Talk:Jack Chick

Troll

Is it not obvious that the whole Chick Mythos is a troll? It's parody. Do people not read Swift's A Modest Proposal in school anymore? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.151.204 (talk) 10:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

pre-Chick tract comics

These 1953-1955 single panel "Times Have Changed" cartoons were written by P. S. Clayton and drawn by Jack Chick. Sort of like a cross between "The Flintstones" and "B.C."---but older than both!

http://strippersguide.blogspot.com/2008/12/obscurity-of-day-times-have-changed.html

http://library.osu.edu/blogs/cartoons/2013/05/16/found-in-the-collection-jack-t-chicks-times-have-changed/#comment-5982

A mention of these single panel cartoons should be in this article, as they did appear in U.S. newspapers.

Possible sources

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

here.

here.

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 teenagers to hell." Benjiboi 00:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Chick expressly states this in his 1989 track Angels?. He even has Lew Siffer claim he invented Christian Rock. It really hard to tell what's worst in the track: the dialogue, the plot, or the pun on Satan's name.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

The 500 million figure is actually grossly out of date. Chick Publications has conservatively produced over 800 million as of Summer of 2008 (according to their own representatives). They installed a new web printer in 2006 that allows them to produce over a million a week when desired, and at even cheaper prices (although the cost of paper and energy have increased). I've seen this thing operate. There is film footage of it in the new documentary (God's Cartoonist) and it produces multiple tracts at a very high rate of speed. Of course, this does not mean people read them or that they are important, but third parties are buying them and passing them out by the truckload every week. The arguement could be made that his tracts have a greater impact on readers than most books because a small % actually convert and radicallly change their lifestyles. (It's a small %, but a larger % than most authors affect their readers). People can debate this influence as bad or good, but it's dramatic either way. Chick has found a nitch, refined it and exploited it very effectively. His tracts are everywhere in the third world, in over 100 different languages, and even wordless tracts are made for places they can't read. Poor people read and often pass them on to friends, so although many are thrown away or lost, many others are passed along like chain letters until they are worn out. It's quite an interesting way to get their message out! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.254.172.245 (talk) 04:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Really? I've been to my fair share of 'third world' countries and I've never seen any tracts or heard his name mentioned. And I lived in a town which believes pretty much everything he does too for a year and never heard of him. 86.131.100.36 (talk) 01:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I suspect SineBot is just reporting what is said at the Jack Chick page. This is why I have restored the links to two sites critical to him. The The Jack Chick Universe for example points out "On their Web Site they claim that Chick Tracts are available in virtually any written language. However this is a bit misleading. Most of his comics are available in the more common languages such as English, French, German and Spanish, but as you get to the lesser-known tongues, the number of comic titles falls off dramatically. Actually, for the vast majority of the languages listed, there is only one title available: the ever-popular "This Was Your Life!"". I also have to agree with 86.131.100.36, as the ONLY place I have seen a Jack Track is on the internet.--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Coupla things - that comment was from 86.131.100.36, not Sinebot

I've had to remove those links per WP:EL, and

We go by verifiability not truth. If there is a reliable source that disputes what we currently have then we work to reconcile the difference. -- Banjeboi 02:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The various article Trick Tracts use verifiability references such as the University of Virginia, a museum site, The straight dope, as well as several others. If those don't met verifiability guidelines then what the blazes does?!--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

We have a few issues here but the main hurdle that prevents those links is the external link policy - that is, any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a wp:Featured article. Those links might be useful for the article's content but are not suitable as links. -- Banjeboi 22:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

This is totally non sequitur tap dancing. EL also allows "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews." as well as "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." You cannot use an source that fails the reliable sources test within an article except under within very narrow guidelines. Both the links full under these guidelines under EL.--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I should mention that by a literally reading of EL the link to Chick Publications website would have to be removed as well per "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research.", perhaps "Links mainly intended to promote a website", perhaps "Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising.", and "Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article." Since this page is about Jack Chick himself the Chick Publications website would seem to fail this final test because it is mainly about his tracks (it would be a suitable link for the Chick Tracts article if that thing wasn't a total train wreck).--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

There is the letter and also the spirit of policies - why we do or don't do something. Policies are created by community consensus over time and there are exceptions. On a WP:BLP there will be less wiggle room for links that seem to serve only to disparage the subject. These could potentially be used as sources or for critical commentary . -- Banjeboi 17:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

When WP:BLP actually say something substantial rather than some vague "higher standard" then that issue can be kicked about. Right now there is not much there to work with other than a link back to EL and nothing there says external links cannot be critical of a living person's work only that you cannot use links that are "derogatory". If you want to get right down to it nearly all the external links for or against could be said to violate EL by the spirit and letter of the policy. I don't think WP:BLP was meant to be used as a way to remove criticism of a living person which is how it is being used. You are right in that a criticism section needs to be added to salvage some of the better links.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually a criticism section should not be added. It's a sign that an article is poorly written and POV. Instead appropriate criticism should be presented in a NPOV manner alongside the content the criticism addresses. The Chick articles have a long history of being used as a WP:coatrack and everyone is better served by simply presenting reliable sourced content and letting the readers decide for themsleves what to think. On BLP we trend towards a conservative approach. I think you'll find reliable sourced criticism is welcome when present NPOV. -- Banjeboi 17:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

(remove indent) The key words there are "reliable sourced". Most of the information in Chick's own tracks is horrorable sourced in terms of reliability. Take "Big Daddy." for example which uses Kent Hovind (Panel 14) as a reference despite the fact the man got his post high school degrees (including his "doctorate") from unaccredited institutions and this is to back up the insane claim that KNM-ER 1470 was a "normal human skull" found in rock 212 million years old both of which are totally false (Leakey R.E. (1973) "Evidence for an advanced Plio-Pleistocene Hominid from East Rudolf, Kenya." Nature, 242:447-50). Then you have tracks like "Kiss the Protestants Good-bye" which make such insane black helicopter Illuminati-level conspiracy claims such as "All stops were pulled to block the book, "Alberto". Rome sent priests into every area of Spain to remove all records of Dr. Rivera's existence." (page 21) that Chick Publications doesn't even offer them anymore. No, the Chick articles have not be used as a WP:coatrack but rather people have been trying to put in links showing that the information in those tracks is most often than often totally wrong when it isn't misleading.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Wonder when he'll die? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.2.125 (talk) 20:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Given how the artwork has varied over the years (see "Who (or what) is Jack Chick?") I have to wonder how much input he has on the tracts these days.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

What do we do regarding Chick's references?

Going over one of the sites critical of jack Chick I found that Hovind's claim of "It has never been against the law the teach the Bible or creation in public schools" are WRONG. Abington Township School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) declared school sponsored reading of the Bible to be unconstitutional (ie against the law) and Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987) stated that teaching creationism in public schools was unconstitutional (ie against the law).

So what do we do when a reference Chick uses is factually wrong?--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, we point that out carefully. Something like "X claims that Y is not illegal even though Z says otherwise". That "Z" happens to be a court decision makes the fact that it's illegal quite solid, but doesn't break neutrality. Farsight001 (talk) 13:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, that makes sense. The only problem is that so many of Chick's claims are factually wrong the disclaimers alone would like require another article. Take Big Daddy which has Hovind as it only reference, for example. Hovind's claims are so bad that just going to relevant articles by accepted professionals (never mind the academic journals they also published in) is enough to discredit them.

Then you have tracks like There Go The Dinosaurs that has no references other than scripture and don't even make logical sense. There Go The Dinosaurs claims that the dinosaurs died because the air changed due to the flood killing off the majority of plants slowing down the dinosaurs and making them easier to catch. The problem with that claim is no dinosaur equaled the size of a whale and it certainly doesn't explain why dinosaurs elephant size or smaller didn't survive into recorded history.--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

You have a point in saying that there would then need to be a whole lot of disclaimers. I'm thinking that since this is an article about the man himself, that perhaps we shouldn't go into so much specifics regarding the tracts as they have their own article. He is famous for the tracts and for being a lying *bleep* in them, which should be talked about. In that regard, mention of a few of his claims and the subsequent "disclaimers". This would keep it to a minimum so we wouldn't clutter up this article or have the need to start another one.

Though to be honest, I would actually love a "factual innacuracies found in Chick tracts" article. It would be nice to compile a lot of them in an easy to read page. I will think more on how to improve this article.Farsight001 (talk) 23:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Well there is the Chick tract page that looks like little more than a sounding board for his tracts. IMHO that page has little reason to exist as much of what it deals with is already covered in either here or Chick Publications.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Possibly deceased?

I've been hearing pings through the interwebs that Chick is deceased now (probably tried to keep secret so us evil Catholics can't desecrate his body). I doubt we could get a source for it, but he is rather old, and people as reclusive as him tend to live shorter lives, so could we put a "possibly deceased" in the info box or a blurb in the article mentioning that he's such a recluse that no one knows for sure? Or would that be a no no? Obviously, either way, we err on the side of caution and still treat this like a BLP.Farsight001 (talk) 23:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Sources?   Will Beback  talk  23:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I got none. It's just a fan of Chick here and an opponent there. Per above, I don't think we'd ever know when it really happened, which makes me partially wonder if he actually has died.Farsight001 (talk) 00:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

According to the CDC, about 13% of people over 85 die every year, which I suppose means that any 85-year old has at least a 87% chance of making it to 87. Those who live long tend to keep living. I've set up an alert request with a newspaper archive, so if it's mentioned there I'll catch it.   Will Beback  talk  01:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Time for a real photo

Could we please get a real photo for the article? The cartoon isn't going to cut it. --98.232.188.173 (talk) 08:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by isn't going to cut it, but Jack Chick is a gigantic recluse. There literally are no confirmed pictures of him, and frankly, some doubt as to whether or not he is even still alive. We work with what we have. The current sketch is by Jimmy Akin, a guy who has at least met Chick. It's really the best we can do.Farsight001 (talk) 08:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at the October 12, 1974 article in the PROGRESS BULLETIN, published in Pomona, California, which has a photograph of Jack Chick. The article is entitled "Cartoonist to Appear at Central." Here's the link: http://www.newspapers.com/newspage/71733430 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.146.2 (talk) 18:03, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Term Anti-Catholic

<<Many Catholic and Protestant organizations consider Chick to be intensely anti-Catholic, based on his various claims about the Roman Catholic Church.[46>> I think this sentence and the ones following it are kind of odd. The article uses the term anti-Catholic like it's a slur, but anyone who is Protestant is anti-Catholic. That's what it means to be Protestant. Is there a better way of getting whatever it is that we're trying to get across than using a neutral term as though it were a slur?198.229.242.182 (talk) 04:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Anti-Catholic is not a neutral term. Elizium23 (talk) 05:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Anti-Catholic is a perfectly neutral term, one which he and many others wear like a badge of honor.Farsight001 (talk) 21:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Anti-Catholic does not have the definition offered by the IP. Elizium23 (talk) 22:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Identity of Chick

This article makes a claim about the possible identity of Chick and a recent edit inserted this speculation into the article. I nearly removed it outright; this is a WP:BLP and "exceptional claims require exceptional sources". I chose to leave it in for now, but clearly attributing the opinion to the author by name. I would welcome further opinions on the passage here. Elizium23 (talk) 05:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

as an aside, a casual user already familiar with Crumb, or who takes the link to his article would likely be left entirely counfounded as to the basis of the speculation. a half sentence summating the source's line of thought is probably warranted. Asdf98761 (talk) 01:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Hate or love Jack Chick, he is obviously anti-Catholic

I'm really confused if I'm actually in an edit war about this. Were there a medal for being anti-Catholic, Jack Chick would be sad if he didn't win it, according to everything I know about him. -- Kendrick7^talk 00:10, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, please stop edit warring. This is much more about how categories work on Wikipedia, and as far as category policy goes, the categorization was clearly inappropriate. I think your appeal to WP:IAR is also misguided. StAnselm (talk) 01:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Please instead justify your removal of the category, per WP:BURO. You have to be a unique sort of insane to suggest Jack Chick isn't opposed to Catholicism in a rather virulent and insensitive way. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The Nightmare World of Jack T. Chick at Catholic Answers documents Chick's anti-Catholicism

Philip Jenkins 2003 Oxford University Press The New Anti-Catholicism : The Last Acceptable Prejudice book identifies Chick as among anti-Catholic on page 25.

Gary Metz, “Jack Chick's Anti-Catholic Alberto Comic Book is Exposed as a Fraud,” Christianity Today 25(5) provides even more documentation.--216.31.124.219 (talk) 16:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The category description itself says "It must not include articles about individuals, groups or media that are allegedly anti-Catholic. Repeat: articles about individuals, groups, or media must not be placed in this category.". I have removed the category. Do not restore it. Elizium23 (talk) 16:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:BURO "instructions" on that category do not apply to consensus here. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

What part of WP:BURO are you referring to? I don't see anything there of relevance to this issue. StAnselm (talk) 05:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I guess a serious downside of being a bureaucrat is that you can't even understand that you are acting like one. "Written rules do not themselves set accepted practice." -- Kendrick7^talk 13:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I would have thought that the edit warriors would have backed down, or at least become open to a discussion on the merits, during, or even after, the recent page protection. Alas. -- Kendrick7^talk 06:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, especially since a few months ago you were blocked for edit warring on this very article. StAnselm (talk) 06:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Article neutrality problems

I have flagged this article to be vetted for NPOV.

Using a newspaper quote to condemn someone in the first paragraph of his bio seems very improper. Shouldn't the first paragraph be more definition-like and consist of FACTS?

If you want to include criticisms of a person, they should be grouped somewhere down below. And the criticisms should be balanced by praise (if any exists). We should see positive and negative views of the subject.

PaulSank (talk) 16:15, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

First of all, grouping criticism is discouraged. Its supposed to be dispersed throughout the article.

Second, the lede, or the opening of the paragraph, is supposed to basically be a summary of the rest of the article. Furthermore, that the newspaper said what it said is a fact.

Third, npov policy dictates not that praise and criticism be balanced equally, but rather that it be balanced according to the balance of reliable sources. If they are heavily critical, as is the case here, then the article is supposed to be heavily critical.Farsight001 (talk) 17:18, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the template. It's inclusion is based on a fundamental misconception about the WP:NPOV policy. If you want to come back with some actual evidence in the form of reliably sourced content to demonstrate that the article does not comply with policy then fine, but articles shouldn't be tagged based on misunderstandings policy and assertions that something is "very improper". Sean.hoyland - talk 16:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jack T. Chick. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0004up.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Picture

I have removed this picture of Chick: File:Jack T Chick and Pastor Bob Nogalski.jpg.

The reasons are as follows. Firstly, although I am assuming good faith, I do not know on what authority the man standing at the left is said to be Chick. Some caution has to be used, given that Chick is a recluse; I do not think it unreasonable to ask for more information. Secondly, I believe it is possible that the man on the left could be wearing a mask. The eyes, for instance, do not seem natural. The picture is of sufficiently poor quality that one cannot easily tell whether a mask is being worn or not. Finally, I believe that even if that image is of Chick, it is an inappropriate image to use in this article. It reflects the article subject in a less-than-serious light, and it doesn't seem neutral or appropriate to use it here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:54, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

An IP editor restored the picture here, without bothering to discuss the issue on the talk page. The user's comment was, "Restore picture that was removed based on personal feelings rather than Wikipedia policy (no one is wearing a mask and no other picture is available and thus it should be used regardless if it reflects badly on the subject - which is also subjective"). I reject every part of that comment. The picture raises obvious BLP concerns. The statement that no one is wearing a mask is based on no evidence, and the assertion that the man on the left actually is Jack Chick is also based on no evidence. It seems that the user who originally added the picture to the article (DavidSpencer.ca) simply took it from a website without real evidence it is actually Chick. I respectfully suggest that the user in question has some explaining to do. The assertion that the picture should be used "regardless if it reflects badly on the subject" is foolish and irresponsible. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:59, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

The original source of the image is visible here. Note the absence of real evidence of any kind at all that the man on the left is Chick. The website itself hardly qualifies as reliable under WP:RS. Also, for whatever it's worth, someone might want to view the discussion here, when the image appeared years ago. None of the commentators in the discussion suggest that the man on the left is wearing a mask, but several noted that the image seems strange and may have been falsified. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:16, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Lead organization

Here's the discussion so far. I basically just think like things belong with like things, and by putting one man's opinion next to another man's definition, it suggests that opinion defines him. Seems incongruent and unduly weighted. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:48, April 14, 2016 (UTC)

Sources

Of the 57 footnotes in this article almost 3/4 appear to be related to Chick publications in one form or other. Just saying. Mannanan51 (talk) 04:40, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jack T. 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 User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160409021755/http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/meet-jack-chick to http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/meet-jack-chick

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:49, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Chick's Current status

Given Chick's advanced age, and changes in style and substance to recent tracts (and other works) is it not reasonable to at least consider that he has possibly died? If he had in fact died it is unlikely ever to be confirmed through official channels. Even if not Changed to say "deceased" is it not worth adding a note under age or to have a section referencing suspicions that he may have died and/or at least reference theories that "Jack T. Chick" was a pseudonym or has become a pseudonym in recent years Spikelops (talk) 01:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

@Spikelops: Nobody is going to put "probably dead" or something like that without, at a bare minimum, a reliable source. Do you have any? RunnyAmiga ※ talk 01:55, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

@RunnyAmiga: I understand and agree with that. But given the possibility that which Chick does die it will go unreported, along with inconsistencies in things allegedly coming from him, I think it may be prudent to at least entertain the idea that he may be dead or that it may no longer be the same person as it was in the 70s Spikelops (talk) 02:00, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to "entertain" such speculation. Jonathunder (talk) 02:22, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

@Spikelops: If text saying this were added and kept, Chick or his family would have really, really strong grounds to sue Wikipedia into poverty and believe it or not, that would be true even if Chick were dead and/or getting credit for another person's work. Adding theories like these is literally the exact opposite of what the word "prudent" means so no, it's not going to happen. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 19:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Chick's current status (updated)

@RunnyAmiga: -- I'm not saying that this is because of @Spikelops:'s thread, but it does seem that Chick actually did die less than a month after this discussion was made. My condolences to his loved ones. I will seek an appropriate source to ensure that this material is valid for inclusion. Alicb (talk) 19:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Do you have an obit or news source? I couldn't find one. Until shown otherwise, this article remains subject to BLP policies. Jonathunder (talk) 19:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jonathunder: - I don't have an obit or a news source. I haven't yet included any material relating to Chick's alleged passing into the article; as I said earlier, I am currently seeking an appropriate source to ensure that the material is valid for inclusion. Alicb (talk) 19:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

OK, it seems as if the story stems from this tweet. I am not sure that social media sites are an appropriate reliable source in a BLP or anywhere else though and I have no earthly idea how to verify that this twitter account is even officially related to the Chick organization. The other tweets on that page are surreal and bizarre, but that could still be legitimate and not a troll. Until and unless I have more policy guidance or an obituary then my suggestion is to not include this material right now. Alicb (talk) 19:40, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Given that the link in that tweet is broken and that Chick's biography on his own website gives information about his wife's death but not his, skepticism is warranted. Jonathunder (talk) 19:53, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Chick Publications posted an announcement on their Facebook page today. Kaleb70 (talk) 20:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@Kaleb70: Is that Facebook page verified? I don't even know if Facebook has anything like Twitter's blue badge but it might make a difference with whether or not this can be used as a source. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 20:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

One strange thing about that unverified Facebook post is the reference to his "widow". His website says his wife died years ago. Jonathunder (talk) 20:18, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jonathunder: Whoa. Good catch. That Facebook page saying he's dead is linked at the bottom of chick.com, which is definitely the company's website. But on second thought, "his widow?" What? At this point, with all the conflicting information, I think we ought to wait until a decent-sized media outlet confirms it with a source that isn't that Facebook post. I'm seeing a few reliable sources saying he's dead but they all seem to have gotten it from Facebook. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 20:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

It is not a verified account, but chick.com links to both their Facebook page and Twitter account, both of which carry the announcement. I believe the website's biography is simply out-of-date, since even the Wikipedia article says that he remarried after his wife died in 1998. Kaleb70 (talk) 20:39, 24 October 2016 (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 [1] [2][3][4] 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)

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 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)

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)

Organization of information

I think it would help to reorganize how we're presenting information about Chick and his work. Right now there are two articles (this and Chick tract) each trying to cover the same subject matter (Chick's work). I think it would be better to have this article focus on Jack Chick the person, and have another article about Chick Publications, covering the tracts and the other work published by that corporation (which is a separate entity, and likely to continue). The shortage of reliable information about Chick himself would mean that this article would be likewise short, referring the reader to the article about his publications to learn more about those and the views expressed in them. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I think we are dealing with unnecessary content forks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:00, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

A standard way to avoid content fork in such situations is to organize information per Wikipedia:Summary Style. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Second Wife?

I noticed the facebook death announcement http://www.facebook.com/chicktracts mentions a widow. But Lynn Chick died years ago. Anyone have more information on this to add? 172.58.73.253 (talk) 20:37, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

¿Should we mention that ChickTracts are made of fail?

Sure, llots of ppeople read ChickTracts —— personally, ¡I love them! —— but people read then because they are hillariously insane Non take them seriously. The biggest fans of ChickTracks are atheist because of their campiness (they are so bad that they are good). The fact is that I never encountered anyone whom ChickTracts converted.