Talk:Al Jaffee

Real first name?

Hi, what's Al Jaffee's real first name? "Abraham" (as stated here) or "Allan" (as stated here: http://www.reuben.org/ncs-members/members-directory)? Thanks! User:Mkranwet —Preceding undated comment added 10:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Biography assessment rating comment

WikiProject Biography Assessment Drive

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 02:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Art teacher

Back in June, my Aunt Maria said when she was in Junior High School, Al himself was teaching art. Did Al Jaffee ever do any teaching? At least SUBSTITUTE teaching? 68.205.128.200 02:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

I added his particular career highlights in the section of works. This includes, Snappy Answers, Tall Tales and The Mad Fold-IN. Both Snappy Answers and Tall Tales are outside works not featured in Mad Magazine. Modernist (talk) 18:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Intro deletion

I've added relevant, and referenced information about his career including recent honors, and awards to the introduction and to the infobox. Before deleting any material from the article - comment here or leave an appropriate tag in the article where you think it can be improved. Thanks...Modernist (talk) 05:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thats two reverts in two days of the same thing - using two different reasons...looks like an agenda to me. Modernist (talk) 02:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

A major NY Television station honors him this week and it's added to the page - in the intro - of course - and you deleted it twice? HELLO? this comes after 10-lb-hammer's series of deletions the other day, and his TAG concerning the intro - what a coincidence, hmmm looks like an agenda to me. Modernist (talk) 03:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The intro is short, introduces and describes the subject, his career and recent verifiable and referenced accomplishments. No problem there! Read WP:LS thanks. For now I've reverted my own edit and replaced the NY1 edit into the text. Modernist (talk) 03:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have left you with the impression that I was unresponsive, Modernist; I hadn't seen your comments on this or my talk pages until just now (there was no pop-up alert for mine). No silent agenda, either. I've contributed to Wikipedia anonymously for several years w/o signing up because I've witnessed a lot of situations get personal and drag on in a nasty manner. I am glad that this was not the case here.

One point of fact: NY1's ratings indicate that it is viewed not by millions of people as you stated on my talk page, but by tens of thousands-- "50,000 homes on a good night" according to recent published reports.24.239.178.59 (talk) 03:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

....anyway, lets move on...Modernist (talk) 04:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

References

Moving on

Looking much better now. Well done all and to anon for recent additions. Don't forget to add closing tag to the ref.[1] I feel the image is crying out for a (probably fair use) image of his work... Ty 07:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Ten Pound Hammer

Seems to have a vendetta, perhaps should stay clear. Modernist (talk) 18:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Which looks better?

I've been involved with an edit war with User:Modernist over this article. They want the intro different than how I had it. Which looks better?

• Modernist's

• Mine

No offense to Modernist, but I feel that mine is better. Mine does not have any one sentence paragraphs, and it actually summarizes the article, instead of dumping in facts that aren't present elsewhere in the article. Also, mine presents all of the info that Modernist added, just in a different location, so I feel it's an acceptable compromise. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

No better, no worse, you have your opinion, I have mine, the precedent is set however....discuss all changes here in the future, before unilaterally reverting other peoples work. Modernist (talk) 19:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

H Jaffee

I know all the parties involved, and the family is appalled. The Weisman book is wrong regarding HJ and verges on libel. I suggest you let it be or produce another source...Modernist (talk) 12:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I suggest it's an RS, and your personal knowledge counts for absolutely nothing, and that these two facts pretty much end the discussion. Weisman is a long-time personal friend of Jaffee, and worked with him very closely. She provides various details regarding Harry's mental illnesses, with quotations and descriptions, from his being dragged away by the police to Bellevue to anti-Semitic ravings and the like. Choor monster (talk) 13:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

And I know them as well. We're talking Rashomon here...Modernist (talk) 13:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Since you insist on dictating terms instead of discussion, I've started a thread on ANI regarding this. Choor monster (talk) 14:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Saw this on ANI, this is my .02, Modernist is choosing personal history over reliable source (and yes the book is published by a reputable press, not a self-publishing company). I'd say unless there's another reliable source that contradicts this, I'd say Choor monster is right. KoshVorlon 16:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• Now filed at WP:DRN. Choor monster (talk) 13:45, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  • The decision at WP:DRN closed with no decision [2], therefore this is unresolved.
    • Per their recommendation, I have posted to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Al Jaffee's brother Harry Choor monster (talk) 17:47, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

---

My position is - essentially what is stated in the Weisman book is the primary sources opinion; and I am stating that that opinion needs corroboration and that I have personally heard objections to that opinion. I have been told by people close to all involved that there is more to what happened then what is stated in the book. Weisman takes the primary source at his word, however I am stating my objection to that as a reliable source. I'm not bad mouthing anything by the way - these are extremely private matters, and my suggestion is to respect those objections...Modernist (talk) 20:45, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

They were extremely private matters before 2010. Not any more. Short of BLP issues—and there are none for someone who has been dead 30 years—we do not take into consideration people's feelings except when WMF says otherwise. So please stop insulting our collective intelligence with irrelevancies.

(Note: in what follows, I will refer to Jaffee making assertions, not Weisman, since I think we all agree that Weisman is mostly echoing Al Jaffee, and it's certainly less confusing.)

Your position is blatantly inaccurate. There are places where you could say Jaffee is stating his opinion, for example, when he says Harry had a "complete mental breakdown" (p. 161). I would call that Jaffee simply stating things in laymen's terminology, nothing more. Ditto for Jaffee saying certain domestic activities in the Jaffee residence gave Harry "significant relief from his demons" (p. 163).

But most of the time, Jaffee is passing on his memories of specific incidents from childhood onward, along with stating what he'd been told by professionals. It's not Jaffee's opinion that in 1954 Harry was diagnosed as catatonic by a psychiatrist, put into an ambulance while two police officers held drawn guns at the scene ("standard operating procedure") and taken to "Bellevue, the nearest mental hospital". It's not Jaffee's opinion that Harry was given shock treatments, that he was then transferred to Hillside Hospital, which had a "good reputation for dealing with mental patients". It's not Jaffee's opinion that Harry was transferred again to a hospital where they recommended a lobotomy, recommendation denied. It's not Jaffee's opinion that Harry was released after the "advent of psychotropic drugs". (pp. 162–63) These are Jaffee's memories. Choor monster (talk) 17:47, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, I am questioning Al as he relates his nearly 30 year old memory - to Weisman; that book is recent - it's not that old; I remember when it was being worked on. However in fact Harry had contracted Tuberculosis which is not mentioned but in fact had an enormous affect on those circumstances. There is absolutely no reason to even mention Harry's condition in this article anyway...Modernist (talk) 19:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

"Harry's condition"? It reads like you agree with Weisman's book.

You say in fact he contracted TB? Based on what? Frankly, it sounds just like the typical cover story adults tell children. "Mommy, why is Daddy being taken to the hospital." "He has tuberculosis, a bad sickness." "Mommy, why did the police show up and point their guns at Daddy?" "They were told a bad man had hurt Daddy." "Mommy, who is that man staying in our house now, who always brings me candy?" "He's just a good friend, helping take care of Daddy."

I was told growing up all sorts of oddball stories about my ancestors, some concerning events going back to the early 1900s. Decades later, I'd learn a different version of the events, usually from distant relatives. And always, the different version was truly interesting, borderline scandalous, and it was pretty obvious the version I'd been originally told was a bizarre cover story. It's actually quite common, and a popular literary trope.

And it reads just like that here. Al Jaffee was deeply involved in the care for all his brothers his entire life, and remains involved with Bernard, still living as of 2010. This is not the sort of thing one tends to get confused about. It's not some small detail that Jaffee is fuzzing over. It's detail after detail after detail, and as Jaffee explains it via Weisman, it affected him deeply.

Tell us, how does raving against being asked if he'd like to go shopping for a new suit come off as "tuberculosis"? I don't see it.

We decide to mention or not mention based on what RS do. In this case, Weisman/Jaffee think it's an important part of Al Jaffee's life. In particular, they contrast Al's hard-core pacifism, don't get involved, what would John Wayne not do approach to bullies with Harry's take on the thugs personally no matter what, and get the crap beat out of him each time approach. Which Al had to deal with repeatedly. Both financially and emotionally. In fact, it's in the context of Harry's "complete mental breakdown" that Jaffee describes his taking over from his father the father-role.

Jaffee seems to be unique among MAD freelancers in being given office studio space after his divorce. In Gaines joining him in Mexico for post-divorce buck-up. Jaffee was doubly stressed. Not just the usual marriage break-up crapola, but also Harry was suddenly a much greater issue for Al.

And why did Harry quit doing background art for Al, and refused to take a salary direct from MAD? Al quotes Harry's ravings regarding rich Jews and their money. Not exactly "tuberculosis".

Note too that the year of Harry's "complete mental breakdown" was 1954. Al joined MAD in 1955. It would be OR for us to spell out any connection, but it's entirely proper to let our readers draw their own conclusions. Choor monster (talk) 15:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me? I don't want to hear this total BS about how your parents told you weird stories about your ancestors...are you kidding? This article is about the cartoonist Al Jaffee not his brother. As I've said Harry's condition, good-bad or whatever - Harry and the rest of Al's siblings have no place in this article...Modernist (talk) 15:36, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm explaining some simple facts of life to you, is all. In particular, how your personal knowledge looks like standard fakery to me. Your statement about Al's relatives is ludicrous. They get as much mention in accordance with RS on Jaffee. Choor monster (talk) 18:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Your concept of the facts is totally absurd. And this statement of yours is utterly ridiculous - They get as much mention in accordance with RS on Jaffee. - I don't think you have much experience writing articles here. You cannot add ad infinitum irrelevant information to articles at random. It sounds to me as though you have a book oh wow you have a book so anything in your book can be included in your article....I don't think so...Modernist (talk) 00:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I am simply following WP:RS, WP:V, and I am minding WP:UNDUE. Deal with it some other way than citing your personal secret knowledge, and leave out the utterly childish sarcasm. Exactly what evidence do you have that Al Jaffee was wildly misrepresenting an important part of his life? Choor monster (talk) 16:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I am speaking plain English, clearly you don't like what I'm saying, however I suggest that you drop this issue and move on...Modernist (talk) 16:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

You are speaking plain English, yes. It's quite plain that you do not have any RS supporting your claims. As such, I am ignoring your suggestion. You are more than welcome to come up with actual RS that support your claim that Harry did not have a "complete mental breakdown", that he did not have "shock treatments", that he did not regularly take "psychotropic medicines". Choor monster (talk) 16:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Modernist it doesn't matter what you know, at least on Wikipedia, what matters is what's reliably sourced. What Choor monster placed in the article is reliably sourced. Unless you have another reliably sourced piece that contradicts what Choor Monster has placed in it doesn't matter what you know or who you know, you're arguing based on nothing. I can't close this because I've offered an opinion, just as you have and just as Choor Monster has, however, I'd say RS rest on Choor Monster's side. KoshVorlon 16:48, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me? The whole point here is an article about an artist, a cartoonist and his accomplishments. His brother is entirely irrelevant to Al Jaffee's accomplishment as an artist. They briefly collaborated, that can be mentioned. Read this: WP:UCS read this: WP:IAR. When we write these articles - we do not include everything we read because it's in the book. Sometimes we use our judgment...Modernist (talk) 16:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding. This is an article about a person. It is not restricted to discussing items directly relevant to what the person is most famous for. It is restricted to discussing things that RS have discussed. We make decisions based on consensus, not by claiming to know better.

In my case, I think it's quite eye-opening regarding Jaffee and his art. Choor monster (talk) 17:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Once again, you don't seem to have a clue in writing about art. Tell me about Pollock's brothers or Rembrandt's brother, or El Greco's sister, or Picasso's mother and what minor - minor role they played or didn't play in their work. Make no mistake - this article is here because of what Al Jaffee accomplished as an artist - not what his family dealt with...Modernist (talk) 17:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)Modernist

As I stated, this is an article about "Al Jaffee". The fact that he is noted because of his artwork is true, but not grounds for excluding what RS have covered beyond his artwork. Choor monster (talk) 17:14, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

That is total bs. The only reason the article exists is because of his cartooning. We don't write articles or books for that matter about everybody, nor do we mention everybody...Modernist (talk) 17:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Modernist asked me to look at this dispute, as an uninvolved person. I don't see any reason that the specifics of the illness of a non-notable family member need to be in this article. Even apart from the dispute concerning the accuracy of the content, it simply is not important information for a short biographical article on Al Jaffee, in which his relationship with his brother or other family members is simply background information. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:33, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree that's the default action to take regarding close relatives. My view is the specifics to definitely avoid are the blow-by-blow, and one word is not pushing things. I see absolutely no reason to include anything beyond the bare bones about the other brothers, although their lives also affected Jaffee in sad and depressing ways.

I assume you haven't read Weisman/Jaffee, so of course you only think it's "background information". Having read it, I see multiple reasons to include the smallest of mentions about Harry and his mental illness. The bare fact that Jaffee brought in his brother to do details and lettering from 1970–77 is certainly significant. Both the start and the end of that are Jaffee-artwork tightly connected facts, and as such, an explanation is directly relevant. The advance praise blurbs on the dust jacket state point-blank that Jaffee's previously untold personal drama is significant, and not merely entertaining stories about an oddball childhood. Art Spiegelman mentions a "vast tableau of survival, trauma, and family dysfunction", and Phyllis Theroux describes it as a story of a "child whose luck reversed itself so many times that going mad was a real possibility". Harry went mad, Jaffee went MAD. Weisman in fact describes MAD as a safety valve for Jaffee.

It's also possible that Harry is notable. See this previously sold Harry Jaffée original. The linked-to site will give out prices to members only, but the book mentions an earlier sale at $8,000. And note the signature, you can see where Al got the idea for his own. (On eBay, silk screened copies sell for $25–$35.)

It's also possible the book itself is notable. I found two reviews without even trying. Choor monster (talk) 13:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

There is no question that they all had a unique and an extreme and somewhat traumatic childhood experience; and Harry was an artist of enormous talent; like Al is. Harry did assist Al; however his medical situation has no place in this article...Modernist (talk) 00:12, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Why not already? It's directly relevant information, Jaffee himself thinks it's important, and it's taken from an RS. It's not some random eye-catching gossip. That's what spelling out the details would be. For example, Harry quit when Al married Joyce because she was a social worker, and social workers are in cahoots with the psychiatrists, and the psychiatrists want to force meds on him. That's fancruft of a perverse sort.

By the way, I interpret your earlier appeal to IAR as meaning the following: you 100% admit now that the book is accurate, you 100% admit the feelings of family members is not a standard WP consideration, you 100% admit that you would prefer that it be taken into account anyway. Your reactions have been completely WP:NOTHERE, you simply have an agenda, and you are trying to force WP:OWNership. Choor monster (talk) 14:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

You've been told that book is not accurate. You've been told that book reflects the primary subject's uncorroborated opinion. Harry is dead. Al's recollections are not accurate; Do you understand English?. Make no mistake the book is wrong...Modernist (talk) 14:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you've said that. Why on earth should anyone believe you? Do you have a source in any form whatsoever? No. And your description of the book is, as I pointed out above, completely mistaken. The book is not presenting "opinion" in regards to Harry's mental illness. It's presenting "facts".

Meanwhile, you are very likely skirting BLP issues in your accusations against Al. Choor monster (talk) 14:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Instead of doubting everything I say - Read this important principle here WP:AGF...Modernist (talk) 16:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I doubt some of what you say, since your statements have been inconsistent. And you point-blank refuse to follow WP policy and guidelines, including WP:AGF itself. (Although you now get brownie points for using indentation properly at long last.) Choor monster (talk) 15:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

@Choor Monster: I happen to believe Modernist completely, but her statements wouldn't in themselves trump the sources if the information you are seeking to include in the article were clearly worthy of inclusion. But I believe that this information is of borderline importance at best, and in that context, I believe we should err on the side of exclusion. (And yes, if matters, I certainly have read the book, having been a fan of All Jaffee's for about 45 years.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

We're approximately the same age then. Meanwhile, could you chime in on the reliability of the book? I think it's rather disingenuous of you to avoid commenting on that.

As to believing Modernist completely, do you want to comment on BLP issues? She's blabbing about a private family disagreement, and criticizing Jaffee to boot, with no sources whatsoever. For someone claiming privacy regarding published material from Al Jaffee himself, this is highly hypocritical. We're talking potential US presidential candidate!

How about COI? Perhaps someone that close to the family, explicitly carrying the torch for one side, should presumably not be editing this page whatsoever, and restrict herself to comments and requests?

Are you saying Modernist's statements have some weight? At the moment, she is de facto claiming WP:OWNership rights to trump anything in this article, by her word only. I find that unsupportable on WP, outside of an IAR appeal, no matter how trivial or borderline the issue is. Choor monster (talk) 15:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

What is at issue here - is for you to not include any information regarding Harry Jaffee's medical issues. Not that complicated. You can add whatever else you need to add...Modernist (talk) 19:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

What is at issue here is that you don't get to dictate policy, certainly not based on your unverifiable unsourced private knowledge and allegations and slurs against Al Jaffee. Choor monster (talk) 14:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Al Jaffee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.reuben.org/ncs-awards/division-awards/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120219133654/http://thedailycrosshatch.com/2009/03/09/2529/ to http://thedailycrosshatch.com/2009/03/09/2529/

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

RFC for picture

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I've had enough of my pictures reverted by Nightscream to know how the discussion will go with him alone, so I am creating this RFC. I placed an updated picture of Jaffee taken at his birthday celebration last year. This stayed up for a while but was then reverted to an earlier picture, which I think was inferior. I don't feel I need to explain why, as it would (I thought) be obvious. The photo was removed with a comment about the shadow - it looks fine on the monitors I've checked, but if someone wants to adjust the contrast, I wouldn't object obviously.

• 
  present infobox image
• 
  birthday photo
• 
  table photo
• 
  side shot
• 
  high res close-up

Thanks all as usual! Tduk (talk) 23:22, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Summoned by bot. I would favor the table photo, but I would crop it. It's simply a more flattering photo of the gent, and I would favor it cropped or uncropped. Coretheapple (talk) 17:27, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - As Coretheapple noted above, I prefer the table photo but would like to see it cropped. It has better lighting and is of higher quality. I prefer the infobox's current image. Meatsgains (talk) 21:04, 16 October 2016
• Comment - I've added two more pictures. I think out of all of these, I prefer the "high res close up". I like the detail shown by the lighting, and it's a very detailed image. The color is also most natural. Tduk (talk) 22:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: Summoned by bot. If I'm to be frank, all of the options are a little underwhelming, but the best of these limited options seems to be to be the table photo, with hi res close up a second choice. Actually, having reviewed the present version of the article, I vastly prefer the image presently in the infobox. I've also added it the gallery of options above, since, as the status quo image, it ought to be considered by default; otherwise the RfC might be perceived as an effort to undermine it as a choice and remove it through a presentation of a false choice of options that garners votes for other options simply because some RfC respondents are not aware of this alternative/present choice. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:01, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Actually, that picture was added to the article _after_ the RFC was started. (not by me) Tduk (talk) 12:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Thank you for bringing this to my attention, Tduk--the absence of the image from the RfC now makes much more sense. I've retitled the caption for the image accordingly. Can I ask you, what do you think of the suitability of that image, compared against the others? Snow ^{let's rap} 00:55, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
• I descending order, I would prefer 1) "high res close-up" if it gets some brightness/contrast adjustment to be more crisp and less muddy (but not so washed out and over-flashed as the otherwise similar "birthday photo", though); 2) "present infobox image" if cropped; 3) "table photo" if cropped; 4) "side shot" if cropped; and 5) the washed-out "birthday photo" as last choice.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:59, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Summoned by a bot - i prefer the picture currently used in the info box, compared to all other options provided. Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 18:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I would prefer the present infobox image primarily because it also shows him within the context of an event/genre he is related to (comics/cartoons) and thus seems to fit in more Funkyman99 (talk) 03:07, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Summoned by bot. I believe that the "present infobox image" is the best of the choices, although I do recommend cropping it a bit. I was a 12 year old Mad fan in 1964 when Jaffee started his "fold-ins" there, and it is a treat to visit this article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:12, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
• @Coretheapple and Meatsgains: A new image was added to the article during the course of this RFC. You two may want to update your !votes if this changes your decision. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:45, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
• Present infobox image. It's more recent than the others, shows him at an industry event, and is technically sound. It could be cropped a bit, but anyone can do that after the RFC. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:45, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

{{Archive top (non-admin closure) Consensus is for the current infobox image. - MrX 01:29, 2 December 2016 (UTC)}}

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Al Jaffee. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080702000445/http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20080628%2FLIFE%2F806280303 to http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20080628%2FLIFE%2F806280303
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.reuben.org/ncs-awards/division-awards/
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6O28VVwgM?url=http://www.comic-con.org/awards/eisners-current-info to http://www.comic-con.org/awards/eisners-current-info

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) 09:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Issue #19, June 2021

MAD Magazine issue #19 June 2021 notes that Al turned 100 years old March 13, 2021. :) SoftwareThing (talk) 01:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@SoftwareThing: What improvements would you like to make to the article with this information? The article already gives his date of birth and age. Nightscream (talk) 13:34, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Stan Lee?

The article says "In 1946, Jaffee returned to civilian life, working for Stan Lee again"; however, it never mentioned him having worked for Stan Lee in the first place. What's missing? Smwechsler (talk) 12:50, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

From what I'm getting, it's about Timely Comics, which evolved into Marvel Comics. It definitely could be worded better, though. Liliana ^{(UwU / nya)} 12:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Groo

In Groo the Wanderer # 2 (April 1985) is a character called MOCASA, modelled on Al Jaffe and whose wispy hair spells "ALJAFFE" (91.213.120.182 (talk) 12:34, 25 June 2023 (UTC))