Talk:Cracked (magazine)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NPOV[edit]

Are Wikipedia Articles really supposed to say words like "blatantly aped" and "dumb, wide-jowled"? 84.216.44.15 (talk) 17:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly shouldn't say "blatantly raped" so I reverted it to "blatantly aped".
76.241.75.79 (talk) 00:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think "blatantly aped" is very neutral either. In fact, the article is pretty well referenced, but it seems to be written in quite a pro-Mad/anti-Cracked tone. I added a "biased" tag to the page for now, and when I have some spare time, I'll try to re-write some of the more biased sections. 123.211.141.151 (talk) 10:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Jay Pinkerton quote at end of article[edit]

I'm Jay Pinkerton, and I'm not entirely comfortable with the quote being used at the tail end of this article. It was said in the heat of passion, is grossly out of context, and is not factually accurate. Moreover, it was taken from a private thread in a forum. I'm really not comfortable at all with it being taken as a direct quote -- not only could it compromise my job, it's simply not true. If you'd like to contact me for a quote, I'd be happy to oblige.

Source for Brodsky editorship?[edit]

For the entry I've written on Sol Brodsky, I've been scouring both online and offline sources, including the in-depth tribute feature that's the cover story of Marvel Age #22 (Jan. 1985), and I'm unable to find anything about him being an editor of Cracked. Where did this info come from? I'd love to cite it in the Brodsky article, but only confirmably. Thanks! - Tenebrae 06:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And of course, I found a citation shortly afterward. D'oh! I'll add it to the articles. - Tenebrae 07:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC) U SUCK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.185.183.43 (talk) 04:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mad vs. Cracked[edit]

I never understood the hype surrounding MAD. I only read Cracked as a kid in the 80's. Cracked seemed way more funny than MAD, and the art was beautiful, courtesy of Severin. I hope they release all the issues on disc some day, as I missed out on many from the late 80's through the 90's.

Wikipedia is not a place to give opinions. -- user:zanimum

Well, Cracked was always the perfect magazine for the type of mentality that couldn't understand the hype about MAD. You made the correct choice. MAD is funny but i dont know about cracked it seems like they made cracked 6 years later after MAD if u dont agree then U SUCK. THEND —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.185.183.43 (talk) 04:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Todd v. Sarhan[edit]

Any source for the "Mort may not have liked being a freelancer and answering to editors..." quote?

Or is it just an inside apologist for Monty Sarhan, being touchy about bad publicity, or settling a score?

Sarhan "went on to state" nothing. The "juvenile subject matter" remarks were not part of his original response.

This section currently contains a self-reference, in the phrase "appeared in this Wikipedia article..."
-- nae'blis (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, to (so to speak) refer to WP "in the 3rd person". (For anyone confused by this matter, the point is that WP:GFDL is intended to promote copying, with and without modification, and phrases like "this article" become false when excerpted, or when kept in someone's modification of the article in question. See WP:SELF.)
--Jerzy•t 17:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed this entire section. It seems entirely un-encyclopedic.

MAD is funny but i dont know about cracked it seems like they made cracked 6 years later after MAD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.185.183.43 (talk) 04:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

International Editions[edit]

In Brazil (where Mad has been very sucessful), there was a short-lived run of Cracked, named "Pancada". Should this be added to the article? Has anyone got any info on other international editions of Cracked? Chester br 19:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling/title query[edit]

Why, of all the magazines that spell their names in capital letters on their covers, are only MAD and CRACKED spelled all-caps? Was there some consensus on this? Or did somebody just start these that way and other contributors followed suit? For what reasons are these two titoes capped but not other magazines'?
- Tenebrae 15:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because both of those publications also always spell their names in all-caps when in regular sentence-prose, not just on the cover.
JesseRafe 00:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a sufficient reason, for two reasons:
  1. It's (just) an advertising gimmick, and
  2. it's contrary to normal civilized typography.
I believe the question has been settled several times in the case of bands and albums, along the lines implied by the spirit of #WP:NAME#Album titles and band names, but it is also clear from the most elementary principle at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names), "Use the most common name of a person or thing": what the employees do is irrelevant, what matters is what most people do, and you don't need to take a survey to know that both training and the extra effort of finding the rarely used caps-lock key (or hand-writing capitals) keeps most people from doing it. It's not so clear that most people are thotful enuf to realize (and specifically take into account in their writing) that lower case developed for a reason, which is to permit caps to be reserved for specific, attention-getting purposes:
  1. Marking the start of a unit of thot (a sentence).
  2. Distinguishing Dick Handler from a dick handler (since proper names are so diverse that they often duplicate common nouns, with great confusion potential.
  3. SHOUTING. (Sorry, i wasn't really trying to be rude.)
But what has been cited by JR above is called a commercial affectation, and we remove such things when things are going well. (And they're going well today.)
--Jerzy•t 18:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, for Pete's sake, it's a maZaGine, not a magazine[edit]

Since when is CRACKED a "magazine"? I never picked up an issue that wasn't titled "CRACKED Mazagine". Until I was 12 I was absolutely certain that that was how you spelled "magazine".

Since the current state of CRACKED is so dismal, perhaps more background on its glory days would be nice. Whatever became of Amos T. Svboda, whose cranky missives often appeared in the "Lettuce Column"? Did he grow up to be Weekly World News' Ed Anger?

And if anyone knows a thing or two about Bill Ward's Nanny Dickering, that might make a good addition to the article too. Was the character his own or did he inherit her, for instance? -- previously unsigned comment by 66.52.193.169.

You are right - so I went ahead and corrected the article. --Gbeeker 03:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also curious as to why it's listed as a deliberate mispelling. Just because it's all caps?

Self-serving edits[edit]

64.131.196.248 14:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)*1. Save the "destination site" language for your ad pitches. The same goes for the attractive target demographic, what Monty says you won't find in other magazines, the glossy paper, the big big page count, etc. All that promo copy can be found in the links at the bottom of the page. "Wikipedia is not a vehicle for propaganda and advertising." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not[reply]

  • 2. Despite the unmitigated evil that was Dick "Satan" Kulpa, and despite the fact that the magazine was already on the decline, Cracked *did* suffer distribution woes under AMI.
  • 3. Cracked NEVER had a circulation that was half of Mad's. You may be conflating annual circulation with per-issue circulation; Cracked was a monthly, compared with Mad's 8-times-per-year schedule. The National Lampoon never hit 50% of Mad's per-issue circulation, for instance, and the Lampoon sold better than Cracked. Forty years' worth of Mad's average per-issue sales are readily available online. Some of Cracked's sales totals can also be found; those that are available suggest that the "one-third" estimation is, if anything, overly fair to Cracked.
  • 4. When a publisher gets into a public pissing match with a former editor-in-chief, it's significant. "Edited maliciously"? This Wikipedia page was previously edited in Sarhan's name, using some of the same phraseology as Sarhan's later public rejoinder, by an anonymous IP that also took an interest in burnishing Sarhan's Wikipedia page... odd coincidence, that. In any event, Sarhan gets about three times the say of Todd. I did delete the Wikiquote since it was more or less repeated in Sarhan's official reply.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.131.296.248 (talk • contribs) 09:26, 18 September 2006.

Current round of edits[edit]

64.131.196.248 19:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)Some of RXStrangelove's questions are answered within the very Comics Journal link he just put there: "Weekly World News was owned by American Media Inc., which had just acquired The Globe and, with it, Cracked magazine...Cracked had been awkwardly dropped into AMI's lap as a result of the Globe acquisition, and the tabloid publisher didn't immediately have any idea what to do with a low-circulation humor magazine for kids. Cracked Associate Editor Bobbie Bender told the Journal, "Cracked just came along for the ride with The Globe."...Barry Dutter, who had been writing freelance for Cracked since 1996, told the Journal, "One thing you have to realize is that AMI never wanted Cracked; it was just part of a package they bought from Globe Communications."[reply]

As for some of the other edits, is it *possibly* a matter of dispute that Cracked was a deliberate copy of Mad, down to very particular details? C'mon, fellas.

I don't have any questions, I was just taking off uncited assertions. If you have some more power to you. But things like "most successful imitator" need some sort of cite. By the way, the enjolrasworld.com link doesn't work and I didn't see anything to do with imitation. Rx StrangeLove 21:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

64.131.196.248 06:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)Dear RXS: I fixed the broken link; thanks for the catch. There are quotes about Cracked's "Mad ripoff" status within this very article, both from former Cracked editor Mort Todd, and the media site Gawker.com. Editor Terry Bisson talks about the company's reliance on "lowball imitations." If the unverified nature of saying Cracked copied Mad still troubles you, try one of these links, from comics professionals and others: http://www.newsfromme.com/archives/2006_08_16.html http://www.hembeck.com/FredSez/FredSezMarch2004.htm http://www.marketingblurb.com/parody/ http://www.blowingsmokethemovie.com/archives/2006/08/cracked_is_back.php I found those urls very quickly, but they seem unneeded to me. The Wikipage on The Beatles claims that the band continues to be held in "the highest esteem" since their breakup; despite the page's editing attention and the lack of citation, the assessment has stood. The New York Yankees page makes the unsupported assertion that the franchise has been among baseball's "most storied" teams. Considering that Cracked's own website makes reference to its incarnation as a Mad ripoff, I wouldn't sweat this point.[reply]

I'm not going to either but as a general point we try and match the best article writing and not the mediocre...if there's something wrong with the Beatles article you should try and fix that and not bring this one down to meet it's standards. Rx StrangeLove 06:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Information About Cracked.com[edit]

I'd imagine that some, if not most, of the people coming to this Wikipedia entry now are coming for information on the current incarnation of Cracked, which is a fairly popular humor website called Cracked.com. That's why I came initially and there's only a few sentences about the site amidst a sea of back and forth bickering about the direction of the magazine (which I'm pretty sure doesn't even exist any longer).

I was interested to learn that its history goes back as far as it does but there is just entirely too much detail about feuds between Editors, etc. Over the next couple of days, I'm going to make some minor edits to this entry. I will do my best to keep in tact the relevant information that is currently here, while adding as much sourced information about the website as I can gather.

Is that agreeable to everyone? Does anyone have any advice as to how to go about making these changes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bishopsayles (talk • contribs) 00:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Information about editorial bickering and past directions is included on many magazine articles at Wikipedia when it's relevant, including Mad. In the particular Todd/Sarhan example, the dueling comment war even spilled over to Wikipedia, with either Sarhan himself or a supporter leaving a statement on this page. That anonymous Wikicomment has long been deleted, mostly because it's been replicated by more attributable remarks which are essentially similar. While the dueling personality issue was a little bitchy, the dispute also sheds light on two different eras and philosophies of the magazine and is thus quite useful. It's certainly more enlightening than the series of editorial hires in 2005-06, although I wouldn't suggest that those be dropped. I've eliminated and/or toned down some of the promotional puffery about ostensible internet acclaim and user demographics and such; Onion.com is a more prominent online humor site, and you won't see the same kind of advertising on its Wikipedia page. You made a shrewd catch in noticing that the company's primary venue, Cracked.com, was being underplayed in the article. Your additions to the intro, and a full Cracked.com section at the end were excellent.208.120.226.72 19:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK this makes sense. I thought the stuff about Todd vs. Sarhan sounded less encyclopedic than the new hire stuff, but I see your point about it being an area of interest regarding philosophies and two different eras. Regarding the promotional puffery, I was using Collegehumor.com's page as a model, though the Onion is probably a better example since Collegehumor's page reads like a press release. Thanks for your help and feedback on this matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bishopsayles (talk • contribs) 19:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:365COV1 250.png[edit]

Image:365COV1 250.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images 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) 05:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are the articles on cracked.com for real?[edit]

Are they?89.249.0.170 (talk) 05:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.211.244.122 (talk) 17:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biased[edit]

Who else agrees this article is to biased against cracked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.161.36 (talk) 21:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the same. Over time I'll cleanup some of the worst excesses. Nonamer98 (talk) 03:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In its current incarnation I believe the tone of the article reflects statements made over the years by Cracked's editors and writers. This seems clear in the way the information is presented. It is also consistent with Cracked's current descriptions of itself (see above comments), e.g. an obviously satirical but entirely relevant article by assistant editor Dan O'Brien.[1]Sainge.spin (talk) 04:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may be just me, but the entire entry seems to be slightly derogatory in tone. If I had no prior knowledge of Cracked, I'd think that it was a terrible and floundering brand. I don't feel that enough has been said about, in particular, its success as a website. Their articles average millions of views, and their series "Agents of Cracked" won a Streamy; yet, none of this was mentioned. As Cracked currently exists mainly as a website, I'd say that that's information that should be included. The history is interesting and all, but at this point, it's just that: history. 64.180.144.26 (talk) 08:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Cracked officially starts feeling sorry for MAD magazine

Article split[edit]

Given the very different nature of the two endeavors, I feel this article needs to be split into Cracked (magazine) and Cracked.com. Despite their connection, they are really separate entities and should not be squeezed together like this. Rhindle The Red (talk) 15:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Upfront disclaimer: I am primary author of an article about a Cracked.com columnist who was brought in early on by Jack O'Brien. I would resist the split because the history of the magazine has had considerable influence on the site and leads to a more complete picture/understanding of the launch and evolution of Cracked.com. However, I can't offer any secondary sources to support this.Sainge.spin (talk) 04:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. They're both worthy of coverage, but so different in content that they really each deserve their own page.76.226.222.223 (talk) 03:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cracked.com section edit[edit]

Cracked.com is owned by Demand Media. I think this info is quite relevant, especially given demand media's business model, and I intend to make the change if there are no objections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericfive (talk • contribs) 14:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree absolutely. Thank you for the addition of this info.Sainge.spin (talk) 04:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant page history[edit]

Some old page history that is relevant to this article can be found at Crazy, Sick and Cracked. Graham87 10:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Cracked (magazine). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cracked (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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:59, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cracked (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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cracked (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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of films and TV shows spoofed in Cracked?[edit]

Hi, all;

For Mad Magazine, there are Wikipedia pages listing all of the films and TV shows they parodied. Would it make sense to add matching pages for Cracked?

I've already started to draw up those lists, but since I haven't edited Wikipedia before, I thought I'd better float the idea to see whether it's appropriate. I realize this is about as trivial as it gets, and that there may not be sufficient interest to justify it.

Cekman76 (talk) 20:20, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cracked_(magazine)&oldid=1201213477"