Talk:Jack T. Chick

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jack T. Chick article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
News This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in:
Archive
Archives
  1. Archive 1
  2. Archive 2
  3. Archive 3
  4. Archive 4

Contents

[edit] Possible sources

Google books has nearly 100 hits and Google news has a few. Benjiboi 12:34, 20 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) 22:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Instructions for proposing a merger can be found here. I would suggest that you make this the target page, since you've already started the discussion here and it's the most likely title for a merger of the three articles. I have no opinion either way on merging these three articles - they are borderline, and I think we can make good articles either way. Natalie (talk) 22:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll give it a try. Redddogg (talk) 23:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Looks like you got it. Hopefully that will generate some discussion. Natalie (talk) 23:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with the merge. Jack Chick and the publishing company are only notable because of the tracts. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Opposed. All three should be cleaned up and expanded. This bio has greatly improved and is fine as a stand alone. Chick Tracts are a worldwide phenomena are that article can more correctly delve into criticisms which, to me, seem less appropriate for the founder. When he dies isn't the company going to continue? And Chick Publications seems to be a quite influential company/"ministry" with much more going on that just the tracks. We aren't trying to save paper here, we're building an encyclopedia for readers. Benjiboi 04:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Right now all three articles are about the tracts, and are really mainly about Chick's opinions (which I disagree with strongly.) Redddogg (talk) 07:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
So improve them, The company article is fine being stubby, if material this should be moved to the track article then do so. And I think this article is progressing nicely and hardly just about this tracks. Benjiboi 12:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
There is very little information out there with which to improve them, beyond "Jack Chick is the author of the famous Chick Tracts" and "Chick Publications is the publisher of the famous Chick Tracts."  :-) Redddogg (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I really can't believe that and those articles are huge, clearly we would quickly annex onto their own if they weren't already. I've learned that sometimes you have to be creative and determined to find sources and open to alternative avenues. For instance, blogs by themselves, are not great sources but they often have links to good sources or to videos that reveal where more information can be found. Sources are out there we need to simply find them. Benjiboi 15:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
But very little is known about Chick himself and there is nothing much to say about Chick Publications besides it publishes the tracts. Redddogg (talk) 22:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't say "very little" is know about Chick. We have four or five sourced paragraphs about him personally, and a few more about his career. Natalie (talk) 23:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
That information should certainly be included in the article. However people are mainly interested in the tracts. An article about Chick himself without talking about the tracts would be kind of boring. :-) Redddogg (talk) 23:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, this article is mainly about Chick himself, and talks about the tracts only as they pertain to Chick's life. I suppose it may be boring, but that isn't really the standard we use to judge whether or not we keep an article. That said, I think we could easily merge these three articles and make a good article (the other two, while long, are mostly unsourced) I'm just not sure if we absolutely should. The resulting article would be relatively long, though. Natalie (talk) 23:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Outdent. We have three separate articles each appropriate to their own universe with overlapping information. This is common and not at all problematic. This article is the biography of a person and includes relevant information with him as the focus, Chick Tracts are a worldwide phenomena and even if we completely gutted the information fans and critics would likely re-add and recreate so better to simply improve what we have. And finally Chick Publications is a company and doesn't need to be anything more than a stub. It's notable by its founder and product and too should be expanded appropriately as a corporation article. All three can be dry as paint boring as long as they are accurate, of course, enticing prose is preferred. Benjiboi 03:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe merging Jack Chick and Chick Publications would work. There isn't a lot of information on Chick Publications that isn't also about Jack Chick, and I guess I don't foresee the company suddenly releasing all sorts of information about themselves. There also isn't a ton of secondary sources - most secondary sources are discussing Jack Chick and only mention the company because it's his company. So perhaps we could merge Jack Chick and Chick Publications, and leave Chick tracts separate. Natalie (talk) 17:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Disgree they should be merged either. I've added an infobox, logo, content and refs and cleaned up that talk page a bit. That article and Chick Tracks need to be sorted out with, IMHO, the majority of the criticism going to the tracks article and company article reserve for more of the corporate aspects. We're not in a rush and we've made good progress so far. Benjiboi 13:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Opposed. Each of the articles is on separate and distinct subjects. I agree with the proposer that they all share a common base of notability, but the subjects are nonetheless distinct. There is not that much overlap between them, and to the extent that there is, that can be solved with judicious editing rather than a merger. Furthermore, if combined, the resulting combined article would be too long. The best treatment is to: keep them separate; to the extent each article includes material that is pertinent to one or both of the other articles, keep it minimal; and use the {{main}} template to direct the readers' attention to the other articles. TJRC (talk) 18:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. (Is this vote still open?) Jack Chick and his publishing company are only notable for their tracts. The three articles should be merged into one. — NRen2k5(TALK), 11:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More balancing concerns

The lede is the stand-alone summary of any article. We presently have in the lede "Chick is an Independent Baptist, a premillennial dispensationalist, and a follower of the King-James-Only Movement." These should be clearly explained and reffed to support their importance and inclusion in the lede. Benjiboi 12:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Redddogg (talk) 14:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
King-James-Only can be ref'ed by Jack himself - I believe he has a separate FAQ explaining why he thinks other Bible translations are corrupted. As for the other two, I'm not entirely sure where they could be referenced because I'm not entirely clear what they mean. Natalie (talk) 17:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
But he is not notable for his particular beliefs, although these should be mentioned later on in the article. He is notable for writing and distributing all those crazy comics. That's what the intro should be about. Redddogg (talk) 22:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
If his King-James-Only stuff is one the website then ref it as the subject of an article is considered an expert on themself. Benjiboi 13:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Let's avoid labeling his work as "those crazy comics" and focus on understanding what the above info conveys, and is it accurate and sourced. My hunch is that it is accurate but we might still need to explain it all a bit so the readers know why it's relevant. For instance, "Independent Baptist" might inform his views on certain subjects so we could use that to help organize some of the information in the last sections. Benjiboi 03:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Also he is notable for his beliefs as espoused in his writings and noted in criticisms. Benjiboi 13:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Can we remove the {{POV}} tag now? — NRen2k5(TALK), 11:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comic book frame

Is this the best picture to use to illustrate his work? A lot of people are going to find it offensive for one thing. Borock (talk) 16:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I think a comic book frame is the best thing to illustrate his work, since he is best known for his tracts. This specific comic book tract maybe offensive, but have you read much of his work? Most of it is pretty offensive. And this one has a few points in his favor - it was actually illustrated by him, rather than Fred Carter, and its one of his more popular tracts. But if think a different frame would be better, please upload it. Natalie (talk) 17:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll see what else is out there.Borock (talk) 01:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I like this one. It dates from 1972 so is probably Chick's work. It is also more in line with his main themes, telling people they are going to go to hell if they don't become Christians. thumb|Chick TractBorock (talk) 05:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

This would be fine with me. You'll need to expand the fair use rationale (you can mostly copy the one for the image currently in the article), add a copyright tag, and add the name of the article it's currently being used on before we can add it. If you need help with any of those things just ask here - I'm sure one of us can help you. Natalie (talk) 17:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I will put it into the article, however I don't have a clue how to edit the fair use rationale. Please help me with that. Borock (talk) 18:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
No problem. I can expand the fair use rationale later today. Natalie (talk) 12:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Borock (talk) 17:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Borock, the frame that you removed and that had been present on this page for a very long time was chosen because it was representative of Chick's work. It is no more offensive than the typical Chick tract. Please do not bowdlerize his own work. NTK (talk) 09:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Just because something is one the page for a long time doesn't mean it has to stay there forever. Why you do think we should use the old comic book frame, instead of this other frame? What are your actual reasons? Natalie (talk) 17:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Borock's choice. BTW the other frame is often mentioned on sites which criticize Chick, seemingly to imply that he has an unhealthy interest in the sexual abuse of children. That may be true but I think that WP should have a higher standard of the things we say, or imply, about living people. If a reliable source says he's a pervert we could mention that, perhaps. (I still object to any use of his copyrighted art at all, although I see the the WP community doesn't agree with me on that.) Redddogg (talk) 16:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
That's a good point. I think the advantage to the frame chosen by Borock is that it is a good example of his work without trying to be sensationalistic. While we should not bowdlerize someone, neither should we exaggerate their work or try to paint them in a bad light. Natalie (talk) 16:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
This is not exaggeration or painting him in a bad light, such conclusions are your own. Nowhere did it portray Chick as a pervert, there was merely a highly representative frame from Chick's works. Portrayals of gays and demons (and associations of the two) are common. This frame is not out of context and was not altered, and nobody has shown otherwise. NTK (talk) 19:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
No one has shown otherwise because no one is claiming that this is out of context, altered, or that it portrays Chick as a pervert. I don't really mind having either frame, or both (although because they are fair use we are probably restricted to one), but it would be nice if you would actually provide some arguments in favor of including this frame instead of another one of the many thousands of frames we could pick. These two frames are no more typical than any other two frames, so your argument that this was chosen because it's representative doesn't really wash. And as I said before, just because something has been on a page for a long time doesn't mean it needs to stay there any longer, or indeed that it should have been there in the first place. So I guess I'll just ask again: what reasons do you have to support keeping the frame from Doom Town instead of the other frame? Natalie (talk) 22:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The other image has been deleted. Perhaps this discussion should instead switch to whether the current image is sufficient for our readers and if not post a link to a better one with a statement why it should be replaced. Benjiboi 23:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Commenting myself now, I think we should add other frames that illustrate Chick's various POV on key subjects, I also wholly agree with Natalie Erin that whether someone is offended by an image isn't a concern as wikipedia is not censored. It seems to me we should, eventually, develop mini-sections which could be also copied to the track article showing Chick's work in key areas. It might also make sense to put them in order that makes sense which I'm guessing would be roughly chronological. Ideas? Benjiboi 21:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that's fair, and it begs the question. The original frame was deleted because someone removed it inline for the second time without notifying me, and then someone else deleted it as an orphaned image, also without notifying me. NTK (talk) 21:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Well fair or not it's been removed, I can't comment on the image now because I have no idea what it was. Could you put a link here to it or some other image(s) you think might be appropriate? I'm convinced that showing several examples will actually be less POV problematic as we'll be letting the work speak for itself. Benjiboi 21:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Why would anyone need to notify you before making edits, NTK? Benjiboi, the original image is Image:Jack Chick frame.png, deleted by Mecu (talk · contribs). Natalie (talk) 21:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I think NTK's point is that before deleting the image it would have been nice to have been notified, and I basically agree. Also it would have been much more diplomatic to have changing images discussion before doing so which I also basically agree. However the image is not here now, and Natalie Erin that link doesn't work as it's no longer on wikipedia. So again what other areas might be better understood with an image from Chick's work and what images in particular would be best? Ideas? links? Benjiboi 22:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't realize you wanted the link to Chick's website - I thought you wanted to see the deletion log or something. My mistake. The comic is at [1], although the link on the image description page to the specific frame is now broken. As to the notification issue, there seems to be a confusion about how this happened. This image was nominated for deletion for a completely different reason (copyright), and before the issue of whether or not it was the best choice was even raised. A discussion did begin here and no objections were raised to replacing the image, so it was replaced. When NTK objected, the old image was restored, so the page had both images. I'm not sure who removed it most recently, but I don't believe the deleting administrator was even aware that there was disagreement about which image to use on this page. Complaints about notification of a deletion discussion should probably go to the original nominator, and complaints about the actual deletion would be best addressed to the deleting admin. The deleting administrator may be willing to restore the image due to this issue. Natalie (talk) 22:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. It was just the frame that begins "Even children were not safe". It is particularly necessary to notify when removing fair use images that have previously already been discussed and reinstated, since fair use images are routinely deleted when orphaned. Although the ordinary procedure is to tag orphaned images and notify the uploader at the same time to give fair notice, which is what happened the first time it was removed. I also agree that including multiple examples (entire tracts are not necessary, frames will suffice) would be good and entirely appropriate fair use to demonstrate the evolving artwork and various topic matters. Fair use is also especially appropriate with media like this that is intended to be widely distributed free of charge (although these are not free images, to be sure).
I think that we should have both frames. The one currently is a frame from a very early tract, I believe illustrated by Chick himself, and it shows the "scare the hell out of you" theme. The Doom Town one that I had uploaded is more recent and shows the more "realistic," less cartoonish style of the new artist with more use of shading etc., and also shows the demon-possessed homosexual/perverted unbeliever theme. It might even be good to have a third image with the "glowing face of God on the throne" final frame that is on many of the Salvation-themed tracts, along with the "instructions for salvation." NTK (talk) 14:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
My work's internet filter is blocking Chick's site (gee, I wonder why?) so I can't check this myself, but are we positive that the newer artwork in Doom Town is Jack Chick? IIRC, the more realistic artwork that appears in the mid - late 70s is almost exclusively Fred Carter, and it would be kind of counter productive to have Carter's art on Chick's article. NTK, I think your idea of showing a few representative samples is a good one: articles about other artists do this, using copyrighted works. Perhaps we could get three or four frames from different time periods (I think most of the tracts available on his site are from the mid-80s onward) and mash them into one image, so there is only one file to keep track of. Someone else would have to combine the images - my PhotoShop skills are severely lacking. Natalie (talk) 14:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
No, according to the article, Chick hasn't illustrated his tracts since 1972, which accounts for most of the big difference in style. But they are still Chick tracts, and he still writes and designs them. NTK (talk) 15:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
My understanding was that Chick hired Carter to do illustrations for a spell, then returned to illustrating his own tracts. His most recent ones have a style which hearkens to the very early ones. Doom Town looks to me like Carter's work: people have realistic face shapes and there is more shading. BreathingMeat (talk) 20:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Outdent. I'm not sure if it matters although it would be best, IMHO, to have the caption on the image as well as the image's page be descriptive as it's likely we'll use some of these images elsewhere. Please note that we'll have to provide a fair-use for each usage. The reason for inclusion is under critical commentary more than the artistic expression (although that is also important). I do agree with Natalie Erin in that if the artwork is not also Chick's then the image's inclusion weights on the verbiage used in context with the images. As we don't know exactly how the images and text are developed together we have to go only on the final product. Benjiboi 01:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possible source

here. Benjiboi 11:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possible source

here. Benjiboi 12:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of things he's opposed to

Older versions of this page (such as this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jack_T._Chick&oldid=190657983#_note-1 ) listed various things Chick's opposed to:

Harry Potter, rock music,[2] Roman Catholicism,[3] Islam,[4] Judaism,[5] homosexuality,[6] Mormonism,[7] Jehovah's Witnesses,[8] evolutionary science,[9] and Freemasonry.

I thought that was more informative and paints a much better picture of how radical he is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lumarine (talk • contribs) 22:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Some of this list does remain and could be expanded. My feeling, I suppose, is that a complete list of all of the things Jack Chick opposes isn't really necessary and that we should stick with either those subjects that have been discussed in other sources or those subjects he returns to repeatedly (Halloween, for example), but that's just my $.02. Natalie (talk) 23:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I thought the problem was that we didn't have quality secondary sources, that met the WP:BLP requirements, for all this anti. The refs that we used on those statements were all links to his comics. Interpreting the comics to determine Chick's opinions counts as original research. BreathingMeat (talk) 23:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm a bit divided on this. My hunch is that we should first use reliable sources independent of Chick then fill in with cites to his own comics that would likely been seen as not OR. All of this should be done to neutrality standards and to aid the reader's understanding of the subject. Some of the things can be done by more neutral wording - like instead of stating Chick hates Halloween we could write Chick has written X tracts on this subject and delves into the ties between Halloween and Satanism. Benjiboi 01:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't entirely understand which things you would like to substantiate with other sources. Are you proposing sourcing all of his views with secondary sources, choosing which ones to discuss based on secondary sources, or something else? Natalie (talk) 15:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
He's a controversial person and we should ensure that pretty much anything someone would object to or question is sourced. We are doing two things at the same time, educating the reader about the subject and sourcing all the contentious content to help prevent vandalism (for example someone adding that Chick believes in _____ without any citation). Ideally from RS that are not Chick himself, remaining items can be covered by Chick's own works. If there is something we can't document then it's a judgment call and generally i favor leaving stuff in and {{fact}} tagging if it seems too controversial. Benjiboi 22:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I guess I don't personally see a problem with sourcing his beliefs to his own comic tracts, as long as we're not stretching the citation. If he himself says "Harry Potter is a bad influence on children" I think it's acceptable to say he's opposed to Harry Potter, but when he says something bad about the Jewish religion I don't feel like we can stretch that to say he hates Jews, for example. Natalie (talk) 15:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually I think both those examples would be original research; If he himself says "Harry Potter is a bad influence on children" then we can quote him as such but not infer what he believes or why he said it. If however a hypothetic work he wrote all about Satanism he wrote "Harry Potter is a bad influence on children" we can combine the two but still should avoid OR - in his tract "_____" discussing Satanism Chick wrote "Harry Potter is a bad influence on children" thus the reader can infer for themselves what Chick means and why he wrote it. This is also why outside reliable sources are better as they can say Chick hates Harry Potter whereas we cannot, if a reliable source states Chick is anti-Potter then we can use it and cite that assertion to that source. Benjiboi 20:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I guess I'm not really thinking of saying he "hates" anything, but rather sentences along the lines of "Chick identified blah blah blah as the source of [recent social problem]" and so on, which are sourcable to his tracts without any original research. This is basically what we already have, and may be our best option considering that not too terribly many people write about him. He flies a little under the radar. Natalie (talk) 20:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
The tracts are an uncomfortable blend of fiction and exegesis - it is sometimes difficult to sort out the statements of Chick's belief from the symbolism and plot advancement. I think we can't really go much further than to say "Chick has published tracts NAH and BLAH, warning about FLAH (ref commentary on Chick.com or secondary source)." Perhaps a better place to get statements of Chick's beliefs would be in his Battle Cry newsletter, of which there are a number of back-issues online, and which contain a lot more direct statements. This is probably allowable under WP:SELFPUB, although the newsletter does appear to be quite self-serving as it often appears to be little more than advertising for tracts and other Chick publications. BreathingMeat (talk) 22:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Original research my fat furry butt. Chick isn't subtle about his views - there's no "interpretation" required. — NRen2k5(TALK), 16:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It would probably be easier to list the things he isn't opposed to. // Liftarn (talk)

[edit] Music

I removed this as unsupported but believe it's true and should be re-added with better writing and ref. "He also opposes both christian and secular Rock Music, believing that it's pagan and will lead teenagetrs to hell." Benjiboi 00:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] thank you

Thank you very much for removing the Jack Chick quotes that said something like "god was using him to help other find the way" it was full of that quotes until recently. Good job, I appreciate it very much. Could anyone help me out with the Spanish article? I'm new at this and it's freaking me out, because every time I remove the vandalism, it comes again and I don't know how to lock the page. Thank you. Alejandro Alatorre Vargaslugo (talk) 04:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

See if you can apply a "template" to label the article as frequently vandalized, and ask an admin for help. As for the vandalism itself, if you don't already know how, I suggest you learn how to revert. — NRen2k5(TALK), 12:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 500 million? Most published?

The only cite for the statement about Chick being the most published author in the world is a bare assertion from Catholic Answers. If nobody can come up with better support for that statement I'm going to go ahead and remove it. — NRen2k5(TALK), 01:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the claims of "most-sold comic book author" or "500 million tracts" are accurate. Claims that large need better sources than the ones we have, especially on such a controversial subject. (For comparison, there have only been 400 million Harry Potter books sold.) --Jedravent (talk) 20:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

There are two third-party references to support the claim that 500 million have been sold - though both references are somewhat informal. Personally I am inclined to believe the figure: it seems that there are people who buy the things by the thousand! BreathingMeat (talk) 03:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Somewhat informal? Both references are just parrotting a sensationalist claim from Jack Chick's own publishing company. And that claim is dubious. The people who buy the tracts generally don't read them. They buy them by the hundreds and thousands to hand out to people on street corners, at sports games, etc. where they promptly are thrown in the trash. My point being that the number of tracts printed/bought doesn't say anything about his popularity. — NRen2k5(TALK), 11:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chick's Anti-Catholicism;

Why is Jack Chick so veheminently(sp.) anti-catholic?!?!

Why does he refuse to acknowledge Catholics as his fellow Christians?!?!

Does he view the Orthodox in the very same way as he does Catholics??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolyn1971 (talk • contribs) 03:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Because he's bat@#$% crazy, because he's bat@#$% crazy, and good question but probably yes - in the warped little minds of people like Jack Chick, only Protestant Christians can go to heaven, and even some among them aren't holy enough. — NRen2k5(TALK), 11:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)