc. paragraph eight times now, and it has been restored each time. Will they go for nine? Stay tuned!
 * It's a long weekend, I predict he/she/it will be quite occupied with this. Gzuckier 16:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It's certainly relevant. And the many caricatures escalated into a news story with the Clinton quote (as below) Pepso 16:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The boy's face is now permanently associated with Mad. With the "What, me worry?" motto, Neuman has often appeared in political cartoons as a shorthand for unquestioning stupidity.


 * In recent years, Alfred E. Neuman's features have frequently been merged with those of George W. Bush by editorial cartoonists, including Mike Luckovich and Tom Tomorrow. The image has also appeared on magazine covers (notably The Nation), and in numerous Photoshop images and GIF files in which Neuman's face morphs into Bush's. A large Bush/Neuman poster was part of the Washington protests that accompanied Bush's 2001 inauguration. The alleged resemblance between the two has been noted more than once by Hillary Clinton. On July 10, 2005, speaking at the Aspen Institute's Ideas Festival, she said, "I sometimes feel that Alfred E. Neuman is in charge in Washington," referring to Bush's purported "What, me worry?" attitude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepso (talk • contribs) 16:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Poetry parodies
My favorite part of the mag has always been the MAD poetry parodies ("I wandered lonely as a clod" etc.). They are priceless and I think they deserve a much more prominent mention in the article, not just the bare mention they get here!

Tom McCormick 129.93.17.26 (talk) 22:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is the full text of 'Kublai Khan/Irving Khan'

In Levitt Town, did Irving Khan A stately Cape Cod house decree, Where Alph (the sacred Neuman) dwelt, And Nick Fazoole and Olaf Svelt And (even?) Sean MaGee.

There: fifty feet of crab-grass ground, with picket-fence were girdled round; A place for little Milt to play, A port for Irving's Chevrolet.

Just one thing is not of all the very best: You can't tell Irving's place from all the rest!

best wishes, bruce bruce (talk) 10:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Fester Bestertester
How can you have an article about Mad, and not once mention Fester Besterchester (or was it Bestertester ?) and his wife Esther ? Shame on you all ! --89.164.21.28 04:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Could be mentioned in the Don Martin article, perchance. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 11:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

NPOV
The lead section doesn't seem very NPOV to me. "Suffered greatly"? It may be true, but it's hardly neutral. Also, a lead section should summarize what is contained in the article. Nowhere else within the article does it mention anything about a "weak" distributor. --GentlemanGhost 22:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

64.131.199.179 09:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)It's more of a space issue. A full discussion of Gaines' distributor woes and how they came to be would eat up room. And the Leader News story is really about why EC Comics folded, since as we know, Mad went on. Hopefully the edit has reworked things to your satisfaction. Some of the complaints seem slightly pedantic, though. "Suffered greatly" didn't mean the guy had migraine headaches or a twitchy leg, it means his company lost money because of what the other companies did. But I've adjusted the text to cover that, too.

Declining sales/popularity
This article doesn't really mention properly about the magazines decline in popularity, like when it was forced to put advertisements in the magazines and with the advertisements came colour, loss of the actually funny satire and heralded the "gross out" humour that seems to be what the magazine is all about today. Also the article seems to point that the magazine was popular with adults, but I believe it's primary audience was/is teenagers in highschool. The new kids version of mad magazine seems to say that the kids version was made for a younger audience, as if the proper magazine was read by adults. The decline of the magazine isn't "hazy", it's very clear cut. It had a long slow decline up until 1992 where the magazine seemed to sit waiting to die, just like it's publisher did that same year. Then they changed the format to colour, ads and fart jokes in 2001 which was definately a time when the magazine just aint what it used to be. Up until that nail in the coffin though, there still was a clear decline in sales and popularity (ie, sales) JayKeaton 15:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

64.131.199.179 04:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)Readership surveys have shown that adults comprise a sizeable proportion of MAD consumers. The Wikipedia article specifically discusses the circulation figures under Feldstein (both upwards and downwards), the arrival of advertising and the accompanying backlash, a lengthy treatment of the debate over MAD's decline (perceived or real), and various changes in the magazine's creative direction and marketing strategy. Since you think all this is underselling the subject, suggest some specific edits.

I'm sorry today's fart-filled, gross-out MAD displeases you. But at least you'll always have the classic, classy issues of the past, with the Mole using his nose hairs to dig tunnels, or a Don Martin character dancing in a rain of human spit, or new ways for cities to dispose of sidewalk dog turds. Now THAT was adult satire.


 * That was actually satire, back then. JayKeaton 13:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Article comments
Two comments:
 * The article needs more citation notes in order to identify where each bit of information came from. I'd also suggest finding additional references.
 * The images need detailed fair use rationales. (See the "fair use" section on Image:Fritz Bugs Out.jpg as an example of what needs to be written.) (Ibaranoff24 03:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC))
 * I'd also suggest putting the article up for peer review and listing it at requests for copyediting. (Ibaranoff24 03:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC))

Harvey and NPOV
The loudest among those who insist the magazine is no longer funny are typically supporters of Harvey Kurtzman, who had the good critical fortune to leave Mad after just 28 issues, before his own formulaic tendencies became oppressive. This also meant Kurtzman suffered the bad financial timing of departing before the magazine became a runaway success. However, just how much of that success was due to the original Kurtzman template he left for his successor, and how much can be credited to the Al Feldstein system and the depth of the post-Kurtzman talent pool, can be argued without result.

This is probably the farthest from NPOV I've ever seen in a Wikipedia article not related to politics. 'Formulaic tendencies became oppressive' sounds like the kind of thing that would be in a MAD-magazine parody of its own Wikipedia article. 68.148.61.66 (talk) 08:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

GA failed
I have reviewed this article according to the GA criteria and have decided to fail the article at this time. The article does not have enough inline citations for the many facts found throughout the article. The fair use rationales for the images should be expanded upon, as a single sentence or a few words does not adequately explain the rationale for using the copyrighted images. The lead should also be expanded to better summarize the rest of the level. I also think that you should rename the heading "The magazine's impact", to something more descriptive or interesting. Based on these objections, this is enough to fail the article. Once you have addressed these issues and looked over the other criteria, consider renominating again. Let me know on my talk page if you have any questions and if you disagree with this review you can go to Good Article Review. --Nehrams2020 21:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Just reading the above, I feel compelled to comment that I have seen articles awarded GA status with flying colors only to be removed from GA because of the tastes or POV of other editors who disagreed with the original promotion. My advice to those who are actively editing this article is not to bother going for GA as what constitutes a GA article appears to change with the phases of the moon. Just concentrate on doing an article that does justice to the subject matter and that people actually want to read/contribute to. 68.146.47.196 22:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

"It's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide"
FWIW, this phrase appears in the NRBQ song 'Wacky Tobaccy' LorenzoB 04:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * it also appears in a jim morrison drawing

What me worry?
The caption for the alfred E. neuman picture is stupid. It seems like a joke and someone should change that.--Arceus fan 21:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Lengthy list of humor magazines
The edits of December 20 created an excessively large section whose theme (magazines copied MAD) is easy enough to establish without an encyclopedic list. The information therein is of some interest, but not in this context. It should be spun off into its own Wikipage, whether it be "Mad Magazine imitations," "American humor publications," or whatever. Needless to say, it should also be linked back to the "Imitators and Variants" section here.208.120.226.72 (talk) 07:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Mad24.JPG
Image:Mad24.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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Mad30.JPG
Image:Mad30.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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:MAD Taiwan.jpg
Image:MAD Taiwan.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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Irving the cannabis plant or is it Arthur the avocado plant?
In the section "The Magazine's Impact," there's a reference to Irving the cannabis plant that makes frequent background appearances. I vividly recall Arthur the avocado plant popping up here and there, but not Irving. Is there some confusion here possibly? -- joeyharrison 03:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yup. Your correction is correct and has been correctly corrected.208.120.226.72 (talk) 13:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

A couple of missing items
1. Songs, such as "Nose Job" distributed in the magazine as a tear out plastic record.

2. The early (1960s)computer language compiler, the Michigan Algorithm Decoder (MAD), would print a line-printer rendition of Alfred E. Neuman at the end of the user's program listing if that program was found to contain errors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.79.188.116 (talk) 02:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yeah?
"April, 1954 issue"? Cover date or month of release? "many Mad articles were illustrated in strict accordance with Kurtzman's detailed layouts"? Did Kurtzman actually do layouts & have inkers do the finished art, or did he just carefully describe what he wanted? I don't picture the likes of Wally Wood being nothing more than a Kurtzman inker... TREKphiler  hit me ♠  07:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required
This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 17:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Done - it is close but there is a real need for some important statements to be sourced. For example the paragraph starting "Following Gaines's death, Mad became more ingrained within the Time Warner corporate structure." Needs 3 or 4 references. As I say it isn't a big problem so it should be easy enough to sort out. I'll keep an eye on the article and bump it back up when things improve. (Emperor (talk) 18:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC))

Blecch?
Blecch redirects here, but there is no appearance of Blecch in the article. Can somebody explain or remove the redirect? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.182.202.60 (talk) 12:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Eight times a year - from when to when?
Had a little quibble here about when, precisely, Mad went to eight issues a year, and when it moved on from an eight-issue-a-year schedule. 208 had it 1959 to 2003. I said it was in fact 1958 (the first issue to go to the schedule was dated December 1958) to 1994 (the last issue on the schedule was dated January 1994). 208 reverted saying that the January 1994 issue was in fact published in 1993, though he also reverted the 1958 to 1959 even though that issue was clearly published in 1958. So I switched it back saying the dates on the cover were quite clear.

Seemingly agreeing that 1958 was correct, 208 nevertheless put 1993 back as, and I see the argument, the January 1994 issue (which I said was the last "8" issue) actually came out in 1993. Trouble was, the source for all this was a fan site which listed the issues by year, and it seemed to the casual observer that, indeed, 1994 had nine issues while 1993 saw eight.

However, I decided to go to the source, so I dug out the actual issues and, indeed, the first mention that MAD was publishing eight times a year came in the December, 1958 issue, as it changed from a bi-monthly schedule. However if one counts from November, 1958, NINE issues actually came out despite the fact MAD only published 6 or 8 times a year over that span. And, when I checked the end of the 8-time-a-year schedule, I was surprised to see that in fact that happened not in early 1994 as I had assumed, but in mid-1995. As with 1958, when the publishing schedule changed, an "extra" issue came out owing to that change. But it was still 8x a year, until June 1995. The confusion arises because, for whatever reason, mad was monthly AND bimonthly from early 1994 until May 1995, there being four bi-monthly issues, and four monthly issues. From June 1995, there were THREE bi-monthly issues, and SIX monthly issues, which within a short span became 12 monthly issues. Canada Jack (talk) 02:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Indicia info appears for legal/mailing reasons. And as you discovered yourself (Nov & Dec '58, May & June '95), it isn't always precisely up-to-date.
 * Your edit says that the 8-issue schedule "lasted until 1995," but the cover dates bely this assertion. 1994-95 was a transition out of the schedule, not a continuation of it.  Until 1994, MAD had never released nine issues in a calendar year.  Before the March/April 1994 issue (#326), MAD hadn't published an issue cover-dated "Month/Month" since #8 of the comic book.
 * Also, the transitional schedules differed. In 1995, MAD released a January/February issue, but in 1994, there'd been separate January and February issues.  In 1995, there were separate July and August issues; in 1994, there'd been a single July/August issue.
 * 1993 was the 35th and last of MAD's identical Jan/Mar/Apr/Jun/Jul/Sep/Oct/Dec years. Its publishing schedule wouldn't be stablilzed again until the March 1996 issue.  The indicia you cite show this with their "monthly except for" wording.
 * The most critical factor in determining how many issues came out in a year would be, well, how many issues came out in a year. Though the June '95 issue was the first to cite itself as a "monthly" in 4-pica indicia print, they'd already released an issue dated May 1995, one month earlier.  I can't help but think that an actual, physical issue would trump a postal notation.
 * For all of these reasons, the most sensible thing is to go by the calendar, and the issues per year. It's also the most intuitive.  People differ as to whether the cover date (4-6 weeks postdated) or the literal on-sale date should be the standard.  But in this particular case, it doesn't matter whether we count a January issue of MAD as belonging to January or having been a December release, because the dates counterbalance at the other end of the year, and come out the same.208.120.7.152 (talk) 06:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, even if your reasoning is correct, as you acknowledge, the "indicia" info is out by merely a month. The real issue here is: Do we go by what the primary source says - i.e. Mad Magazine itself; or do we apply a rationale which, it would seem, exists only from the editor supplying the rationale?

You call it a "transition" out of an 8-issue schedule. In fact, 1994 saw change from a "monthly except these months" to a "monthly except bimonthly for these months" schedule, and THAT schedule changed in 1995 - whether it was May or June. Something similar happened in 1958/9 - during the shift from bi=monthly to 8x a year, if you go strictly by cover date, there was a point where NINE issues came out within the year, yet Mad never was a "9-issues-annually" publication (at least, not till 1995...). So, using your logic, we should ignore what Mad itself said (semi-monthly to 8 issues in '58-'59) and state "Mad went from a six-issues a year schedule, to a nine-issues a year schedule, to an 8-issues a year schedule." This, of course, defies common sense. During a transition of publishing schedules, there is bound to be some overlap. My initial error was assuming this occurred with the February 1994 issue. But I was wrong about the transition there - there weren't additional issues per year, the months that the schedule ran on changed. Hence your understandable confusion.

So, 1994 seems to be the start of a nine-issue schedule. But, if one starts to count from the Mar/Apr 1994 issue, one finds that, in a year EIGHT issues were coming out. The same is true from the May 1994 issue, and the June 1994 issue. It is only when you start counting from the September 1994 issue that there are NINE issues per year at that point.

But, as I said above, while these arguments are fine and dandy, here at wikipedia, we have to go by the sources. And thus far, I see no source for your contention other than a listing of the issues in question and your extrapolation of that raw information. In contrast, instead of simply arguing this, I went to the source. And I reproduced what the source says. And when one looks at the issuing schedule, once you are over the confusion about the initial overlao, it is obvious "9" started in 1995.

But, in the end, your approach is flawed as it is original research. Cheers. Canada Jack (talk) 16:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * A final note here, and this should drive the final nail into the coffin of your argument, 208, sad to say. I took the liberty of checking the issues in question and seeing when each issue actually went on sale. The February 1994 issue, #325, went on sale Dec. 28. The first issue to hit the newsstands in 1994 was the March/April issue, #326 on sale Feb. 8. The last issue to go on sale during 1994 was the Jan/Feb 1995 issue, #333, on sale Dec. 20. So count it up, and for the calendar year 1994, only EIGHT issues came out. All that changed was that some issues were now double-monthed: There weren't actually nine issues coming out until 1995. And, in the Statement of Ownership, dated Sept 27, 1994, and appearing in the Jan/Feb 1995 issue, under "number of issues published annually," we see the number "8."


 * As for 1996 being when monthly issues started, you have a better case. The first issue to say in the agate that Mad was a monthly was the January 1997 issue. The Statement of Ownership is in that issue, dated September 20 1996, and states that at that date (as the October issue was hitting the stands) Mad was a monthly, except for a Jan/Feb issue, and issued 11 times a year. However, when one looks at when the issues started to actually appear at pretty well 30-day intervals that seems to be with the August 1996 issue, where issues were out around the 20th of each month previous to the issue month, give or take a week or so. Further, even if I want to press that the January 1997 issue was the "first" true monthly, it was out at the end of 1996. So, if we are not more specifid than "1996" on that count, we are probably on solid ground. Canada Jack (talk) 02:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I hate to pop out of the coffin when it's not even Halloween. But your last bit of logic pushes your scheduling premise BACK to 1993.  If you're going to hang your "eight issues in 1994" case on a December 28th on-sale date for #325, then that means that nine issues were released in 1993.  The on-sale-in-1993 string runs from #317 (March '93) through #325 (Feb. '94).  Do you really want the article to say that MAD's eight-issue schedule ended in 1992?
 * I'm sure there's a very simple wording to be found here. I don't want to start a shooting war over something so esoteric.  But it would be nice if your future edits were more surgical in nature; in simply undoing my last one, you also deleted a series of ref's, and restored a broken link.  But I'll wait until you've had a chance to respond before doing anything further.208.120.7.152 (talk) 17:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Good one... Strangely apt these days as one of my heroes, Lux Interior just died. Actually, you are wrong about the March release date - that issue would have been released right at the end of 1992. In general, the March issue would come out in the last week of the year, or the first week of the new year. So, strictly speaking, starting in 1959, there'd be either 7, 8 or 9 issues released per calendar year up to and including 1994. All that really happened with the date changes in 1994 was the months on the covers were moved up to be closer to the actual issue date. So the "February" issue in 1994 was released when, in the past, the "March" issue was released, right at the end of the year. That is what I am saying was going on here - the cover dates were changed, but there were no extra issues, which is borne out by counting how many issues actually came out in 1994. I believe I read somewhere that Bill Gaines deliberately had a way-out date on the covers so as to ensure retailers wouldn't pull any "stale" issues which were in fact the current issue. If I am not mistaken, the first issue of Mad came out in July or August, cover date October. But he died in 1992 and the new publisher changed things, perhaps to conform to the standards of DC comics.

You are right, it is rather esoteric. But it is especially confusing because Mad, for whatever reason, moved the cover dates up to more closely match the release date, starting with the February 1994 issue. But only 8 issues came out that year and that fact is verified by looking at the actual release date, the Statement of Ownership for that year and the agate. And that is as close to the source as we've got here. To be accurate, as we strive to be here at wikipedia, we best go to the source and not extrapolate from a secondary fansite as you have. It's not as cut-and-dried as you have it. So, all we need to say is that the 8-issue-per-year schedule ended in 1995 as that is what Mad itself said. We shouldn't second-guess a primary source unless there is a very strong reason to do so. And I don't see the reason here. Canada Jack (talk) 23:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Irving Khan, by Samuel Taylor Coolman

 * In Levitt-Town did Irving Khan a Stately Cape Cod House decree!
 * Where Alf, the sacred Neumann, dwelt and Nick Fazool and Olaf Svelt and (even) Shawn McGee,
 * There, fifty feet of crab-grass ground with picket-fence were girdled round,
 * A place for little Milt to play; a port for Irving's chevrolet,
 * Just one thing is not of all the very best!
 * You can't tell Irving's place from all the rest — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miletus (talk • contribs) 22:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

No example of the (in)famous "25 (Cheap)" (the "(Cheap)").
Back in the 50's, back when *I* read the magazine, on the cover, just after the price was this: "(Cheap)".

Clearly, whoever participated in creating this wiki-article didn't know that, wasn't reading it back then, because you just couldn't miss it, it stood right out.

Clearly, before changing anything, someone's got to verify this with maybe several people of somewhere near my age (67) who read it back then -- or maybe simply call the magazine and ask, and get them to email you pictures of several issues that showed the "(cheap)" thing.

I think that even when it went to 50-cents it kept that suffix, "(cheap)".

Maybe when in attendance at some meeting with at least some attendees old enough to have read it in the 50's, at question time stand up and ask THE AUDIENCE what, if anything, on the front cover immediately followed the price.

Or act like a beggar on the subway, and walk through from car to car, LOUDLY asking in each one "anyone read MAD Magazine in the 50's or early 60's?" Yes? Well, I'm trying to verify something -- what words, if any,always immediately followed the front-cover price?

Follow through on this somehow, and you'll improve the page.

(I assume that my comment here is NOT the first one to appear here!)

CHEERS!

David

PS: Having never edited a wiki-article, and having just "registered" a few minutes ago, I'm just notifying you of this (cheap) thing, and letting someone else fix it, if interested.

D.

Dkcombs (talk) 22:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:LEDE
Do we really need all the critical acclaim in the opening paragraphs? Seems unbelievably biased to me. 144.124.220.251 (talk) 19:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Fixed by moving it down to "Influence". Pepso2 (talk) 18:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you, kind sir! 144.124.220.251 (talk) 16:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

When did MAD start to go downhill?
Quote from page: The magazine's art director, Sam Viviano, has suggested that historically, Mad was at its best "whenever you first started reading it." That's true, but only because it's been going downhill ever since the early 60s. It simply isn't MAD anymore. "Lighter side of life" is OK, but it would not be out of place in Reader's Digest. Eric155 (talk) 07:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I dunno about that. Viviano is probably correct. I think Mad was at its best in the early 70s, its satire far more biting than it was in the 60s... then National Lampoon came along and Mad started to decline... and I started to read the magazine regularly... in 1972. Canada Jack (talk) 14:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

In other words... the quote is probably tongue-in-cheek but also is probably accurate and therefore should stay. Canada Jack (talk) 14:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * An over-eager editor is removing this material. In my view, it is relevant and should stay. We therefore have a difference of opinion. The onus is therefore on the other editor to establish why this is not suitable for this page. Canada Jack (talk) 19:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Yairs, the History Section of this page DOES reveal someone who seems to have too much time on their hands... The alleged decline of MAD has been going on for so long it parallels that of the Roman Empire. Today, there is probably no more discussed aspect of the magazine, in the media and elsewhere, than that theme. I would argue then that, as the subject is one that is discussed by "reputable third parties", there is a good case for saying my remarks, and yours, Canada Jack, are germaine to this encyclopedia and this page. Eric155 (talk) 05:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If we were simply debating when the decline started, the editor with the condescending, schoolmarmy approach might have had a point. Instead, when I noted that I am an experienced editor, he/she took that as some sort of personal attack (!) instead of a polite way of saying I have enough experience here to determine whether a discussion is out of bounds. He/she shut down the conversation on their page, suggested again I did't know what I am talking about, and told me to "buzz off." It was truly bizarre.


 * In terms of this page, if the quote was as trivial as you suggest, then it should be removed. But my experience mirrors the quote and others say the same thing, so the quote is non-trivial and should stay. Canada Jack (talk) 03:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Relevant page history
Some old page history that is relevant to this article can be found at Crazy, Sick and Cracked. Graham 87 10:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Links
The "Idiotical" link is an official Mad/DC website that is maintained by the magazine's editors. Madcoversite.com is one of two independent sites whose data have been cited by the magazine. The Mad Kids link is dead. The Pinkwater link is also dead, but has been replaced with a working version. The previous edit inadvertantly restored these non-working links.108.27.220.251 (talk) 16:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Mad or MAD?
The title on the magazine is "MAD," and it's called "MAD" on the official website at http://www.dccomics.com/mad/. But this article calls it "Mad." Should this be changed? Alden Loveshade (talk) 21:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

MAD not Mad the sequel
I made a suggestion almost a month ago (see Talk:Mad_(magazine)/Archive_1) and no one's answered it, so here's a follow-up. MAD magazine is called MAD, not Mad, on its cover and the official MAD website at http://www.dccomics.com/mad/. Note the links at the bottom of the official site have links for DC, MAD (all caps), and Blackfest Night, Brightest Day, DC Kids, etc. (not all caps). Also note it is specifically called MAD Magazine on its cover at http://www.amazon.com/Absolutely-MAD-Magazine-50-Years/dp/B000HKMQ64I. It says "Every Issue of MAD Magazine on 1 DVD-ROM!" on the bottom left of the cover. In addition, Wikipedia already has http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MADtv for MADtv. I will redirect the article to MAD (magazine) unless I'm given a very good reason not too. Alden Loveshade (talk) 20:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Featured article
What happened to this as a featured article candidate? Is there a record of the proceedings somewhere? --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Advertising
I picked up a recent issue of Mad and there was no advertising in it. Perhaps there's something to add to the article about this? I'll look into it, but if someone else is more in the know than I am, please... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.60.254 (talk) 21:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Zionism and political indoctrination
Mad fulfilled a pivotal role, giving teenagers a political education over their breakfast cornflakes. This is an important aspect of the mag. New Statesman. 92.40.255.5 (talk) 18:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Mad (magazine) → MAD (magazine) – I made a suggestion in August and September 2011 (see Talk:Mad_(magazine)/Archive_1) and no one's answered it, so here's a follow-up. MAD magazine is called MAD, not Mad, on its cover and the official MAD website at http://www.dccomics.com/mad/. Note the bottom of the official site has links for DC, MAD (all caps), and Blackfest Night, Brightest Day, DC Kids, etc. (not all caps). Do a Google or Yahoo image search for "mad magazine," and you'll see cover after cover that has "MAD" not "Mad." In addition, Wikipedia already has MADtv. Therefore I am requesting that Mad (magazine) be moved to MAD (magazine) with of course the automatic redirect. Alden Loveshade (talk) 05:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose – As a matter of style WP does not set such things as all-caps, except some acronyms. See MOS:CAPS and MOS:TM.  Dicklyon (talk) 06:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Dicklyon. Seems like more of a typographic convention than an actual name difference.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  06:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The Wall Street Journal gives the subject as "Mad Magazine." Kauffner (talk) 10:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Using all capital letters in an ongoing text would suggest "Mad" is an acronym. Is it? I think not. It's just the way it is spelled on the cover of the magazine. Paved with good intentions (talk) 00:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Dicklyon. MOS:TM shows great examples of other trademarks, Time (magazine) and Kiss (band), that the trademark owner considers to be in all caps but are not listed that way on Wikipedia which follows standard English capitalization rules.  GoneIn60 (talk) 19:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

trademarked as MAD
In view of the discussion on moving this article to MAD (magazine) which pointed out how Time (magazine) is handled, I added "(trademarked in capitals as MAD)." Time also has a note "(trademarked in capitals as TIME)." The Kiss (band) article has the note "(often stylized as KISS)." Alden Loveshade (talk) 21:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Darnold Duck
The mention of 'Darnold Duck' links to 'DONALD duck', which could well be confusing or irrelevant to someone in today's world. I propose eliminating the link. LorenzoB (talk) 18:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Top Importance?
There's a discussion on which comic-related articles should be listed as "Top Importance" on the importance scale, and I feel this article should not be included. If any user disagrees or wishes to contribute, please do so there. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Mad vs MAD
Is there a reason that the article refers to "Mad" with initial cap only rather than "MAD" in all caps? Most of their own references use MAD (e.g. https://www.facebook.com/pages/MAD-Magazine/115919138428537 http://www.madmagazine.com/blog/2012/03/30/it%E2%80%99s-no-joke-mad-magazine-ipad-app-to-be-released-on-april-fool%E2%80%99s-day-alfred-e ) Though they aren't always consistent, they usually refer to themselves as MAD. I didn't want to start a wholesale edit of this page if this has already been hashed out, but I don't see any talk about anything here. Srnelson (talk) 17:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

A 2015 article on Mad Magazine with an empty talk page repeatedly flushed by a bot?
Something, or someone seems wrong. O0drogue0o (talk) 10:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Mad (magazine). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120107050358/http://www.fantagraphics.com:80/browse-shop/the-sincerest-form-of-parody-the-best-1950s-mad-inspired-satirical-comics-dec.-2011-8.html to http://www.fantagraphics.com/browse-shop/the-sincerest-form-of-parody-the-best-1950s-mad-inspired-satirical-comics-dec.-2011-8.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:20, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Mad (magazine). 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://toonopedia.com/mad.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:01, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Foreign Editions Subsections
I don't understand the point of having "Foreign Editions as of 2016" and "Past foreign editions" subsections. All editions are "as of" the current date, and all editions are "past (foreign or domestic) editions" as of the current date. Further, these sections are poorly-referenced. pellea72 (talk) 06:44, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Al Jaffee -- June 2020
Alas, one of the few remaining Usual Gang of Idiots, Al Jaffee, left the Magazine finally at age 99 in June of 2020. Sergio Aragonés is still doing work, but I can't see any other Usual Gang of Idiots working. It's a damn shame, MAD Magazine for the past 30 years has been crap though the latest issues have rare gems.

Any way it might be nice of the extant article has a section of who is still currently working on MAD Magazine. Most of the old timers have either died or they have hung up their crayons. SoftwareThing (talk) 00:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Al Jaffee 100 years old
Al Jeffee still gets art work in MAD Magazine at age 100, he was born March 13, 1921 SoftwareThing (talk) 01:55, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

"The outside revenue allowed the introduction of color printing and improved paper stock."
Could be mentioned that Bill Gaines always insisted on non-glossy semi-newspapery paper stock... AnonMoos (talk) 23:59, 17 May 2021 (UTC)