Talk:Deadly Hands of Kung Fu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Magazines (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.
WikiProject Comics / Marvel (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Marvel Comics work group.
 

External Links[edit]

I've read through WP:EL and the link to the cover images appears to fall within the standard. Please do not delete without discussion. Thank you FrankWilliams 12:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


Company[edit]

Curtis Magazines published the Deadly Hands of Kung Fu PERIOD. It doesn't matter if Marvel was "Really" at the heart of the mag or not. As an encyclopedia it is important to report just the facts.

Please leave the publishing information to Curtis Magazines. The affiliation with marvel is already in the article. FrankWilliams 19:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

(I had a suspicion you were just away for the weekend, not conceding.) "Curtis" is not THE publisher of record, but just an imprint, a mark of identification, an alias for Marvel--read its own article and that for imprint. Marvel's name is ALL over the magazine, the opening contents page, the indicia, and so forth. The mag, indeed the entire b/w line as I said before, long outlived Marvel's use of the Curtis name for it (by putting "short-lived" back into the text here, even YOU have conceded that). The Grand Comic Book Database (comics.org) lists Marvel, not Curtis, as the publishing company. And as I also explained before, people see the info box before they can possibly read the text, and that's where all the truly important and fundamental info should be--and the fact that Marvel really produced this magazine is just that. I'll go even further--having read the Curtis article, I don't think it even deserves to exist; a brief sub-section of the Marvel article about it is enough. Finally, I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say with either of your second and third "Fact"s. While I freely concede that these mags didn't come in under the Code, I see no relevancy of that to Marvel being completely denied representation in the Company line of the info box. And not specifying the alleged reason the third refers to leaves that one worthless. I will, however, not revise, but wait until we decide just how Marvel should be here. You will have to do a great deal better than the above for me to debate the question of its presence itself any further with you. Ted Watson 22:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Response[edit]

You are absolutely wrong about the word "Marvel" being anywhere in this magazine. I have every copy of Deadly Hands of Kung Fu. I've read through every page of several issues; and no where and I do mean no where does the word "Marvel" exist. Every front cover of every magazine has the word "Curtis" printed on it. Furthermore every copyright notice in every issue says and I quote; verbatim:

The Deadly Hands of Kung Fu is published by MAGAZINE MANAGEMENT CO. INC., OFFICE OF PUBLICATION, 575 Madison Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10022. Published Bi-Monthly. Copyright [Year] by MAGAZINE MANAGEMENT CO., INC., A Division of Cadence Industries Corportion. All rights reserved 575 Madison Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10022. All business inquiries should be addressed to Circulation Director JOHN RYAN 6th floor. Vol. 1, No. [#] [Month, Year] issue. Price [.75] per copy in the U.S. and Canada. No similarity between any of the names, characters, persons and/or institutions in this magazine with those of any living or dead person or institution is inteded and any such similarity which may exist is purely coincidental. Printed in the U.S.A.

(The only difference between the above from issue to issue is the information contained in brackets as this changed from issue to issue).

I am using the magazines themselves are sources for the information no matter what some database somewhere says. The only fact that I concede to is that Curtis was indeed an imprint of Marvel Comics and that it was short lived; which the article clearly states. Furthermore the magazine only existed within the context of the "Curtis" name. In other words "Curtis" existed atleast as long as the duration of the entire magazine run. As for people reading the infobox prior to the article itself is:

  • A. Your opinion
  • B. You speculation

You cannot know for certain that every Wiki reader reads the infobox first. We do not write articles based on opinions and/or speculations. If you can demonstrate "verse and chapter" of the word "Marvel" appearing on any Deadly Hands of Kung Fu magazines I will verify this information and perhaps modify the information in the article accordingly. Thank you for your time.

BTW: If you click on the "External Links" this will take you to the magazine covers gallery wich contains every cover and you can see that "Curtis" and not "Marvel" appears on each and every cover; just in case you don't actually have the magazines themselves.

FrankWilliams 01:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Response to response[edit]

"As for people reading the info box prior to the article itself is (sic): *A. Your opinion. *B. Your speculation. You can't know for certain that every Wiki reader reads the infobox first."

The intended purpose of the info box is to put the fundamental info out front, easily grasped, and to help a person decide if he wants to read the article itself. Just because some readers may very well ignore it doesn't mean that we aren't bound by its reason for existence in filling it out. I have ALREADY checked a complete collection of cover scans (and used to have a complete set of copies myself), and "Curtis" disappears as of #19. You can't tell me with any credibility whatsoever that "Marvel" doesn't appear on the subscription ads and the letter pages, particularly the mailing addresses therein (I could point out that another offered title in the sub. ads is MARVEL Preview) (I had to choose between making a link to that title's article and emphasizing the word "Marvel"). I can't help but notice you didn't address my statement that the second and third of your three "Fact"s in your previous posting didn't make much if any sense, at least in this context. Since you now concede "Curtis was indeed an imprint of Marvel Comics..." why don't you concede to the definition of the word "imprint" while you're at it, as I asked you to before? That would in turn concede that "Curtis" was not an actual company but a pseudonym of Marvel, and that Marvel was the REAL "company" per se responsible for the magazine, and therefore belongs in the infobox, if only in parenthesis beside "Curtis," which is indeed the least it can possibly deserve. Furthermore, the infobox lists Roy Thomas as "Editor," and throughout the 1970s (the era of this mag) he was working exclusively for Marvel. And for pete's sake, if you don't think that the regular comic story slot for the character Shang Chi, star of the MARVEL four-color comic Master of Kung Fu, frequent appearances of Marvel four-color star Iron Fist, and the fact that DHOKF creation Sons of the Tiger/White Tiger 's characters and plotlines were picked up, resolved, and subsequently utilized in various titles of the aforementioned Marvel four-color line doesn't PROVE deep involvement of Marvel (which in the '70s did not publish anything that they did not own outright--with the explicitly acknowledged special exceptions of a few reprints in Unknown Worlds of Science Fiction--Steve Gerber's attempt to claim ownership of Man-Thing notwithstanding), I feel very sorry for you. Indeed, many of the "Curtis" b/w magazines were tie-ins to Marvel four-color comics (Dracula, Conan, and Ka-Zar were also regulars in both lines around this time). Ted Watson 21:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

"Man-Thing" above should be Howard the Duck, My bad and my apologies. I have absolutely no problem admitting I am wrong when I am.

Something I forgot to say before, and I'll just add it on as you have as yet to respond at all, anyway. You wrote, "I am using the magazines themselves as sources of information no matter what some database somewhere says." The point here, however, is to get to the reality of the situation, and the GCD, as its own people abbreviate the name, specializes in this type of publication. Furthermore, it is not subject to the whims of anyone who comes along. One has to sign up, and even then one can't edit at will, but must submit one's information for approval before they put it up. The GCD is a solid source of info on this point, and a Wiki article should, as I said before, report the facts of the situation, not just the pseudonyms (or, for that matter, omissions or misinformation where applicable) that are put forward in the material that is itself the subject of an article [minor clarifying update by TW--26 June]. Your suggesting otherwise is indefensible. Ted Watson 17:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

FrankWilliams has been back, indicated by revisions to this article not otherwise relevant to this specific dispute, for a few days and has not taken further part in this discussion. I can interpret this only as concession by default, and therefore will again change the company in the infobox. Ted Watson 20:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Ted, I don't know what your problem with this is and its getting quite silly. We both agree that Curtis was an imprint of Marvel. No dispute there. We both agree that Curtis is physically stamped all over the blasted magazine. Therefore it was published under the Curtis name. The article already says that Curtis is an imprint of Marvel. Kindly leave the information alone. FrankWilliams 13:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Frank, I don't know what YOUR problem with this is, but I have thoroughly refuted every single thing you have said to support your contention that Marvel should not be in the infobox and you ultimately chose not to respond to any of it. I have had it with you and will upon the first opportunity (I have limited time on this computer, and today's is almost up) ask for a third opinion, which can't reasonably uphold your position. Ted Watson 21:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
UPDATE---Frank, I have noticed your attempt at a preemptive strike here, but attributing the copyright notice to Roy Thomas, editor of the first two issues, is absurd. And we do not "agree that Curtis is stamped all over the blasted magazine." I insist that it appears only in the upper left corner of issues #s 1--18 and nowhere else. It certainly is not in your own quote of the legal fine print. The lack of "Marvel" being there does not in any way shape or form offset the evidence that it is the company really and truly responsible for the magazine, a fact that should be reflected in the infobox. The request is being filed. Ted Watson 20:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Third Party Opinion - Initiated

To begin, I must say that this is the neatest, most professional argument I have seen in any wikipedia talk page...EVER! You two should be proud of yourselves for keeping to such a relative level of civility...it's ridiculous what happens everywhere else.

I enjoyed reviewing both sides of this argument, and after reading through what I felt was all of the relevant information, I posit my recommendation that the infobox remain as "Curtis." It's like if some new soft drink hits the market under some newfangled brand mark, and it is discovered later that this name is really just a sub-company or division or project of, Coke, let's say, I would assert that the article would include all of the information, but the infobox would just state "Newfangle." While the infobox might aid readers in determining which pages they read, I don't feel that that is a reason to include secondary information like Curtis' 'subsidiery-ship' to Marvel. Again, I don't say that this information is unimportant or irrelevant; rather, only that is is secondary.

It is my hope that you two can use this oppotunity to enjoy each other's obviously deep-seated interest in this comic rather than letting this point of contention lead to a continuation of this rift. Good-day! DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 03:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment on our civility, but I feel that Frank does not deserve it, he having clearly ignored my lengthy posting refuting his position as he gave it. There is also his making three inarguably factually inaccurate stastements--what the cover scans show of the Curtis name, his claim that the name Marvel appears nowhere whatsoever in the publication, and our "agreeing" that the name "Curtis" was "all over the blasted magazine." If that sort of thing doesn't rate some kind of warning or other disciplinary action under your rules, they need to be changed. For your part, there was no "discovered later" involved, as there was never any question from the outset that Marvel was producing the mag, with Roy Thomas (first editor) a then-exclusive Marvel employee, one of the two initial comic story features, Shang Chi, already having his own Marvel four-color comic, and both (comic features) being done by regular Marvel creators (and all this was typical across the "Curtis" line). Furthermore, Marvel promoted these b/w mags, including this one, in their color comics. Sorry, but your offering just doesn't cut it with me as being valid. Ted Watson 21:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
My initial response was going to be that the infobox should read, "Curtis, an imprint of Marvel." After typing it all out, I realized that you two could have figured that out yourself. I mean, what is the sense of suggesting a compromise when each of you want your own way -- I figured you two wanted me to pick a side and not sit on the fence.
But perhaps I did not have all of the information. If the magazine does say outright that it is in fact "Curtis..." but that Curtis is in fact "...a subsidiery of Marvel," then the infobox should state this information. Websites offering information don't change what's written in the comic, and I think whatever is in the comic should be in the infobox. I was under the impression that it was only Curtis that was mentioned, but if you say that Marvel is in fact mentioned, then by all means, modify the infobox to portray the company as the comic itself portrays the company. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 23:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The Marvel name does NOT appear in any of the magazine information; this has been by position all along. Because of this the infobox should not contain the name Marvel. Furthermore, Marvel went to great lengths to "disassociate" itself from the more mature themed B+W magazines and to blatantly advertise this as a Marvel product in the infobx goes against the intentions of using the imprint name in the first place. If Marvel wanted to advertise its B+W magazines with their Marvel name they would have done so, and there wouldn't be a need for using an imprint.

As for my using the word "blasted magazine" there is nothing wrong, with saying this and it doesn't break any Wiki guidelines, and to suggest otherwise is absurd. In the event anyone doesn't know the expression; it is an emphasis on frustration on a matter that is quite clear.FrankWilliams 12:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

OK...this is becoming more and more like arguments on other pages, now. If you two can't agree on the facts, and I don't have the magazine myself, perhaps you'll never reach a conclusion. But if the comic magazine makes mention of Marvel, Marvel should be included in the infobox. If it doesn't, then it shouldn't. That's my third party uninvolved opinion. I hope you two can settle this based on that fact, if you can agree that it is significant. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 12:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

To DRosenbach: If you had checked the History listings, you would have seen that I had indeed submitted your "compromise" suggestion (if not exactly verbatim) and Frank reverted it. Not doing so is, given what you came here to do, lacking in competency---a fact relevant to disputing the validity of your "third opinion" that needs to be pointed out, "civil" or not. And if you'd read all that's here, you'd see that we don't agree on the facts. We do not agree on whether or not "Marvel" is in the magazine at all. We do not agree on where "Curtis" is and is not in the magazine, other than the corner of the cover. And I stand by my previous statement that his evasions of some of my points and acting as if my lengthy posting refuting his statements and my brief one indicating his conceding the point by default did not exist does not meet my definition of civil debate. One last argument via hypothetical situation to you: Somebody stumbles on this article through a link. He sees the infobox. He thinks its a straight and serious martial arts magazine. If that interests him, he reads further, and when he finds in the text that its a Marvel comic mag, he gets ticked. If a Marvel comic mag would interest him, he doesn't read further because he thinks its something else and misses out on something he actually would have liked to read. That is why Marvel should be in the infobox!

To FrankWilliams: If you really think I was faulting your use of the word "blasted" (and given your history of evasions and misrepresentations here, I don't), you do have problems. That just is not there. I was denying any accuracy to "all over the...magazine." Let me tell you that your new claim that "Marvel went to great lengths to 'disassociate' itself" from the b/w line is absolutely out of line with the facts. As I have already said, they utilized several of their four-color heroes (and other characters) in them, Marvel staffers made them, they promoted them in their color comics, and they named one of them MARVEL Preview! When I said, "Attributing the copyright notice to Roy Thomas, editor of the first two issues, is absurd," I meant attributing it to any editor at all, not one specific one as opposed to all of them. What's your source for what "CC" stands for (not that I haven't always figured it very likely that "Curtis" was part of it)? In any event, with that change, "Curtis" per se disappeared from the magazine entirely, working against the claim that it and only it should be in the infobox's company slot. Ted Watson 20:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

How can you argue about what is and what is not in the magazine?? It either is or isn't there! If one of you has the magazine, then the one that does is believed as to what the magazine says, because he has the magazine, and the other doesn't. If you both have the magazines, then how can you still be arguing? It seems that you two have descended into utter lameness. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 03:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't still have the magazines, but I did, along with many of other titles in this line, for many years and reread them numerous times. Consequently, my memory is quite clear that Marvel made no bones about being in charge (of the entire b/w line, I mean). Their name can be found in the letter column of almost (if not truly) every issue that has one. FrankWilliams has claimed to currently possess copies of the entire run, but if you check his posting of June 19, he categorically stated that "Curtis" was on each and every cover, directing me to a complete collection of cover scans to prove it, but they clearly show that it disappeared as of #19 (either he incompetently failed to confirm his info, or he lied and thought I wouldn't bother to check)! Get this through your head---Frank made a statement of allegedly flat fact concerning the name being in/on the magazine that was absolutely false! He has in fact made several others as detailed above, and has directly acknowledged (as opposed to making revisions to the article that dealt with the realities) and/or apologized for none (unlike my stating the wrong character that Steve Gerber sued Marvel over; nobody caught me, I just recognized my error on a subsequent check of this page, and owned up). The "Assume good faith" rule notwithstanding, it has become extremely difficult for me to believe that he has no hidden agenda/ulterior motive here, though I have no idea what it could be. Until you acknowledge Frank's dubious behavior, or at least the fact that I allege it, you have little credibility with me, as well. Ted Watson 21:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The Curtis name is in fact on every cover. After issue #19 it was changed to CC which stood for Curtis Circulation. Just click on the Curtis Magazines link and that article will give you this information (perhaps you'd like to argue with the author of that article now); if you bothered doing that in the first place you wouldn't make these wild claims. Also using the word "Marvel" in an editorial is not the same as making it part of the magazine copyright information which I still maintain does not exist. If the editorial mentioned DC Comics would that mean the "The Deadly Hands of Kung Fu" magazine is now affiliated with DC Comics? I think NOT. If someone can prove that the Marvel name is any of the magazines as part of the "OFFICIAL" magazine listed information I will recant; but short of this Stare decisis. FrankWilliams 22:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

This should be my last post here. FrankWilliams has verifiable information regarding the information he is asserting as fact. Ted Watson -- you don't. Whether or not I meet your credibility standards is quite irrelevant -- this is not a popularity contest, and, as a third party, I am not really interested in either this comic book in particular or any comic books in general. My level of concern regarding this issue is somewhere near absolute zero -- but as a dispute, I have volunteered my skill of rational and clear perception, as I do in other disputes, and I lament your derision.
Perhaps you are correct, I do not know. But in essence, it does not matter, because you have no support deemed significant as per Wikipedia policy. Until you do, and because FrankWilliams currently does, the infobox should solely mention Curtis. Sometimes this rule is unfair and ridiculous, and I am frustrated by it often as well, as it can potentially lead to the assertion that bacon is kosher merely by consensus, but this encyclopedia leaves no room for disputes when an unsourced claim is up against a verifiably cited fact. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 12:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Frank: You start here with, "The Curtis name is in fact on every cover," then talk about the use of "CC" instead of the name itself on later issues. In your posting of 19 June, your words were, "Every front cover of every magazine has the word "Curtis" printed on it." NOT some representation of it, but the "WORD" itself. That is what you said, and it is not true. Your quote of the indicia, by the way, does not contain the word "Curtis," which contradicts your own reasoning against Marvel. The Wiki article on Curtis is self-contradictory, first stating that it was an imprint (an alias) for Marvel, then that it was their distributor, a separate and different-function-based company. Either way, it's not the company per se that actually produced the magazines, but Marvel is. Also note that the article states, "the imprint was retired in 1975," which works only if "CC" doesn't qualify as the same thing, so one of us needs "to argue with the author of that article." Your statement on 5 July, "Marvel went to great lengths to 'disassociate' itself from the more mature themed B+W magazines...." is nothing less than a bald-faced lie, as they did no such thing, and if you actually have copies of these magazines, you know it (so you're lying either with the point itself or in claiming you know what you're talking about, one or the other)! I repeat, the use of major characters from the Marvel four-color line in the b/ws disproves that, as does titling one mag MARVEL Preview, and the use of the stars of the DHOKF feature Sons of the Tiger in the color line (they teamed up with the Thing in Marvel Two-In-One) while this b/w was going is even stronger evidence. Furthermore, the Marvel Bullpen Bulletins Page throughout the color line ALWAYS included the b/w titles in its lists of "current" releases. And there were house ads in the b/ws mentioning the four-colors. Not one of my claims has been "wild." Your statement, "If the editorial mentioned DC Comics would that mean the 'The Deadly Hands of Kung Fu' magazine is now affiliated with DC Comics?" PROVES you don't care about accuracy, as the way they use it makes all the difference in the world. They make statements like "here at Marvel" and so forth. Further, I can't help but note that, despite my statement that the mailing addresses in the subscription ads and the letter column both lead off with "Marvel" you haven't cited either or both addresses to disprove it, and that's because you can't, and that would damn well be OFFICIAL. The lack of "Marvel" in the indicia was the result of nothing but a legal technicality and as soon as it got straightened out, Marvel put its name "all over" the b/ws that they were publishing at that time and thereafter; just check the cover scans at the Grand Comicbook Database. Your harping on the fact that the name Marvel does not appear in the indicia (neither by your own quote does Curtis) or on the cover does not change the FACT that they were the company that produced these magazines and there has always been absolutely no question of it. Their staff, their editorial offices. PERIOD.
DRosenbach: You start with, "FrankWilliams has verifiable information regarding the information he is asserting as fact." Oh, does he, now? Have you seen the magazines he claims to possess? According to earlier statements by you, you have not, and his own statements, as I've detailed previously, call into question his claim to have them, or his honesty one. "I am not really interested in either this comic book in particular or any comic books in general." Then by definition you are not qualified to give an opinion as to how this situation should be handled, as familiarity with at least the general field of the subject is mandatory. Find somebody on the staff who IS knowledgable on the subject of these publications and he or she will tell you that Marvel was quite open about being the company responsible for them. "I have volunteered my skill of rational and clear perception." Given that you failed to check the "History" listings to review the sequence of events in this dispute and consequently offered a compromise suggestion that in fact had already been posted by me and reverted by Frank, your skill in this area is nothing to be proud of. Nor is the fact that, as I've said before, there is a great deal of evidence of Frank's behavior that would destroy his credibility, quite relevant to settling this dispute, yet you have refused to acknowledge it. "You [meaning me, of course] have no support deemed significant as per Wikipedia policy." Frank has no more or less than I, unless he has faxed (or something) images of many, many pages of the magazines to you, and if he has you can bet he has been quite selective. I am telling you that he has made many statements that are in direct contradiction to the facts, including, as quoted in the part of this posting addressed to him, that the word "Curtis" was on every cover, which it is not. Notice that he has evaded admitting he was wrong about this, and in his most recent posting here lied about just what he had said there. He quoted the indicia to prove that "Marvel" isn't part of it, but "Curtis" isn't there, either! If THAT doesn't call his credibility into question with you, note that I have repeatedly stated that the mailing addresses in the subscription ads and the letter columns begin with "Marvel" and he has never acknowledged this, let alone quoted them to prove I'm wrong, because he can't! Why don't you tell him to either cite those addresses to prove whether or not "Marvel" is there or, alternatively, admit to that it is there, and by extension forfeit his point? I suspect that his statement about the covers was made in serious but misguided belief in his position without checking (unless he had digitally manipulated the cover scans at the site linked to the article and then reverted them when I told him I had checked a set elsewhere and had the exact issue number where it disappeared, which I really don't find plausible), and that he doesn't want to tell a baldfaced lie about magazine content that any number of other people possessing copies could easily check, as indicated by the fact that he did not insert "Curtis" into his indicia quote. Other than the fact that he claims to currently possess copies and I am honest enough to admit that I don't, our situations are exactly equal. If you were to actually look at issues, which is what "verifying" is, you would see I am right about him. Ted Watson 23:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The statement above:

is relevant because:

The Comics Code Authority (CCA) is part of the Comics Magazine Association of America (CMAA), and was created to regulate the content of comic books in the United States. Member publishers submit comic books to the CCA, which screens them for conformance to its Comics Code, and authorizes the use of their seal on the cover if the books comply. At the height of its influence, it was a de facto censor for the U.S. comic book industry. The Deadly Hands of Kung Fu magazine did not have the CCA Seal [1] because the magazine did not conform to the Comics Code (IE. The magazines were of a more mature nature and the CCA was NOT willing to approve them). Thus the need for utilizing an imprint name rather then their real name Marvel. A quick synopsis of this is as follows:

Comic books with the Marvel Name had the CCA Logo B+W Magazine utilizing imprint nameS did NOT have the CCA Logo

MAJOR DISCTINCTION and a source of disassociation.FrankWilliams 17:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You wrote, "The Deadly Hands of Kung Fu magazine did not have the CCA seal because the magazine did not conform to the Comics Code (IE. The magazines were of a more mature nature and the CCA was NOT willing to approve them)." Not true. "Magazines," as opposed to "comic books," simply are not subject to the Code, not submitted to the CCA. It never saw these things, never had the opportunity to approve or reject them. Marvel went to that format so they could publish things that went somewhat beyond the limits of the Code. To put it in a way that reflects your own phrasing, DHOKF didn't have the CCA seal because it wasn't SUBJECT to the CCA. If anybody DID publish a "magazine" that met all the requirements of the Code, it still didn't carry the seal. You again reveal your ignorance of the reality of the industry at the time. My statement on this was, "While I freely concede that these mags didn't come in under the Code, I see no relevancy of that to Marvel being completely denied representation in the Company line of the infobox," and you've said nothing here to change that. Your claim of Marvel "disassociating" itself from the b/w mags remains the lie I have previously stated it to be. Ignoring that and repeating it won't change THAT.
FACT: When you quoted the legal fine print to show that "Marvel" wasn't there, you also demonstrated that "Curtis" wasn't there, contradicting your argument that Marvel's absence disqualifies it from the infobox.
FACT: You have conceded that "Curtis" was an imprint for Marvel, and WIKI defines imprint as, "a brand name under which a work is published. One single publishing company might have multiple imprints." In other words, an imprint is NOT the company responsible for producing the work.
FACT: I have said several times that the mailing addresses in DHOKF's subscription ads and letter columns have "Marvel" in the first line, and that this would most certainly be official. You have not so much as acknowledged this claim, let alone disputed the argument or quoted either address to disprove it. (You can't, can you? It's there, isn't it?)
FACT: There was a great deal of crossovers between these b/ws and the colors, and not just Shang Chi (Master of Kung Fu in color) and Iron Fist (first Marvel Premiere then his self-titled comic) from here. Dracula headlined both Tomb of Dracula (color) and Dracula Lives (b/w), and Blade the Vampire Slayer was created in TOD and appeared in Vampire Tales and headlined one issue of Marvel Preview (#3; dating was very inconsistent in the early years of that title) in the b/w line, and the Punisher, who first appeared in several issues of Spider-Man titles, headlined Marvel Super Action #1, January 1976, a one-shot try-out. Note those last two---Marvel put its own NAME in the titles of two of the b/ws (this is the third time I've mentioned "Preview," and I am REALLY tired of both of you ignoring that fact--it alone torpodoes your claim of disassociation, and calls your credibility to discuss this field deeply into question). Going the other way, DHOKF creation Jack of Hearts became a regular player in the color line, while Sons of the Tiger guested with Spider-Man in Marvel Team-Up #40, December 1975 (I previously said it was with The Thing in Marvel Two-In-One; like my saying that Steve Gerber sued for Man-Thing when it was Howard the Duck, my mistake, freely admitted and hereby apologized for, something you seem to be totally incapable of). Furthermore, they were supposed to guest with Iron Fist in his color comic, but when writer Bill Mantlo saw Pat Broderick's pencils, he succesfully begged for it to be published in DHOKF so he could give it the strong dialogue that he felt the art deserved (in the event, this was #18, November 1975, and all this is explained in a text piece in the issue, which you claim to possess a copy of). Disassociation my foot!
FACT: Marvel is the COMPANY that produced this and the other b/w mags that initially ran under the Curtis imprint, which never went beyond the cover. Once whatever legal technicality that initially kept "Marvel" off the cover and out of the indicia was eliminated (by which time DHOKF was among the cancelled), they put it on the covers, the contents page , the indicia, etc., but they had been admitting to it all along in the editorials and editorial comments on the letters pages, not just dropping the name but saying in effect, "We are Marvel." Like it or not, Marvel belongs as the company in the infobox (go on and acknowledge Curtis there as well, which I tried to do once; fair enough). Ted Watson 21:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
ADDENDA: I remembered yet another b/w mag of the 70s that Marvel put its name on---Marvel Movie Premiere, #1 and only dated September 1975, with an adaptation of the film, The Land That Time Forgot. Check the subscription ads (still no posting of the mailing addresses, I see) in those DHOKF copies you have, and you'll see that briefly, they included that title and the aforementioned Marvel Super Action, as well as Starlord, Sherlock Holmes, and The Legion of Monsters, which all ended up seeing print as issues of Marvel Preview. Those two "Marvel" titles were intended to be ongoing like the other actually was, further evidence your "disassociation" claim is B.S. And I am aware that after I pointed out that the article on Curtis did not support your position, and threw your words "argue with the author of that article" back at you, you did indeed contact him ("...need hand holding through every step" my foot. I've refuted every thing you've said; You are being dragged kicking and screaming every inch of the way to reality!). Ted Watson 20:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Kung Fu Culture Description[edit]

I appreciate the extended analysis, but I think the initial description of the culture and fad of Kung Fu in the 70's is sufficient with the description of the popularity of Chopsocky movies. Phrases like "everyone was" and "shaking their booty" aren't really necessary. Snowfire51 16:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Snowfire51

Thanks for the rewrite of the paragraph; I think it says what I initially intended but only better. I wish more editors would do this instead of just deleting stuff. Thanks again. FrankWilliams 18:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required[edit]

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 Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Done - I don't feel the article has a solid coverage or that it is well referenced. (Emperor (talk) 22:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC))

Use of Marvel name[edit]

In the nearly a year and a half since our disagreement and my requested third party opinion relevant thereto went incomprehensibly against me, there has been a consensus reached across the articles about these magazines against your position. See Savage Tales, Savage Sword of Conan, Rampaging Hulk and even Curtis Magazines itself, among others. Many editors, unlike you and DRosenbach (the third opinion supplier, who in the end admitted that he knew and cared nothing about these magazines, effectively declaring himself unqualified to form an opinion here, as dispute resolutions need to deal with the facts of the subject, not with only what Wiki-regs say), care about the reality of the situation, rather than just the legal fine print that is contradicted by a large quantity of blatantly presented evidence to the contrary elsewhere in the same issues. I repeat, a consensus against your position has been reached, hence the alterations to this article that you found and have just reverted (*I* didn't do them). I am therefore undoing you here. --Ted Watson (talk) 21:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)