Talk:Comics Code Authority
So I moved some info around, added headers, another category, but no new information really. Anyone have more to add on this or does this seem mostly complete as far as amount of information goes, it shows the purpose, history, and "downfall" of the organization. Thoughts? -- EWildman (talk)
- i've got a bit to add. Hold on. MDB (talk) 18:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
It might be worthwhile adding something (here or elsewhere) on the British version of comics censorship which involved the wp:Children and Young Persons (Harmful Publications) Act 1955 and arose out of concerns about comics turning kids into vampire hunters. Annquin (talk) 14:39, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
>On a lighter note, MAD magazine was created out of spite for the CCA.
This isn't exactly true. The conversion of MAD comics to magazine format was prompted by internal disputes between publisher Bill Gaines and writer/editor Harvey Kurtzman. Gaines and Kurtzman disagreed on the direction MAD was taking, particularly after Gaines released Panic as a companion title. Seeking a compromise, Gaines offered to 'upgrade' MAD to a magazine and give Kurtzman full editorial control. This arrangement only lasted one year, as Kurtzman left EC in 1956. However, by that time, the Magazine was outselling most of its competitors and Gaines brought in Al Feldstein to take over editorial chores.
The myth that MAD magazine was created to circumvent the restrictions of the code was popularized by Les Daniels in Comics: A History of Comic Books in America (1971). This was one of a number of historical errors Daniels made in relation to E.C. and the Comics Code Authority. Midnight68 (talk) 08:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
I linked TERF on a forum and got these reader comments:
"i just clicked through a whole bunch of articles in a wikihole episode and i ended up on the comics code authority one and i would like to protest the site's depiction of the CCA as an actual well meaning attempt to forestall government censorship of the industry when it was in fact written largely based on the suggestions of DC to target their stiffest competition"
"Yeah, the comic code was designed to fuck EC Comics with surgical precision."
- That statement could probably be removed until sourced? Speaking of linking to the current TERF article... The perfectionist in me always bites his nails when people are introduced to RW via articles that aren't even bronze rated yet. Still, it pleases me to hear that even unbronzed articles can land people in the RW wiki hole. By the way, whatever happened to your beautiful vision of overhauling that article (as brought up by you on its talkpage)? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
- I saw this same comment. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps it is fair to say that 'infants/new readers' and 'children up to young adult' probably do need some protection from 'unpleasant things' of various kinds: but at some point they should be presented with such things in a 'non-real-life context' so they can understand them without a sense of direct threat. The problem was the CCA seems to have chucked the baby out with the bath water. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 18:33, 19 June 2017 (UTC)