Talk:Chick Publications Inc.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

While Biographies of living persons policies do not apply directly to the subject of this article, this article may have content that directly relates to other living persons, such as friends and family. Controversial material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see the biographies of living persons noticeboard.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Archive
Archives
  1. 2001 - 2004
  2. 2005
  3. 2006 - present
This page was previously nominated for deletion. Please see prior discussion(s) before considering re-nomination:
  • Keep, 4 July 2007, AFD


Contents

[edit] Response to Catholic Idolatry

Remember when Jack Chick claims that Catholics do evil stuff like worship idols and other evils they did not do? Well, I stumbled upon a response in AmericanCatholic.org. It is a question that is answered in this link: Are Statues Idols? I hope this teaches Chick a lesson not to screw around with us Catholics and give us a bad name! LOL --Angeldeb82 03:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a catholic, but not an atheist. I for one am a protestant and I support Jack in every, way, he is truely a wise man....MY ARSE!I AM a protestant, i'm quite religious too, but I find this guy:

1.In need of heavy medication...prefferably euthanasia 2.A complete idiot. 3.The guy who spits in the face of 'don't knock it till you try it' phrase.He said there are all sorts of rituals, ouija boards, and crystal balls in Harry Potter.Bullshite, utter bullshite, except for the crystal balls part, but those are basically fairs trying to make money.Bottom line:he's a fucktard.81.154.172.30 22:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

What exactly is your point? This discussion page is for improving the article not your own personal ranting and raving forum. Jtpaladin 11:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-cited or inaccurate

There's quite a bit of stuff in this article that is not cited and inaccurate. For example, "Chick is most famous for his stances on issues that are highly controversial even within Christianity, such as opposition to homosexuality and Islam. Sorry but those are not controversial in mainstream Christianity. Homosexuality is a sin according to every mainstream Christian denomination and Islam is considered a false religion. Therefore, I've made the appropriate adjustments. Jtpaladin 11:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Abraham is the source for Islam, Judaism and Christianity. It's just that fundamentalist Christianity dislikes Islam, as if they are putting down Abraham. Besides, fundamentalism in Christianity and Islam can be very dangerous. --Angeldeb82 03:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
What does your comment have to do with improving this article. There are a number of passages in this article that seem to be opinion, guess, or other original research. This article could use some tweaking to make it more encyclopedic. However, I do not wish to delete wholesale passages, so I will give some of the original editors time to come back and cite sources. 66.192.126.3 10:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

This article reeks of nothing more than self-referenced blather. Anything that isn't supported by reliable sources for third parties should be trimmed considerably. Let's start by cutting the "claims" "criticisms" and "response to criticisms" sections. Nothing here is of encyclopedic value unless a 3rd party reports on it. --Whydoesthisexist 01:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I just trimmed these sections. If someone has external citations indicating how this information is valid/notable, feel free to readd it. --Whydoesthisexist 12:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I think you've misunderstood how notability works on Wikipedia. Third-party reporting is generally an important criterion for establishing whether the subject of an article is noteworthy enough to belong on WP, but as WP:NOTE states (emphasis mine): "Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles, which is governed by other guidelines such as those on using reliable sources and on handling trivia. The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standard of the notability guidelines."
I've done my share of trivia-removal from this article in the past, but it's entirely appropriate that an article on Chick Publications should mention some of their major recurring themes - anti-Catholicism, anti-evolution, KJV-only-ism, etc - and for that sort of thing, the horse's mouth is a perfectly adequate source. --Calair 02:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Clarification: I'm not convinced that all the material I restored should be in the article - much or all of the 'Criticisms' and 'Responses' sections could probably be deleted, and I won't object if they are - but it's easier to re-delete the sections that really need deleting than to reintegrate the worthwhile material down the track after other edits have changed the article. --Calair 02:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
That's fine. The whole article just seems like propoganda: here are our claims, here are some criticisms, but here's how we respond to them. Since when is that part of an encyclopedia article?? --Whydoesthisexist 02:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, there are some topics where the arguments for and against so-and-so have become an important aspect of that topic - for instance, it's entirely appropriate that the article on intelligent design mentions the arguments about its scientific merits (or lack thereof), and Kitzmiller vs. Dover.
That said, most of the time IMHO (and this article included) 'criticisms' and 'defences' sections are a bad thing. Partly because they tend to be treated as weasel word zones full of stuff like "some people criticise Chick for so-and-so" without indicating who those 'some people' are - if such things can't be attributed to a notable person or organisation, they probably shouldn't be in there. (Usually, 'some people' translates to 'a Wikipedia editor' ;-) Splitting discussion into 'pro' and 'anti' also has a tendency to lose a lot of nuance.
My preference would be to see much of those two sections deleted, but there are some bits and pieces there that should instead be integrated into other parts of the article - I've done this with the bit on Chick's sources for his anti-Catholic/Masonic/etc claims, but I don't have the time to do the rest for now. --Calair 09:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Judaism Tag

What does this article have to do with Judaism, and why has it been tagged as part of the Judaism Wikiproject?Rosencomet (talk) 18:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd guess that the logic would be that Chick wants the Jews to become Christians. Redddogg (talk) 22:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3 way merge proposal

I would like to suggest that these three articles be merged: Chick Publications, Chick Tracts, and Jack Chick. Jack Chick is only known as the author of the Chick Tracts and Chick Publications is only known as their publisher. I'm not sure myself how to do a three way merge proposal. (I still object to the use of copyrighted images on these articles, but it seems that I am against the consensus on that.) Redddogg (talk) 22:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

To keep all dialog on the merger in one place please join discussion here Benjiboi 10:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Howard Hallis case

This article could include the fair use conflict in regards to parody brought against Howard Hallis as summarized here. Benjiboi 11:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

here is an account of the cease and desist case with the ISP in question; BNA's Patent Trademark & Copyright Journal - Study Concludes Cease-and-Desist Letters Volume 68 Number 1693; Friday, October 29, 2004 Page 729. Benjiboi 12:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possible content for this and Chick Tracks article

In time, the art in the tracts received an upgrade—not because Chick changed his own style of drawing but because he hired an artist with much better skills. Yet he did not announce this fact and did not put the new artist’s name on the works he produced. Instead, they continued to carry the credit "by Jack T. Chick" or simply "by J.T.C." The difference between the two drawing styles was so dramatic that it was immediately noticed by readers, and rumors circulated about who the "good artist" might be. It would be some time before Chick disclosed that the man’s name was Fred Carter.

In 1972, he hired Fred Carter, an African-American painter and illustrator from Danville, Illinois, who had studied at Chicago’s American Academy of Art. Carter’s realistic illustrations and distinctive inking style made him a perfect fit for the [Crusaders comic book] series’ action sequences and exotic locales. Witch burnings and ritual murders are captured in gleefully visceral detail, while the books’ sexual overtones—as well as scantily clad biblical sirens like Eve, Delilah, and Semiramis—have led critics to describe Carter’s work as "spiritual porn."

At once, the artwork improved tenfold. Chick, however, kept Carter’s name off all of the comics. Rumors and speculation about the identity of the so-called good artist at Chick Publications began to spread. For years fans theorized that Carter’s work was produced by a team of illustrators or an unknown Filipino man dubbed "Artist J." Chick finally revealed Carter’s identity in 1980, claiming that the artist is "rather shy and declines to put his name on his art."

Through the years Chick also became associated with others who had an impact on his publications. The conspiracy angle in his works jumped significantly through his involvement with two men in particular.

One was John Todd, an evangelist who claimed to have been raised in a "witchcraft family" and supposedly was part of a gigantic conspiracy of witches called "the Illuminati." According to Todd, numerous political and religious figures were part of the conspiracy. He claimed that as a "Grand Druid High Priest" he was given a thirteen-state territory and that "over 90 percent of politicians in that thirteen-state area received financial support from him and took orders regarding political decisions from him." The religious figures allegedly part of the witch conspiracy included Jim Bakker, Billy Graham, Walter Martin, Oral Roberts, and Pat Robertson. Also involved were C. S. Lewis, Pat and Debbie Boone, and a number of Protestant denominations, "from Assemblies of God to the Southern Baptists."

One way the Illuminati spread their occult tendrils through society was through rock music. Songs in this genre often "contained coded spells or incantations that the listener wasn’t aware of." Based on Todd’s claims, Chick issued a number of publications, including the large-format comic book Spellbound? (against rock music) and the tract Dark Dungeons (against fantasy role-playing games).

Todd was exposed as a fraud in publications such as Christianity Today and Cornerstone. He later was convicted and sent to prison for rape. Nevertheless, Chick is still publishing materials repeating his claims and thanking him openly for providing the information.

The other major figure hyping Jack Chick’s conspiracy theories was the late Alberto Rivera. Benjiboi 13:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)