Talk:Jack Chick/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Okinawa Suvivor?

Removed reference about being "one of the few survivors of the Battle of Okinawa". The site link referenced simply repeated the same sentence with no reference. Also, while the Battle of Okinawa was one of the bloodiest battles ever there were more than "a few" survivors of that battle.

http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/okinawa/default.aspx

~~Greylond

a few changes

As one who reads Chick tracts, I felt I could add something helpful. Under the Publications heading, I corrected the claim that Chick's stories always have the same outcome. They do not, although there's only one of two possible endings. I also stated that Chick always appeals to the reader to pray a prayer to God to save him at the end of the story.192.231.128.67 05:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. You are, of course, correct. Chip Unicorn 17:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Semitic Accusations

First, User:Liftarn added Chick under the anti-semite category, and then posted a link to "Where's Rabbi Waxman" http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0014/0014_01.asp saying Chick has been accused of anti-semitism. I think it's quite inaccurate to call Chick and anti-semite. The message of the tract is that Jews would go to hell if they don't accept Christ as their savior despite having the law. It doesn't say that the Jewish nation would go to hell simply because they are Jews - that would be anti-semitic. As for accusations, considering that the user in question assumes that Chick is anti-semitic I suppose it is correct that Chick has indeed been accused of this, but it's similar to original research (which is prohibited) if a user makes the accusation. Should there be a relevant link with other people's accusations I suppose it'd be OK to add somewhere in the article that "Chick has been accused of...", but until that happens I'll keep reverting edits of the above sort. Jack Daw 15:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that Chick is against a lot of groups: Catholics ([[1]], [[2]], [[3]], [[4]], [[5]], [[6]]), Muslims ([[7]], [[8]], [[9]]), homosexuals ([[10]], [[11]]), masons ([[12]]), Hindus ([[13]]), and Buddhists ([[14]]). He's not particularly anti-Semitic; he's just against any group that doesn't have the same religious views as him. Chip Unicorn 18:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I think that it's kind of a confusion over the meaning of anti-Semitism. To be anti-Semitic is to have negative views of Jews and believe Jews have negative characteristics that derive directly from their Jewishness. I have not yet found any evidence that Chick holds such a view - he portrays Jews, Catholics, gays et. al. in a negative light but he ties this to them not believing his ideology, not because of inherent traits in the people he attacks. --Davril2020 17:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

"His anti-Semitism is rarely overt, though he does claim falsely that Lenin and Stalin were both "of Jewish extraction" and that the House of Rothschild controls the Illuminati. Chick shares fully, however, in the anti-Semitism that underlies much fundamentalist theology."[15], "Although Chick has toned down his anti-Semitism in recent years, let's just say that his "ministry" is no friend of Jews who aren't interested in converting to Christianity."[16] and "Other targets of Chick include Islam, Freemasonry, and Judaism, which is portrayed in one comic (Where’s Rabbi Waxman) as incomplete and inadequate unless belief in Jesus is acknowledged.[82] This immense site demonstrates exactly how the old-style extremism can be easily updated and made even more accessible by the new technology."[17]// Liftarn

If we're calling Jack Chick anti-Semitic, I'm adding anti-Catholic and anti-Muslim to the list. Chip Unicorn 20:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

But, none of this shows that he's anti-semitic. Would I be anti-white if I claimed Bill Gates was behind let's say "anti-American UN operations" or something of that kind? As for targetting Jews in that tract, again, it's not because they're Jews, but because they're sinners that they are, as that article (or whatever's the source) says, "incomplete and inadequate". Jack Daw 20:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

HOLD IT for a minute. Do we have a third party, as in an outside source, calling Chick anti-semitic, anti-catholic, or any of these things? Refresh your memories on WP:NOR. No matter how disgustingly offensive Chick's tracts are, we ourselves cannot state that they are anti-semitic or anti-catholic or anything else. We must quote someone else saying it from outside Wikipedia.

Note that I do not disagree that he is anti-semitic or anti-catholic. I note that it is not our place to call him such. This is an encyclopedia. I'm certain there must be plenty of sources out there, of newspapers and organizations which have reviled Chick's narrowminded attitude. Quote them. Don't insert original research. Kasreyn 23:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure thing!

An example of how the Internet has empowered extremists can be seen from the career of Jack Chick. A Californian, he achieved a modest degree of notoriety in the early-mid 1980’s, by producing a series of comic (and regular) books that, in the words of once scholar “illustrate the lingering force of this (anti-Catholic) hostility.”[75] The theme of the books was, in the words of another expert, “Maria Monk returned in 1984.”[76] Although the books sold fairly well, times had indeed changed and, as Mark Noll is quick to point out: “Protestants from very many backgrounds joined Catholic spokesmen in denouncing the books; the Christian Booksellers Association, which represented largely a conservative Protestant constituency, expressed its regret over the publications; and evangelical journalists contributed much of the hard information that exposed the comic books as fraudulent.”[77] Today however, Jack Chick maintains a Web site where the interested reader can read (or download) a complete copy of Chick’s 500 page book, Smokescreens, along with 35 other tracts. The list of products for purchase includes the tracts, available in English and in 60 other languages,[78] books, T-shirts, comic, posters, and videos. In his introduction to Smokescreens, Chick openly lays out his agenda: “Now we believe at Chick Publications, that the whore of Revelation is the Roman Catholic Institution… You see, the Jesuits influenced people, and they started setting up smokescreens (hence, the book’s title) during our times… and when that smokescreen came up we started the whore of Revelation in a different light… There has been a multi-million dollar campaign made through the media to convince people that I am a bigoted, anti-Catholic hate literature publisher… The truth is, I love the Catholic people enough to risk my life and my business… to pull them out of the false religious system they’re now serving.” The book’s chapter titles illustrate its obsessions: “A 20th Century Inquisition” (this refers to the Holocaust, which according to Chick, resulted because “the Jesuits had secretly prepared World War II, and Hitler’s war machine was built and financed by the Vatican to conquer the world for Roman Catholicism.)[79], “The Whore of Revelation” and concluding with “Blueprint for Catholic America,” which exposes “the Roman Catholic Institution’s plans to take over the United States.” Once that happens “when the Vatican take control of the United States , every pastor and his family will be shot in the head.”[80] Other books on Chick’s list include Dave Hunt’s, A Woman Rides the Beast, which “offers proof that the Roman Catholic Church is involved in Antichrists future empire, making it impossible for (Catholic and Protestant) to work together,” and a series about a 19th century “ex-Catholic priest” that includes proof “that it was the Jesuits who killed Lincoln and explains why.” Also included are the original comic books of 1980’s notoriety, the “Alberto” series. This series of six comics revels in all the familiar charges (i.e. Catholicism “cannot save,” no one can leave the Jesuits alive, “infiltration of Protestant organizations,” “the Vatican is using its occult force to deceive millions,” and how “the papacy fulfills Bible prophecies of the Antichrist."[81] Other targets of Chick include Islam, Freemasonry, and Judaism, which is portrayed in one comic (Where’s Rabbi Waxman) as incomplete and inadequate unless belief in Jesus is acknowledged.[82] This immense site demonstrates exactly how the old-style extremism can be easily updated and made even more accessible by the new technology.

-- "The Inverted Image: Antisemitism and Anti-Catholicism on the Internet" by Mark Weitzman at http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/cjrelations/resources/articles/weitzman.htm (The original article contains the references in brackets.) Chip Unicorn 00:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Rock on, Chip. Be bold: add the cite to the article.  :) Kasreyn 00:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we'll have to define the "antis" here. I removed him from the anti-Catholicism, -muslim and -Semitic categories because there's no evidence that he would HATE these groups simply because they are of their respective groups. Or has Chick somewhere said that he does not hate the Catholic church because it's the Whore of Babylon, but because of some innate quality that they have? And so on for Jews and Muslims... Until proof of similar statements can be made, it's incorrect to put him under these categories. Jack Daw 12:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Jack Daw, could you please define your notion of "hate" for us? Also, please give an example of a person you believe would BE "anti-Catholic." It seems to me thast the the very fact that he holds the Catholic church out as the "whore of babylon." Would earn him a place on the anti-Catholic list. I've been a Chick reader for many years, and the entire Alberto series reeks of anti-Catholicism. -- Murcielago 14:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not relevant how I define hatred. What's relevant is, What is Chick against in these groups? Is Chick AGAINST Jews because 1) they're going to hell according to his theology, or 2) because they have some trait, of any nature, that would make them into "lesser" people? It is obviously the first, and so one would have to come up with a reason as to why believing that Jews would need a savior is anti-semitism. If I say to a person that he needs a million bucks to buy a private jet, does that mean I am anti middle class, AGAINST the middle class? No. Similarly, Chick is only saying that Jews need Jesus to attain heaven/salvation. Just to make sure my message is getting through, another example: If a hardcore materialist scorns at a person who believes happiness can be attained by non-material means, saying he is wrong and that he will never attain happiness, is the materialist AGAINST the other person? Of course not. Thus, Chick saying that a person will never attain heaven/salvation by any other means than faith in Christ is not the same as being against those persons. While he may be against the Catholic Church as an institution, as many people may be against the Bush admin, that doesn't mean one is against Catholics, or the Bush admin, as PERSONS. Jack Daw 18:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Except that under your test, Chick is also lumping Catholics and Muslims under criterion 2): because they do not embrace his belief system they are "lesser" people. Proclaiming their eternal damnation, spreading falsehoods about what they believe, and directing that "true" Christians should not associate with them (see generally http://www.chick.com/reading/books/153/153cont.asp) is no different than saying they are "lesser people" because of their religion. Against my better judgment, I will run with your "middle class" analogy, Chick would say "you need a million bucks to buy a private jet, middle class people can't afford a private jet. Adolf Hitler was a tool of the middle class, the middle class are idolators, people who can afford a private jet should not associate with the middle class, and ultimately the middle class will burn for eternity in a fiery lake." Would that statement make you anti middle-class? Murcielago 19:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see how proclaiming someone's eternal damnation because their views don't agree with one's own is saying a group of people is lesser. All he's saying is what the Bible plainly states, namely that all outside of Christ will go to hell, and he says Catholics, Muslims and Jews among others belong to this group of people. He's not saying they're worse than him, at least I've never read such a statement by him. As for disassociation with Catholics, I don't doubt that for a second, but again, that's just the Bible talking. Could you also be more specific on the link and provide the chapter where you got it from? Anyway, imo there's a big difference between not associating with people and thinking less of them. I think Chick and his fellow IFBs disassociate themselves from Catholics and anything else they consider ungodly for pretty much the same reasons I don't associate with criminals - I don't wanna get bad influences or get drawn into something corruptive - just as they consider Catholics (or rather Catholicism) et al to be. As for Your analogy, first of all that's quite amusing, thanks for the laugh! ;) Anyway, if a person made all those accusations/associations, knowing they were false, simply to discredit - in this case - the middle class, yes, that person would be anti middle-class. However, there's nothing that suggests that Chick doesn't believe what he says about Catholicism and other institutions. If he really believes WW2 was an agenda of the RCC for example - and there's no way of proving the opposite - I'd say he's gravely misinformed, rather than anti-Catholic. Jack Daw 21:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

"All he's saying is what the Bible plainly states, namely that all outside of Christ will go to hell". No. That is not what the Bible states, that is what the New Testament states, the New Testament being only part of the Bible, and the part least agreed on by people following the religions that the Bible started out as part of when it was just what we now call the Old Testament (that is, Jews, Muslims and Christians do follow the Old Testament, but only Christians follow the New Testament as written... though Muslims do believe Christ was a minor prophet, just not on the same level as Mohammed). Runa27 20:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

By that rationale, those Nazis that truly believed the Jews were out for world domination because they read it in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion were also "gravely misinformed" rather than anti-semitic, right? --Murcielago 21:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't say, but to my recollection top nazis including Hitler supported their views by referring to some innate quality with the Jewish nation, blaming their very genetics for whatever they thought negative about the Jews. Jack Daw 22:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Jack. --Murcielago 03:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that Chick is an anti-Semite, but he sure is anti-Catholic. It's a well-known fact. Aaрон Кинни (t) 12:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

He certainly is an anti-Semite, but he is it based on religion, not etnicity so Jews who have converted to Christianity (his type of Christianity anyway) would be OK with him. // Liftarn

That may be more true, but in that case he should be put under Anti-Judaism, if there is such a category. Jack Daw 13:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia defines Anti-Semitism as "hostility toward or prejudice against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group, which can range from individual hatred to institutionalized, violent persecution." (emphasis added) Also see Anti-Judaism. // Liftarn

Mhm, and it also says, "...racial anti-Semitism became the dominant form of anti-Semitism from the late 19th century through today. Racial anti-Semitism replaced the hatred of Judaism as a religion with the idea that the Jews themselves were a racially distinct group, regardless of their religious practice, and that they were inferior or worthy of animosity." The common definition of anti-semitism is just that, rather than hostility against the religion. Your average reader who bumps into the Jack Chick article reading he's anti-semitic won't say to himself "oh so this man is against the Jewish religion". It is understood as the latter part of the above quote, which is not Chick's views on Jews. Regardless, I give up on this, so y'all can add him under the transgender and openly gay categories for all I care. Jack Daw 23:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that Jack Chick's against any non-Christian religion or belief system (as he defines a Christian belief system), which would include Catholics, Mulims, Mormons, Jews, and others. When you say "anti-Semitic", it implies being against the Jewish race. However, Jewish doesn't simply indicate a race of people, rather a history, culture and religion as well. So, to be more precise, one could say that Jack Chick is against the Jewish religion because he feels that because they reject Christ as Messiah, they're apostate, or something like that. Now, if someone's against the Jewish religion, does that necessarily make him against the Jewish race? Well, only if you assert that to be Jewish is to be a follower of Judaism. From what I've read, most Jews themselves don't have this exclusive a view. One can be a follower of virtually any faith and retain his "Jewishness". On the other hand, when it comes to Mormons, the argument could be made that he's anti-Mormon since being a Mormon necessitates practicing the Mormon religion and he believes Mormonism is not supported by the Bible.192.231.128.66 05:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I do admit that anti-Semitism could technically include being against Judaism, however, when someone is accused of being anti-Semitic, it's generally understood to mean that the person holds negative views of the Jewish people themselves, based upon supposed racial "characteristics" (big nose, greedy, eating Christians, raping "Aryan" women, etc). This is why anti-Semitism is viewed with such disdain by most people. It's considered a form of racism, not as simply disagreeing with Judaism's teachings or practices.192.231.128.66 23:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

SOmetimes people let their own prejudices show through when they accuse others of prejudice. Chick is not an anti-semite for saying Jews who aren't Christians are going to hell, because he holds everyone on the face of earth who is not a Christian is going to hell. Disagreeing with Judaism is not anti-semitism, otherwise most of the world including most Jews are anti-semites. Chick even has a pamphlet called, "Love the Jews." http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1000/1000_01.asp 88.154.158.42 16:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Chis is an anti-Semite for saying Jews who aren't Christians are going to Hell. He's not an athnic anti-Semite, but a religions anti-Semite, i.e. Jews who convert to Christianity is OK with him. Disagreeing with Judaism is a form of anti-Semitism at least when it's on the level of disagreement that Jack Chick has. // Liftarn

Simply applying a belief that Chick holds for all people (non-belivers in Christ will go to hell) to a specific group or individual in an illustrative example does not make him Antisemitic, Anti-Islamic, Anti-Christian, etc. unless he shows hostility or prejudice towards the group in question also (e.g. see the definition of Anti-Semitisim). To be precise if inelegant, Chick is anti-non-fundamentalist. Since Chick does not single out Jews for his beliefs and did not make hostile statements against them (at least that are cited in the article), the Antisemitic level should not apply. Antonrojo 17:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

But Chick does single out Jews. I checked and it's still in the article. Look towards the end of the "Publications" section. He also has specific anti-Islam (for instance Allah Had No Son and The Pilgrimage) and anti-Buddhist tracts. // Liftarn

Are you referring to this? The crux of this tract, as stated above ("sometimes people...") is that Jews, like others who don't share Chick's fundamentalist beliefs, won't be allowed into heaven. To label someone Antisemitic, they need to show hostility or hatred towards Jews as a group and I don't see that here since his intolerance is intradenominational. He singles out Jews as he singles out people of any belief not his own--as an illustrative example. Antonrojo 02:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

We have evidence that Chick is hotile towards Jews as a group[18]. And he also singles them out as an example, but you are saying we can't call him anti-Semitic because he hates other groups too? Thats's utter nonsense. So if you hate group A and group B you don't hate group A? I don't quite agree with that kind of logic. So a nao-nazi who hates Jews, blacks and homosexuals isn't anti-Semitic? // Liftarn

(reset tab) I think it's important to define 'hatred' and 'hostility'. Many Christians and fundamentalists believe that it is their duty as part of their mission to bring Christianity to all non-believers. Whether the effects are positive or not, proselytizing is not hostility per se. The key ingredient is in the intention of the person doing it. Websters defines hostility as a "deep-seated usually mutual ill will" so an important ingredient is a very strong dislike towards a person or group. Warning people who (in your belief) are taking the wrong moral path does not qualify unless you insult them in the process, especially if you hold yourself to the same standard. Chick's tract is equivalent to a believer in reincarnation telling us we will live my next life as a lower form of life or be barred from nirvana unless we embrace her religion--annoying, yes, hostility or hatred, no. Antonrojo 02:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see the definition at Antisemitism:

• Religious antisemitism, or anti-Judaism. As the name implies, it was the practice of Judaism itself that was the defining characteristic of the antisemitic attacks. Under this version of antisemitism, attacks would often stop if Jews stopped practising or changed their public faith.

This is the type of anti-Semitism that Jack Chick practices. Also (from Anti-Judaism) "Christian anti-Judaism is a Christian theological position denigrating Jewish belief and practice.". The Chick tract is indeed insulting and has been described as anti-Semitic. If you write and publish anti-Semitic cartoons I think it is enough to label a person anti-Semitic. // Liftarn

I understand your point that hostility towards Judaism can be anti-Semitism in some cases. This isn't one of those cases. Nearly every major religion believes that others who don't share their belief won't make it to heaven, will suffer eternal torment in the afterlife, aren't God's favored people in this life, etc. and that belief, in itself, is not hostility towards other religions but merely their perspective on how the world works.

That the tract in question is indeed insulting and has been described as anti-Semitic as you state is a claim that requires evidence. JoshuaZ gives a good example below of how to substantiate this type of claim, in his case the anti-Islam claim. A neutral description of a religion followed by the 'punchline' that their devout efforts don't pay off in the afterlife, whether in cartoon form or in the Bible, Koran, etc. is not in itself an insult towards other religions and is rather a strong incentive to believers. So stronger evidence is needed that is is an attack on Judaism, for example exactly how does Chick show the "hostility to the Jewish religion (Judaism) and those who practice it" required to label his work anti-Judaic? Also, who describes this tract as Anti-Semitic? (that Jewish groups or leaders have protested a work or statement as Anti-Semitic is a necessary but not sufficient condition for categorizing it as such, at least because their is often debate in that community).

Perhaps its a good moment to put this up for a straw poll in an attempt to test consensus since the issue has been discussed extensively. Antonrojo 15:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there are sources that describe Chick as anti-Semitic. [19](expecially points 5 and 7) [20] [21] ("the only thing missing is explicit anti-semitism") [22] ("they are antisemitic as well") // Liftarn

I think we can all agree that Chick does not agree with the Jewish faith and targets at least that aspect. However, just because he dissagrees with their fath does not make him an anti-semite. I am Christian, I do not agree with other faiths, however, I do respect them. He lacks respect. I do believe he has a little anti-semitic set of thoughts because he has been kind of "condemning" them. However... again, he has not shown "hostility" to those groups. IronCrow 06:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Alleged Photo

Porky Pig put this link of an alleged photo of Jack Chick in the first paragraph of the article: Photo of Jack Chick (centre). Since he has been blocked indefinitely, I have removed this until it can be verified. Xamian 12:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

That is almost certainly not Jack Chick. Chick is highly reclusive with no recent photos in circulation. He is also 82 years old, much older than any of the men depicted. It is most likely someone's idea of a joke; Chick is unlikely to be found in a bar drinking Miller Lite. NTK 18:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Given Porky Pig's behavior in other areas, I'd be hesitant to trust his word on such an image. We should just accept the fact that there are no photos of Chick available, and move on. Kasreyn 22:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

If you follow the link back to the source URL, you'll find that the picture is from a retirement party in Massachusetts. Rsm99833 22:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Does AstroScience exit?

I just noted that a google search for "astroscience corp" or ("astroscience corporation" -jack -chick) give zero results, and taking away the quotes from astroscience corporation seems to give only pages where astroscience and corporation are entirely unrelated. Is there any confirmation (beyond Chick's own statement) that such a corporation exists, or ever did exist? In El Monte, CA? 165.124.165.162 20:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Legal Notice

To whom it may concern:

We have recently become aware that your site at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Chick

Contains confidential information concerning my client, Mr Chick. He requests that this site be taken down. On behalf of Mr. Chick, I need to ask you to remove this site before we are forced to file suite. Thank you for your cooperation.

Nicolaos Kodey Customer Service Chick Publications, Inc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.53.233 (talk) 21:43, 17 October 2006

Um, good luck on that. I would recomend that next time, employ a spell checker, before posting false bully-tactics. Rsm99833 03:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

He has a point, an idiot of this sature does not desreve a wikipedia page, nor does he contribute to society or the world in a significant way. Therequiembellishere 07:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Nicolaos Kodey,

Thank you for your letter. I am, naturally, concerned about the content of this webpage. To best serve you, I would like to know the following information:

1. Which information, specifically, in the above website is 'confidential'?

2. Can you demonstrate that your client, Jack Chick, has requested that this information has requested that this information be made confidential? For example, if you claim that "Jack Chick's loves wearing red, silk, lacey underwear" is confidential, do you have a signed statement from Mr. Chick that says, "Please do not publish my love of wearing red, silk, lacey underwear."?

3. Please submit such a statement to Wikimedia Commons, so that we may link to it as our reason for not publishing, for example, Jack Chick's love of wearing red, silky, lacey underwear. Indeed, it is best that this statement include all information that Jack Chick prefer not be published in great detail, so that all of this article's editors can know precisely which topics to refrain from adding to the article.

Thank you for your time and effort!

-- Not representing Wikimedia, but tickled at the idea of combining Jack Chick and red, silk, lacey underwear.

Chip Unicorn

If you believe the contents of the article are libellous, please follow the instructions on WP:LIBEL. All information in Wikipedia articles is meant to be verifiable, which means anything we mention is already public knowledge. If you believe someone has added confidential information to this article that they found out through some private means, please let us know and it will be removed under our original research policy. If the information you wish to be removed is not libellous and is verifiable by any member of the public, then I do not think there is anything we can do to help you as Wikipedia is not censored. --Tango 15:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I applied an edit here of needless profanity.Patrick19405 04:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Disclaimer in intro

I chopped the following from the intro, as it appears to be saying that information in the article is not verifiable or from reliable sources. If this is the case, the article needs to be changed (or sourced) rather than a disclaimer added.

Note: Much of the biographical and other information given here is simply that published on the Chick Publications website. There appear to be few or no independent interviews ever conducted with the man and few photographs taken of him. Chick Publications is, as the name suggests, primarily a publishing company specializing in Christian-oriented literature of Jack Chick. His current level of input to the day-to-day running of the company is not publicly known.

Ashmoo 01:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Islam

I think it's pretty obvious that Chick is anti-Muslim. Relevant citations would include [23] and [24] [25] [26]. At minimum this sources the claim that his detractors consider him to be anti-islamic and arguably sources the claim as a whole. JoshuaZ 02:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed Vandalism

I'm new to this... but just wanted to note that I removed some vandalism from this page. Don't know if there is someway to put the page on alert for such....

The strange thing was that when I went to edit the page, I could not see the inserted string of foul language. It just had some blank spaces. I simply it one back space, deleting the blank line. That did the trick... but I have no idea why! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.60.87.126 (talk) 03:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

I just removed the "This man is evil." from the article. Might be true, but it's obviously vandalism and not up to encylopedia standards. Davidac18643 (talk) 19:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC) Sorry, somebody beat me to it. nevermind.

Where is the vandalism hidden? I can't find the code!

Anybody? I mean, I tend to agree that Chick has serious issues, but vandalism isn't the way to address it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.203.191.170 (talk) 09:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2016

The recent death box (table? tag?) should be placed on this article, as Jack Chick has just died. The article should also be updated to reflect that, obviously.

108.39.69.199 (talk) 20:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

No, the change should not be made until Chick's death is completely confirmed by an indisputably reliable source. A better idea might be to full protect the article against editing because of the abusive edits being made. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Their facebook page says he's dead: Chick's death announcement Czolgolz (talk) 20:33, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

It also says that condolences "will be taken to his widow" even though Chick's wife died in 1998. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 20:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Per the comments of Jonathunder, the admin who recently semi-protected the article: "Facebook is not a reliable source". Again, given the disruptive edits being made (including one with a repulsive edit summary that should be removed from the revision history), full protection would probably be a good idea. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

The biography on this page states that he remarried. Are we saying that is incorrect and needs to be removed? Kaleb70 (talk) 20:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

My mistake. He did indeed remarry. So what does this say about that Facebook post's reliability? Is it good? RunnyAmiga ※ talk 20:50, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Their website is down. Hopefully they'll post something there soon. Czolgolz (talk) 21:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@Czolgolz: I don't think it matters because the biography page at chick.com that appears as a source right after the remarrying sentence doesn't seem to confirm it, per previous versions from the Wayback Machine. I think the remarrying claim is sourced from that catholic.com link I posted. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 21:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

The assertion that Chick is dead is now present of a few media [27] [28][29][30] but maybe they're all just believing the facebook post. --Raminagrobis (talk) 22:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that could be true, but it does not make a difference for our purposes. If the claim is made by media outlets that qualify as reliable sources, we can take it as fact, whatever they based it upon. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:38, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

"Re: "we can take it as fact," -- that is unless there is a controversy. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:41, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Add this link from the Guardian to the links that say he has a second wife. --Thebirdlover (talk) 05:15, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Image of Chick

Regarding the image that was recently restored to the article here by User1937, it needs to be established A) that the picture is actually of Chick, and B) that the picture is not a copyright violation. Thanks. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:08, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Is there some reason to doubt the source it's taken from? -Jason A. Quest (talk) 22:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure that "International Christian Comics Ministry of COMIX35" qualifies as a reliable source. Surely it does not have the same level of reliability as a major media outlet such as the New York Times? The picture could very well be of Chick, but it is unfortunate that we have to take their word for it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:37, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Fortunately, WP:RS doesn't require that the source be The New York Times. I'll repeat my question: Is there some reason to doubt it? -Jason A. Quest (talk) 03:18, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

If you want to replace it with something from a more authoritative source, there's a newspaper article photo cited in an earlier discussion, which would pass Fair Use muster now that he's dead. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I did not say that WP:RS does require that the source be specifically the New York Times. Why refute some nonsense that I never suggested? The point is that the source should be reliable and mainstream. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

The point is that your suspicion of the source has no basis. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:52, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

The website if from a reasonably large christian comic publisher originated by L Nathan Butler, himself a comic artist. In other words, it is not a random blog and reasonably mainstream it is (narrow) domain. Therefore I see no issues of reliability here. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

His NY Times obit: [31] now has an image from his publishing company. Connormah (talk) 06:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Undue and Fringe Theories

I have posted some tags in response to the presentation of fringe theories without any direct refutation. of them. This article is dreadfully unbalanced. Chick was a purveyor of crank conspiracy theories and all sorts of religious bigotry as well as far right politics. While this is generally mentioned, it gets rather short shrift owing to the near total reliance on Chick affiliated sources. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:00, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Given some of the bizarre claims promoted by Chick publications I have serious doubts that they can be treated as reliable sources. This is a really serious problem. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

This article is about Chick. In wikipedia, this is a proper place to presentation of persons' ideas, including reasonably notable crazy fantasies. And they are OK to be sourced from the person himself, as long as they are properly attributed to him and don't post as "truth". The article is of reasonable length and I see nothing excessive.

That said, please specify which exactly parts you see questionable and tag them in the text. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Also please make specific suggestion for "balancing" the text. I do really hope you don't want us to add claims like, "no, Satan does not use Dungeons and Dragons to send us to Hell". Staszek Lem (talk) 21:47, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

This article is not presenting fringe theories as fact, it's presenting the subject of the article as holding to certain fringe theories, which he most certainly did. I see no reason for the tags. 192.91.171.36 (talk) 22:47, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Well there are the bizarre fringe theories about Catholicisms and various other religions with which he did not agree. Per WP:FRINGE we are not allowed to mention fringe theories unless a clear rebuttal is made and we cannot give more or equal weight to the fringe theories. Any entity that is capable of publishing that kind of tripe is not a reliable source for the time of day. Sources must be reliable, and no there is not a presumption of reliability when talking about oneself when there is clear evidence that the subject has promoted/subscribed to this level of fantasy/falsehood. That said, I agree that some use may be permissible when discussing fringe theories. The problem is most of this article is backed by fringe sources. That's a problem. I have alerted the Fringe Theories Noticeboard of some of the issues here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

You did not answer my question: please specify which exactly parts you see questionable. There are two ways to handle them: either delete them or find reliable sources for them. Clearly Chuck is notable primarily for his bizarre views, and we have to cover this. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I concur that his notability is not in doubt. The primary problems as I see it are two. First the vast majority of the cited sources are FRINGE and fail WP:RS. Secondly the article fails WP:DUE in that it discusses a well known purveyor of Fringe Theories with inadequate explanation of the mainstream view of the man and his beliefs. This is especially evident in the section on his publications which names a number of his more (in}famous theories and his support for the notorious fraud Alberto Rivera without offering express refutations of those theories/beliefs which per WP:FRINGE must state that the beliefs are wrong and why they are wrong. It is insufficient to simply say that Catholics etc. consider him to be a bigot. I don't expect these issues to be solved instantly, which is one of the reasons I have tagged the article. But we have some serious problems here, and frankly I think a substantial rewrite of the article relying primarily on unaffiliated RS sources may be needed. (I have not even looked at the Chick publications article.) -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I do agree we should not mention each and every Chick's blurb or Deep Thought unless it was reasonably well discussed in independent reliable sources. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

In fact the article has another major problem: original research. A large number of statements about his views are sourced from his cartoons, such as "Chick was opposed to abortion". Clearly it is a wikipedian inferred from the cartoons cited that Chick was opposed to abortion. I am going to remove all refs to his cartoons which do no provide additional illustration to statements cited from proper sources. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:24, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Good catch. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment My problem is not so much the lack of contextualization, as we clearly don't mean for our readers to take, for instance, the claims attributed to Rivera seriously, but I think the massive list of them might be inappropriate as it looks more like it's intended for humorous than informative purposes. Yes, both Rivera and Chick were anti-Catholic and came up with a lot pretty crazy conspiracy theories -- this does not mean Wikipedia should act as an MST3K-style ironic fan site and should not list them ad nauseum to entertain readers. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:27, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I concur for the reasons you note and also for the pragmatic reason that every fringe theory we name needs to be explicitly refuted. That can get tedious rather quickly. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:43, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I have deleted a swath of material that was (1) about the Tracts and not Jack, and (2) wholly unsourced. I hope this somewhat addresses the FRINGE tag and it can be removed. I guess there is still work to be done in the rest of the article with WP:PRIMARY sources. I humbly submit another WP:RS, Jimmy Akin's latest article on Jack. Elizium23 (talk) 02:35, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

• A cursory look at recent edits suggests significant improvement in the article. It's late here and I will look more closely tomorrow. But I think we are moving in the right direction. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:04, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

• I am hoping that in the next few days we will see multiple sources mentioning his death which can be used as citations for the fringe views. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:14, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I disagree that views are being merely inferred by wikipedians. "Chick was opposed to abortion" is not a wild notion someone got from a single frame of a cartoon; it is a recurring theme and there are two tracts specifically about abortion. Baby Talk and Who Murdered Clarice? are quite strongly worded. The primary sources should be considered reliable sources on Chick's opinions. Roches (talk) 10:52, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Roches is right. Just because Chick's opposition to abortion is in the form of a tract instead of a traditional book doesn't mean that there is the slightest doubt that he was, indeed, opposed to abortion. We need to take care not to read into a tract something that isn't there (plenty of characters in Chick Tracts praise Satan, but in context the tracts and by implication Chick oppose satanism) but that doesn't mean that a tract cannot be a primary source when Chick made his position clear. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:29, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Merge?

Would anyone object to merging Jack Chick and Chick tract? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:00, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I object strongly. They are different subjects, and they deserve independent articles. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 18:47, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Can you name a single thing that is notable about Jack Chick other than Chick tracts? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Chick Publications published things other than Chick tracts. There is no advantage to merging the articles, any more than there would be an advantage to merging Stan Lee with the article on Marvel Comics. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Even if he did nothing else, he would still pass WP:NAUTHOR (and WP:GNG, and WP:BIO). There are sources about him; there are sources about the tracts; there are sources about both. That they are closely related doesn't make him any different from any other author "only" known one set of extremely popular books. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Chick tract

This appears to be a rather unnecessary content fork. The publications are so closely associated with Chick that this really belongs with his article. My main concern as noted in a number of other discussions is that reliance on Chick Publications for sourcing be minimized as far as practicable given their obvious WP:FRINGE nature. Ad Orientem (talk) 19:24, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

No, I think Chick and his tracts have received so much coverage that they are each an independently notable topic. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:26, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Have they received extensive RS coverage centered on them, independent of Jack Chick? Most of what I have seen has been about Jack Chick with the publications as a part of his story. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:28, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I think so. One consideration is that "Chick tracts" are not solely the creation of Jack Chick. Someone else did much of the artwork and they were produced and marketed by a company which may survive its founder. Jonathunder (talk) 20:44, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

If we can establish significant reliable source coverage for the publications that is not primarily about Jack Chick that would go a long way towards establishing independent notability. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:54, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• Support merge I agree with Ad Orientem that the WP:FRINGE nature of chick tracts makes them concerning. His beliefs could easily be summed up and properly balanced in a bio, but having two pages makes it difficult to do, and I am not quite convinced that Chick or the tracts are independently notable from one another. That being the case, I generally support merging stuff into bios if possible, so merging the tracts into this article seems to make the most sense to me. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:47, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - Yup, they're WP:FRINGE, but I don't know why the fringe nature of the tracts themselves is relevant at all to a merge. The tracts are ubiquitous [in the US anyway] icons of ultra-conservative evangelical Christianity that have been written about extensively by reliable sources and they're certainly notable apart from Chick himself. If anything, the tracts are the more notable subject (despite the recent flurry of coverage owing to his death), but I would oppose a merge in either direction. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is adequate coverage of both topics to sustain independent articles. In fact there is a whole complement of articles relating to these topics that exist. Elizium23 (talk) 00:54, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
• Support Merge. We now have two low-quality pages. It will be easier to only have one, and then to focus on improving it. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:10, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. The tracts and Jack Chick are not the same topic. (For one thing, it's doubtful that he produced them entirely himself.) Furthermore, Chick Publications still exists as a business entity, separate from Jack Chick. I would support renaming and developing Chick tract into an article about the company. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:55, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Chick Publications used to be another separate article until 2011. Elizium23 (talk) 01:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

That discussion was at Talk:Chick tract#Merger proposal. I see no evidence that there was any consensus for that merge. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:34, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Obviously there wasn't, or it would've happened. But that doesn't mean the idea is without merit now. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 02:38, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

It did happen - Chick Publications was merged into Chick tract and redirected to it. Elizium23 (talk) 17:58, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - IMO the Jack Chick page is much worse than the Chick Track page and needs a dramatic rewrite to rid itself of all the references that are directly from Chick himself or similar sources. Now is not the time to merge MORE content with a page that already has issues. Also the Chick Track page is essentially the parent as there are many many more people who are familiar with Chick Tracks (the statement that the topic is fringe is honestly somewhat surprising to me...) than know the man himself. Once the Jack Chick page is cleaned up if one was to suggest adding his bio content to the Chick Track page, I would probably support that if there wasn't enough content for a standalone page. Ckruschke (talk) 14:54, 28 October 2016 (UTC)Ckruschke
• Oppose: Many are familiar with the tracts without being familiar with Chick himself. Notability means that Chick tracts should have a separate article. The tracts are also a collaborative effort between Chick and an illustrator. -- Hazhk (talk) 21:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose The tracts themselves were the main topic covered by sources. Jack Chick himself is am obscure figure with very few public appearances. Dimadick (talk) 19:32, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose the Merger Jack T. Chick's tracts are art, social commentary and a witnessing tool used by thousands of Christians. His art had an impact on the world with few knowing about the artist. His tracts should remain a separate Wikipedia entry. The Wikipedia entry about Jack T. Chick should remain a separate Wikipedia entry. DavidSpencer.ca (talk) 23:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jack Chick. 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/20071022155856/http://catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9702fea2.asp to http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9702fea2.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111011104559/http://members.cox.net/jimmyakin/x-meet-jack-chick.htm to http://members.cox.net/jimmyakin/x-meet-jack-chick.htm

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) 07:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jack Chick. 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/20140108154607/http://www.catholic.com/documents/the-nightmare-world-of-jack-t-chick to http://www.catholic.com/documents/the-nightmare-world-of-jack-t-chick

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) 03:30, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Chick and the Jews

The article claimed that Chick "accused ... Jews ... of murder and conspiracies". This is simply not true. I took that out and was reverted because of a single essay on Chick that said he was "ultimately anti-Semitic". First of all, we shouldn't say somebody believes in a Jewish conspiracy just because of one source; secondly, saying he was "ultimately" anti-Semitic implies that he wasn't directly anti-Semitic. In any event, the source doesn't say Chick believed in a Jewish conspiracy, because he didn't. Please don't put this false and unsourced claim back in. —Chowbok ☠ 23:56, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

agree on needing more sources. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:48, 24 July 2018 (UTC)