Talk:National Lampoon (magazine)

Magazines Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines 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.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Comedy High‑importance

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy 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.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled and unsigned post

Sorry, the "Bored of the Rings" section had to be deleted for the simple reason that it wasn't a National Lampoon production, but a Harvard Lampoon one. If you'll notice, the book parody's publication date precedes the first issue of National Lampoon's. The book is mentioned in the "Harvard Lampoon" Wikipedia entry.

parody Film featuring Kerrigan/Harding?

Wasn't there a film National Lampoon released years ago that featured parodies of news headliners, such as Nancy Kerrigan and Tonya Harding (not starring as themselves obviously)? I can recall seeing it, I just can't remember if it was part of National Lampoon's work or not. 63.233.87.199 11:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Interview with Chris Cerf, questions wanted

Got a question for Chris Cerf? He was a contributing editor at National Lampoon in its earliest years. Post your questions before 25 April 2005. -- Zanimum 18:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

>>No mention of 'The Encyclopedia Of Humor'. Tsk tsk. God bless you Chris Miller.

The Middleboro issue of National lampoons story and comics

I am from Middleboro and I slightly remember the story and comics on my home town.I am looking it up for people in my Highschool group that want to see it again.Is there anyone out there that can help me with finding it or atleast send me the artical and cartoon comics of Middleboro.Contact me at truklodyte@yahoo.com

link to a review of lemmings http://www.greenmanreview.com/cd/cd_va_nationallampoon_lemmings.html

Please check the movies

Do all those movies really exist? There's some I've never heard of. I you are familiar, please check. ike9898 18:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They all exist. Some of them went straight to DVD, were only released into the international market or get released to wherever bad "B" movies get released these days. What calls itself National Lampoon is a bunch of moneymen who licence the name to whoever comes along.

National Lampoon was purchased in 1990 by a company called J2 Communications which is a bottom-feader media company that does a little bit of everything. After J2 shut down what used to be National Lampoon, they re-named J2 as National Lampoon Inc.

Does the list contains all movie? I miss Loaded Weapon 1.84.2.144.73 (talk) 16:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

National Lampoon Network and its distribution

I removed some information from the article including the claim that the TV network is distributed to 600 colleges. The real number is far less. The numbers have been inflated by running the network in dead timeslots in the middle of the night on obscure cable channels in a number of major cities. And if they run on a particular city/regional cable system, they include every college served by that cable system as their audience. For example, they supposedly are distributed to 53 collegs and universities in California. But the actual number is around nine. They are also generous in terms of what is a college or university. Every ITT technical institute in the country is on the list along with a few chiropractic schools. TV is full of similar exaggeration and these people are not unique in what they are doing. 12.96.162.45 20:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vegas vacation

Hello, WP editor at 86.144.125.223. I'd respectfully disagree with your judgment on the entry for Vegas Vacation on this page.

On Vegas Vacation, the first paragraph notes:

"Vegas Vacation, released in 1997, is the fourth part of the Vacation film series centering around the fictitious Griswold family, following National Lampoon's Vacation, National Lampoon's European Vacation, and National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation. It is also the first film in the series not licensed with the National Lampoon moniker."

In the page's trivia section, it notes:

"Early working titles include National Lampoon's Las Vegas Vacation and National Lampoon's Vegas Vacation"

So although they don't put the words "National Lampoon" into the title, it is definitely a NL film, fourth in the series of NL "Vacation" films, with the same actors playing the same characters as the previous three in the series, and should be included in a comprehensive listing of NL films.

Thanks, - Clicketyclack 10:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

National Lampoon 'True Facts' books

I have several books that purport to be connected to the National Lampoon, such as "National Lampoon Presents More True Facts", 1992. (I can't find the first in the series, which I used to have). I guess they're compilations of the 'True Facts' column in the magazine. Should these books be included on this page? Rob Cranfill 22:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, please do add them. Any National Lampoon "True Facts" books that were first published prior to 1998, should definitely be added to the list in this article. Books that were published after 1998 should not be in this article. Thanks. Invertzoo (talk) 19:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "National Lampoon Inc." section is not appropriate as part of this article

The whole section on "National Lampoon Inc" reads like a thinly-veiled advertisement for the company, which has no connection with the original magazine whatsovever except for owning the brand name. I have attempted to compress this section visually but I am considering tagging it with a warning tag as it seems to be piggy-backing onto a legitimate article for the sole purpose of promoting the interests of the company. Invertzoo (talk) 16:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we perhaps split the section on "National Lampoon Inc." off into another article? It does not seem reasonable to have it combined with the real National Lampoon, with which it shares virtually nothing except for being humor-related and using the same name. Invertzoo (talk) 18:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged the "National Lampoon Inc" sections with advertisement tag and one subsection with a news release tag. I feel that the National Lampoon Inc sections probably do not comply with the WP Notability Guidelines. I also feel strongly that the scope of the "National Lampoon" article should end at the death of the old Lampoon, the point when J2 Publications bought it to use solely as a trademark for hire, and that the new "National Lampoon Inc" should be forced to sink or swim as an article in its own right. Invertzoo (talk) 14:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We could perhaps split this article into one called "National Lampoon (magazine)" and another one called "National Lampoon Inc" which may or may not meet the Notability guidelines.Invertzoo (talk) 18:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested the split on the WikiProject Comedy talk page a month ago, saying I would make the split in a month's time unless there were any objections. There were none, so today I divided the article into National Lampoon magazine and National Lampoon Inc. I plan to add substantially to the National Lampoon magazine article, along with some solid refs. Thanks. Invertzoo (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

National Lampoon's X vs. the standard name

Some of their films have dual names - a brand name and a standard name. Should the brand name redirect to the standard name or should it be vice versa? -Lwc4life (talk) 11:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of things like National Lampoon's Animal House, the "National Lampoon's" part is in reality a genuine part of the title of the movie, so the full name is what we use as the title of the article about the movie. Anyone who searches for "Animal House" is redirected to the article. That's the way it should be. If you come across movies where you are not sure if "National Lampoon" is part of the title or not, then it is worth checking carefully to see what is the case in a good reference, and then use that form. Invertzoo (talk) 19:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 4th March 2008 revert on this article

Hello anonymous new user 76.175.162.123. I have left a couple of messages on your talk page. I see from your IP address that you are in the Los Angeles area. Here, in case it is helpful, is a WP link that explains in some detail about how careful one should be before reverting someone else's work: [1]. If I don't hear from you in a day or two I will revert the piece back to its form before your edit. I should explain that in addition to separating the historical National Lampoon Magazine 'per se' from the modern company National Lampoon Inc, I had done numerous other improvements to the piece, all of which disappeared when you reverted it. As you can see, the article on the historical magazine now has a disambiguation message explaining that it is >only< about the old magazine, and pointing people towards the modern company if that is what they are seeking. The material which you seem to want back in the piece is fully represented in the article about the modern company. It is redundant in this historical context. Please write to me on my talk page or post here if you want to discuss this. Thank you. Invertzoo (talk) 15:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reversing the revert

Today I heard on my talk page from the new user 76.175.162.123 who did the March 4th revert, and who has now apologized. I have put the piece back to the form it was in before the revert, adding on the more recent disambiguation message directing people to the new page when necessary. As a piece about the historical magazine this now fits well into the pre-existing categories "Defunct magazine" and "American magazine". I should point out to any new WP editors reading this, that it is not at all unusual for a piece about a popular topic to end up being split into two separate articles. This is by no means a negative thing: it allows both articles more opportunity for growth and expansion of the topics they cover. Invertzoo (talk) 16:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussing the content of the historical National Lampoon magazine article

This discussion is in answer to some questions that were raised by an anonymous user with the Los Angeles IP address 76.175.162.123, on my talk page [2], about whether or not it was a good idea to separate this article from the other more recent content, which is now at National Lampoon Inc. Firstly, this article is now about the defunct print magazine as it was historically, and those projects that were, at that time, directly part of the magazine's efforts, and which were staffed by its creative staff. The fact that the brand name survives to the present day as a franchise or whatever, is not really relevant to this article. That would be more relevant to the National Lampoon Inc article. Another point is that Matty Simmons was strictly the >business force< behind National Lampoon magazine in those days. He had been in the publishing business for quite a while when he started with National Lampoon. For more information, see his book. Not to minimize his importance as a business person, but back then he was not part of the creative staff of the magazine, or its other historical ventures. As for what he has done more recently, such as what you mention he did in 2006, that is not relevant to this article. As for the general history of the business side of things, as that started to change, as far as I can tell, it is reasonably well outlined in the article, in section "1975 to 1998". The company J2 Communications was certainly in control for a couple of years. As for the line about what happened in 2002 as to how accurate that is, it is important to remember that a lot of the research for this article and the actual writing of it, was carried out by huge numbers of editors before me. I am just one of many. I cannot personally defend the accuracy of every statement in the article. if you have access to an already published reputable source that says otherwise, then that is a different matter. Perhaps you can provide appropriate references, and edit in what you believe is the more accurate modern information. If it is modern it should go into the National Lampoon Inc. article. Invertzoo (talk) 22:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Need expert help" tag

On March 14th, the "need expert help" tag was put in the article by another new anonymous user (with IP address 216.70.132.98). That was done with no edit summary, and with no note on here to explain why it was felt to be appropriate. I wrote to the new user welcoming them and and explaining that without any information, an expert might come over here but will not know what is supposed to be the problem they need to address. I will leave the tag up for a while and then if no explanation is forthcoming, I will delete it. Please write to me if you have any input on this or related ideas. Thanks. Invertzoo (talk) 11:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced two sentences

I replaced a couple of sentences about the "baby boomer drift to the right". First off, it did not seem to be encyclopedic: it appeared to be a personal opinion, which read as if it was original research. Also, the magazine in its heyday had no particular political stance. The main criterion for inclusion of material was how funny it was. Lampoon articles, where they did attack society, attacked wherever hypocrisy and phoniness of any kind was detected. Also, I think any discussion of minor artists or writers for the Lampoon is best left to much further down the article and should be included after the major contributors have been discussed, which as yet, has not been done. Invertzoo (talk) 13:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About Joe Schenkman...

...who was a contributor to the magazine in the 1980s. This info was sent to me (Invertzoo) but I am putting here on the talk page so it is easy to refer to. "Schenkman was involved with the Lampoon for 4-7 years I guess. He got me into doing some work at Marvel circa 1981-82, and I think that would have been around the mid-point of his time at the Lampoon. He was listed as Contributing Editor on the masthead for at least three years (not sure of the dates). Some time around 1983-85 or so he turned over a new leaf and got away from the depravity of cartoons and of life in NYC, took over his uncle's business (Schenkman Books), started a family, and is now also involved in teaching and school administration. Chelydra (talk) 17:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)" There we go. Invertzoo (talk) 19:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:NationalLampoonsDoon.JPG

The image Image:NationalLampoonsDoon.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bored of the Rings

Wasn't Bored of the Rings a National Lampoon product? It isn't listed among the publications. 165.91.65.13 (talk)RKH —Preceding undated comment added 20:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

No, that was created by Harvard Lampoon. Invertzoo (talk) 18:58, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

God comics

Anyone know why that link redirects to this article? There is nothing on the page which refers to it. (Emperor (talk) 15:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Well the magazine in the 70s featured a series of very funny comic strips called "Son-O'-God" Comics by Michel Choquette. I imagine that is what someone was thinking of? Invertzoo (talk) 15:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

National Lampoon Sunday Newspaper Parody

National Lampoon, shortly after they published their yearbook parody, published a newspaper parody. I did not see it mentioned (or I'm blind). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.62.239.10 (talk) 05:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh you mean the very realistic National Lampoon Sunday Newspaper Parody in its original newsprint version. Yes it is missing and I will add it to the list, thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 15:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Point

Changed the caliber designation of famous dog cover. The gun looks to big to be a .38, but can't prove it. Can't disprove either. Removed caliber designation altogether. Tapered (talk) 20:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More info on features please

I remember nostalgically an extremely thorough and funny publication about a Dacron, Ohio School Year Book with timeless jokes. Wish I still had a copy! Why is there no mention of that here? Also, there were so many regular features which should find some inclusion somewhere. There was the eerie Appletons, a family whose dad appeared to be a regular and decent guy but was a secret sadist. I feel that this cartoon, with its black humour, influenced an entire genre of dysfunctional family comedies and dramas (possibly including "The Stepfather"). And there was the inimitable and unforgettable Trots and Bonnie, with the girl and her dog involved in titillating but somehow not tacky adventures. And so many more, some totally outrageous, others erotic, others surreal and spacey, many with unforgettable artwork. It would be great to see a comprehensive list of these creations, together with details on those who created them, and as many samples as can be legally downloaded. National Lampoon's reputation has grown since its demise and will continue to do so. I think that in a couple of decades, it will be regarded as a unique historical force in American humor and mores. With MAD a pale copy of itself, and National Lampoon gone, it sometimes surprises me to realize that there is really no substantial humour mag at all now. That's why I will end by saying that I totally disagree with the Low Importance tag. What humorless person decided that? Myles325a (talk) 05:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the Comedy WikiProject gave the article a "low importance" rating because the article is mostly about the magazine, which is humor (print) rather than comedy (performed). And yes, the school yearbook parody was indeed magnificent, and it is in fact listed here, it is the National Lampoon 1964 High School Yearbook Parody, 1974, Edited by P.J. O'Rourke and Doug Kenney. Yes, I agree with you, I do hope that one day someone will add a lot more details of all the strips that ran in Lampoon such as the Appletons, Trots and Bonnie and so on. Best, Invertzoo (talk) 19:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Magazine project and Comedy project importance ratings?

I took the liberty of changing the importance rating from "low" to "mid". National Lampoon was an extremely influential magazine all during the 1970s. Invertzoo (talk) 20:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also just now took the liberty of changing the importance rating in the Comedy project template from "low" to "mid". National Lampoon was extremely influential on comedy all during the 1970s. One cannot underestimate the importance of the influence of Animal House for example. Invertzoo (talk) 14:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I now upgraded the comedy importance rating to high. I think the history of National Lampoon and its spin-offs certainly rates that. Invertzoo (talk) 14:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Website in infobox?

There is no existing website for this magazine, which died completely in 1998. if you do a google search you can find a website created by a company called National Lampoon, Incorporated, but that company was founded in 2002 and has nothing to do with the magazine except that they are using the name. Please do not link this article to that company's website. Many thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 01:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Liza Minelli lawsuit

I seem to remember that Liza Minelli brought a well-publicized and successful defamation lawsuit against the magazine when they did a parody portraying Juy Garland (Liza's mother) as a drunken lout, which resulted in the almost unprecedented act of the magazine not only publishing a guest column by Minelli refuting the claim, but referring specifically to this on the front page of the magazine. Can anyone substantiate this? Partnerfrance (talk) 16:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Posted 12/13/2018: As I recall, in one of their anniversary issues, Lampoon published a fake message from someone signing herself "Liza Mineli," saying, "My momma would have loved you guys if she hadn't OD'd in the crapper!" Liza Minnelli sued for defamation of her own character (not for defaming Judy Garland, since you can't get a judgment against someone for defaming the dead). NatLamp contended that by misspelling her name, they had made it clear that this was parody, and not an actual letter from the Liza Minnelli. It's doubtful that Minnelli could have gotten a substantial judgment against NatLamp, but they reached a compromise by which NatLamp informally apologized and gave Minnelli space in the magazine to chew them out. I remember reading her letter, that NatLamp published. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.152.160.252 (talk) 01:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

I propose that National_Lampoon, Incorporated be merged into National Lampoon (magazine). I think that the content in the National Lampoon Inc. article can easily be explained in the context of the original National Lampoon, and the original National Lampoon article is of a reasonable size that the merging of National Lampoon Inc. will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. 104.174.62.253 (talk) 07:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This whole question was very thoroughly discussed some years ago. The new company has no relationship with the old magazine and its direct spin-offs except for using the name. The two articles are better kept separate. Invertzoo (talk) 18:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on National Lampoon (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 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: 5 June 2024).

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on National Lampoon (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: 5 June 2024).

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) 18:27, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on National Lampoon (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: 5 June 2024).

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) 23:02, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]