Talk:Chick Publications/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

fundamentalist viewpoint

I don't think that chick.com expresses the fundamentalist viewpoint any more strongly than most fundamentalists. Also, I'm not sure that you could say that it's not primarily a born-again movement, since every strip ends with an exhortation to be born again in Christ. -Alex Kennedy

---

Well, he does believe that the Roman Catholic Church purposely developed Communism and Nazism: Macho!, by Jack Chick. On the fundamentalist scale, I would put him at more extreme than Jerry Falwell, equal with Texe Marrs, and less so than Neil Horsely. But that's fairly subjective, I guess.

As for the term "born again", many non-fundamentist Christians also use the term, since it comes directly from the Bible. Jack Chick certainly is a proponant of being "born again", but to say that his ministry is representive of born again Christianity is misleading. --Stephen Gilbert

---

OK, well, I concede the point about the born-again / fundamentalist distinction, but being (in my mind) a bigot and a fool does not make someone an extreme fundamentalist; rather, embracing an extremely literal interpretation of the Bible does - and I don't see how Chick's interpretation of the Bible is any more literal than that of any other fundamentalist.

---

Christian fundamentalists may claim to interpret the Bible literally (and often do), but many fundamentalist positions do not come from literal interpretation. For example, the idea of the Rapture is taken from several vague Bible verses, but nowhere is the idea spelled out literally. Also, most fundamentalists are against any consumption of alcohol, while the Bible makes no such prohibitions.

However, I'm willing to concede that Chick is not representive of the most extreme fringes of Christian fundamentalism. Let's leave it at unqualified Christian fundamentalism. --Stephen Gilbert

Just a quick clarification. The idea of the rapture is spelled out quite well at 1st Cor 15:51-57 and by Jesus, himself, as recorded at Matthew 24:37-44. It is the word rapture (not the idea) that does not appear within the Bible. KeyStroke 05:23, 2004 Sep 19 (UTC)

---

What's so "absurd" about Chick's claim that Mormon belief includes a form of polytheism? AFAIK this is something they openly admit, though they don't tend to use the term "polytheism" themselves. They do not engage in the worship of several gods, though they acknowledge that the faithful become gods, or god-like beings, after death, with universes of their own to rule and save. Surely there must be plenty of other absurd Chick beliefs we could reference here instead of Mormon polytheism, which is more or less true in a broad sense, albeit misleadingly presented by this article and by the Chick tract it cites. —Psychonaut 11:11, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

An alternative to chick.com is www.blessedquietness.com. There are also www.jesus-is-lord.com and crossroad.to.

Attn 222.152.239.*: why I've deleted your material.

I've now removed three or four POV insertions made by 222.152.239.* to related pages. Since another one in much the same vein ("These people have been discredited and are unpopular") just appeared here, I'm guessing this person doesn't understand why those insertions were removed.

One of the most important concepts of Wikipedia is Neutral point of view. One statement of NPOV: "The neutral point of view attempts to present ideas and facts in such a fashion that both supporters and opponents can agree." That means you need to avoid subjective judgements and unsubstantiated assertions; in general, it's better to present evidence than to try making people's minds up for them. As far as possible, stick to facts that are beyond question.

"These people have been discredited." How? By whom? Obviously, many people *don't* believe these guys are discredited; you need to give specifics, and if you don't have specifics you shouldn't be making this claim here. Ideally, you should give enough information that somebody can go out and verify for themselves that what you have said is true.

"These people are unpopular." This is subjective, and depends very much on who you talk to - among some circles, including Chick's, they are very popular indeed. If you can give specifics, do so. As it stands, it does nothing but attempt to make up people's minds for them. Who are these people unpopular with? How has that unpopularity been demonstrated?

If you've got further questions about any of this, I'm happy to discuss it either here or on my talk page. BTW, if you're going to be a regular contributor to Wikipedia, please consider registering an editor account and logging in before making edits. This makes it easier to discuss such issues, and I'd much rather address someone by a name than an IP range. It will also let you track pages of interest to you. --Calair 23:20, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I was working on getting the stuff I'd added NPOV'd... I think that the issue of whether it is a parody site or not is just as important as the site itself. In addition, I'm not the guy who's IP you're referring to. I'm a bit confused. Mo0 05:05, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My comments about NPOV weren't addressed at you - that was to a previous poster. I reverted your changes, then started writing an explanation, and you got here before I'd posted it, hence the confusion. Explanation for that is below. --Calair 05:23, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Satire?

I reverted edits that suggested that Chick tracts might be satire, because AFAICT there is simply no foundation for such a claim. This isn't something like Landover Baptist Church that just popped up on the Web one day; Chick has been publishing these tracts for decades. Yes, the views stated "almost universally adhere to the stereotypical mindset of a Christian fundamentalist"; that's because he IS a Christian fundamentalist. Anybody who's listened to Pat Robertson for five minutes knows that such people do exist.

If this theory was widespread, it would certainly bear mentioning as an important controversy, even if it *wasn't* true. But I've been following Chick for some years, and while I've seen plenty of parodies of Chick tracts in that time (wrote one myself :-) I've *never* seen anybody suggest it was satire until now. Unless somebody can find a number of people who genuinely believe Chick's tracts are intended as satire, this is nothing more than speculation, and that doesn't belong here. --Calair 05:23, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, this all sprang out of a conversation in the Wikipedia IRC channel regarding Chick Tracts. Myself and a couple others started having a discussion about whether they were real or not, with arguments going back and forth on both sides. I personally have had a few arguments on IRC about it, and when it was first shown to me over a year ago, it was under the implication that it was satire, and not meant seriously. Mo0 05:28, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I myself have taken part in many a "is this real or not?" argument on IRC (with plenty of people, sometimes the majority, believing it isn't real) and via other mediums to say that the article should fairly represent the belief many hold that it is satire. To say there is no foundation for such a claim is silly, and to completely throw out one side of a topic because you've never experienced it personally is rather silly as well. Reene (リニ) 05:32, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm sure some people on IRC were incredulous when they first saw Chick's stuff, but that's not what I'm talking about - after all, we all know plenty of people who were incredulous when they first heard the World Trade Center had collapsed. When I said 'believe' above, that was in the sense of 'believe on the basis of evidence'. A few easily-verifiable facts about Chick:

The tracts & books advertised on his site - both Chick's and those by other authors - really exist, and they really do sell them.

Chick has been publishing his tracts for decades, during which time he has sold vast numbers of them - the site claims 'millions a year', and that's certainly consistent with the number that turn up.

Chick's company publishes books by several other authors of a fundamentalist Christian bent, consistent with the theological claims made in his books. Some, like Charles Chiniquy, were around long before Chick was born. Others, like William Schnoebelen, are well-known in fundamentalist Christian circles; while Schnoebelen's veracity is questionable, he's evidently *not* just a figment of Chick's imagination. It's hard to see why somebody who was secretly opposed to fundamentalist Christianity would labour so hard to promote it, not only with his own tracts but by distributing other fundamentalists' books & tapes.

Chick has done business with a great many fundamentalist Christians over the years. While I know plenty of Christians who consider him an embarrassment to their religion, I don't know of anybody who's dealt with him and believes him to be other than genuine in his beliefs - and that sort of suspicion is not the sort of thing fundamentalists keep quiet about.

"To say there is no foundation for such a claim is silly"... very well, then, what *is* the foundation for claiming it to be satire? That it's full of mistakes is not an answer, unless you want to claim that every 'creation scientist' on the planet is knowingly part of a giant practical joke.

'It's so extreme and awful, it can't be real' is not an answer, because there are plenty of people as extreme as Chick who are genuine believers. Chick is *mild* compared to someone like Fred Phelps, and Phelps is all too real.

Put simply: There are a large number of fundamentalists who hold views similar to those professed by Chick. Given the choice between accepting that he is what he acts like & claims to be, or that he's spent a lifetime constructing an elaborate satire against Christianity, without any of those around him becoming aware of it - while using his company to help sell books by other authors pushing the very same brand of fundamentalism he's supposed to be mocking - there doesn't seem to be much reason to go for the elaborate conspiracy theory.

To suggest, as the article currently does, that Chick Publications might merely be a hoax website is downright absurd - my wife's church was handing Chick tracts out in the '80s, before the WWW existed. --Calair 13:05, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Just because the evidence points to it being real doesn't mean the issue doesn't deserve mention. If someone came here after seeing the site for the first time and wondered whether it was a hoax or not, and came here for information, it would behoove this article to have information on both sides of the issue for a person to make their own decision. Admittedly, the evidence for it being real is more damning than the evidence for it being satire, but allowing a reader to come to their own conclusions is better than leaving them in the dark due to a conclusion the author has previously made. Mo0 19:23, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

*What* evidence for it being satire?

It is certainly appropriate for Wikipedia to present multiple sides to a controversy, when there are deeply-held beliefs on both sides. But this doesn't mean we're obliged to present them as if they were all equally credible. We acknowledge the Flat Earth theory, for instance, because a great many people believed it at one point - but we don't mislead them by presenting it as if it was an unresolved question. Even though there are some people who still believe it today.

I would certainly be happy for the page to *acknowledge* that some people initially think Chick must be satire. But there can be no excuse for telling readers "it might just be a hoax website" when people were passing out Chick tracts *before the WWW existed*. --Calair 23:02, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If someone comes here without any of this background knowledge, not knowing that these were being made before the Internet existed, if they came here and recieved no evidence either way (as the article you originally reverted to provides no start date for Chick's work), and no evidence provided either way, whatever opinion they had before won't get changed. I understand you wish to let people know it isn't satire; if you edit what is already there to present a damning case against satire, then the issue will be done once and for all. Just because you dislike one side of an issue that has both sides presented doesn't mean the whole issue needs to be discarded. Mo0 00:31, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Then by all means, present the information in a way you believe to be more palatable.

Very well, then. I was holding off because you specifically asked for discussion on the Talk page first. --Calair 00:26, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If you've got information that should be in the article, why isn't it there already?

Because (1) much of it already *is* in there, or available by following the references from this page and Jack Chick; and (2) my time is limited. I can't put all the information in Wikipedia I'd like to, and I don't expect it of anybody else. But adding false or misleading information because one can't be bothered checking it before posting (and it's *not* difficult to confirm that Chick tracts were around before the WWW existed) is extremely discourteous. It means others have to spend their time hunting down and removing other people's guesswork. This is one of the reasons *why* my time is limited; I spend much of it removing misinformation instead of adding information. The guidelines ask contributors to 'write what you know'. --Calair 00:26, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

By the way, many believe in things like ghosts, extraterrestrials that routinely do anal probes on bewildered hicks, and that images of the Virgin Mary really do appear in unlikely places such as tortilla shells, all despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Yes. As evidence of the strength & popularity of such beliefs, we have any number of books presenting purported first-hand accounts of alien abduction, encounters with ghosts, etc etc, which is why such things merit airing on Wikipedia. (Although if you look at Abduction Phenomenon, you'll see a good example of how such things should be presented: "While few mainstream scientists believe the phenomenon literally occurs as reported--some experts contend the field is rife with kooks and pseudoscience--there is little doubt that many thousands of sincere persons report alien abductions they believe are utterly genuine." The latter belief is *represented*, but is not treated as equally credible.)

An Amazon search on e.g. 'alien abduction' or 'apparition virgin mary' will demonstrate that there are literally *thousands* of books on these supposed phenomena. To the best of my knowledge, and I've looked, there is not a single published book claiming Chick to be satire. If just one such book existed, there would be some grounds for treating this as a genuine controversy. --Calair 00:26, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The same is the case for this. It's not just a matter of shock or incredulity, since many people who have said it must be satire have been familiar with the material for years.

Cites? Even a website showing some evidence of serious inquiry into this question would be something. --Calair 00:26, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Don't completely toss out an opinion or opposing viewpoint just because there is evidence to the contrary, unless you want to go around chucking out articles like Marian apparitions entirely because hey, it's all utter hogwash right? Reene (リニ) 23:17, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm not tossing it out because there is evidence to the contrary. I'm tossing it out because there is no evidence to support it, and precious little to indicate that it's even a strongly-held belief with anybody who's seriously looked at it ('seriously', e.g.: enough to know that Chick Publications existed before the WWW did.) --Calair 00:26, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You seem to be operating under the assumption that I believe or was attempting to imply that Chick tracts didn't exist before the website. I'm not and that wasn't my intention.

The article referred to dispute over "whether the Chick website is a cleverly-constructed parody". That may not have been *intended* to imply that the website is the only part of Chick Publications confirmed to exist, but it's certainly how it comes across. --Calair 05:28, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

However, satire has existed before the WWW as well, as I'm sure you know, one of the reasons the belief that it is satire still floats around. I think the fact that some people still refuse to believe Jack Chick is 'serious' deserves a mention. Reene (リニ) 01:26, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm happy to mention that some people refuse to believe it, and I believe the article now does so. What I'm not happy with is presenting it in a way that implies to the reader that this belief has a strong foundation to it - unless somebody can provide examples of such a foundation. See above comparisons to 'alien abductions' etc for what I mean here.--Calair 05:28, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As it stands, the rewrite presents a decidedly one-sided point of view, whereas the way it was written previously provided evidence (whether solid or not) for both sides. Mo0 01:29, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The previous version said: "The views stated almost universally adhere to the stereotypical view of a Christian fundamentalist while being extreme to the point of absurdity in some cases due to sheer factual incorrectness. Some of the subject matter is so shocking and seemingly deliberately intended as such that shock value may be a motivating factor." Let's go through those, point by point.

• 'Adherence to stereotypical view of a Christian fundamentalist': as Chick claims to be a Christian fundamentalist, and there are many such who closely resemble the stereotype, this is hardly evidence of satire. It can equally well be taken as proof that he *is* a fundamentalist.
• 'Extreme to the point of absurdity': the rewrite notes that 'many readers might consider the views expressed in his tracts extreme', and now I look at it again the 'might' can certainly be removed.
• 'Factual incorrectness': is already covered below, under 'Criticisms of Chick Tracts'.
• 'shock value may be a motivating factor': the rewrite refers to 'the deliberately shocking approach of Chick's tracts'. If anything, strengthened by removing the 'may be'.

What evidence did the previous version include that the rewrite has left out?

Yes, the rewrite presents stronger arguments against the 'satire' theory than in favour of it. That's not a matter of bias; it's because the arguments against *are* stronger. NPOV doesn't mean that strong arguments should be watered down and weak ones puffed up to make all sides come out equal. --Calair 05:28, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm under the impression that it also doesn't mean completely eliminating one side of the argument just because someone feels it isn't a good one. People aren't stupid. Present both sides of the issue, let them come to their own conclusion. This current writeup, in simpler terms, says "Some people think it's satire. This is why they're wrong."

No, it does not. It says: "[stuff in favour of satire theory]has caused some who first encounter Chick via his website to take it for deliberate satire similar to that of the Landover Baptist Church. However, [stuff against satire theory]." That's the standard form for presenting a dispute; if you feel there's not enough before the 'however', I would be *delighted* to see more by way of substantiation.

I will further note that "let them come to their own conclusion" is not an absolute rule of Wikipedia. There are people who still believe that the Earth is flat, but we don't present that as a "decide for yourself" question. We tell people that it's round, and that the evidence is overwhelming.

The idea of a flat Earth is an ancient one that dominated scientific thinking for centuries. It's initially credible for many reasons - it certainly doesn't *look* round to an eyewitness, there are many religious scriptures that talk about things like "the corners of the Earth" that don't make sense for a round planet, and the idea of people walking around upside-down under our feet is counterintuitive. So powerful was this idea that even in the late 20th century the International Flat Earth Society had a regular newsletter & over three thousand members... and we *still* don't present the flat-Earth theory as credible, nor do we discuss it at length on the main page. Instead, after a very brief mention on Earth, that discussion is shunted to Flat Earth and Flat Earth Society - which still don't try to tell readers that "maybe it's true".

I think Chick Publications treats the 'satire' theory at least as generously as Earth treats flat-Earth theories, and I've yet to see evidence that three thousand people are serious about the former.

Perhaps, as a compromise, "Some people believe Chick's tracts to be satire; see Jack Chick (satire theory)", and move the rest of the discussion to that page? I would be happy for such a page to present arguments for and against in an "equal time" format (you guys can write one half of the page, I'll write the other) and leave it at "decide for yourself"; I just don't feel it's appropriate to do it this way on the *main* Chick Publications page. --Calair 22:58, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Calair - this is a good idea.

--User:watersrw 5 Nov 2004

At least before, we had both sides of the issue presented. If one side is more solid than the other, why not just let people realize that for themselves instead of taking out one whole side of the argument? Mo0 06:34, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't accept that it *has* been taken out. Of the four arguments you presented: one is equally applicable to *both* sides of the question. One has been deleted only because it's duplicated elsewhere in the article. One was reworded - NPOV considerations make "while being extreme to the point of absurdity" a poor choice of words - but remains in that discussion. And one has been *strengthened* by changing it from "shock value may be a motivating factor" to saying outright that Chick's tracts are *deliberately* shocking. But for an alternate possible format, see above suggestion of a separate page for the satire theory. --Calair 22:58, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

'Weasel wording'

NPOV is an important and delicate consideration in an article like this, but please try to avoid constructions like "some people might consider" and "some would consider". Chick's views are controversial; that some people agree with them, and that some people don't, is not. When something is already clearly identified as a viewpoint rather than statement of fact ('consider') , and it's acknowledged that not everybody shares that viewpoint ('some'), it's unnecessary to water it down further. --Calair 23:30, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I second that. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 14:14, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Doctor" versus no "Doctor"

(Comment by Watersrw, apparently in response to Reene, moved from top of this section by Calair to put the discussion in proper order. Also moved an anon response to that comment, and added indent. Apologies for editing other people's comments, but it is *very* difficult to make sense of conversation when the reply appears before the bit it's replying to.) --Calair 09:51, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Right now there is no evidence to indicate Alberto Rivera has a doctorate or has done anything that would warrent giving him the title "Dr" – contrary to edit summaries, it is not a simple matter of "respect" or anything of the sort. If Jonas Salk, the person who developed the Polio vaccine, doesn't have a "Dr" in front of their name, I don't see why this person should either, especially considering the shaky evidence there is. Furthermore, User:Watersrw, your removal of comments by other users from this talk page and your puzzling copy-and-paste of my note to you from your talk page to mine are actions that aren't acceptable here. I'd like to encourage you to read the policies and guidelines before you continue editing and I'd also like to encourage you to being discussing your ideas for the article here. Reene^✎ 00:25, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

(Begin moved section, indentation added by Calair:)

there is evidence - you judge it unworthy ; if dr hawk. dosnt fine ; removed spam about votes on this page, not comments ; if you can sent me a generic msg, i can set you one - watestrw

generic msg to you; form me

(End moved section.)

No, Watersrw, you deleted the entire section on 'weasel wording' (along with one of your own comments). Have a look at the | comparison between the versions before and after your edit. --Calair 09:51, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Seconded. Wikipedia doesn't usually incorporate doctorates or other academic degrees into article titles - Stephen Hawking is another prominent example. By Wikipedia convention[1], we use the most common names that don't create a naming conflict. Googling finds ca. 14,000 pages using "alberto rivera"[2], but less than 800 that use any of "doctor alberto rivera", "dr alberto rivera", or "dr. alberto rivera"[3]. Repeatedly breaking the link by changing it from Alberto Rivera - which works and points the reader at information about Rivera - to Dr Alberto Rivera, which does not, is particularly unhelpful.

On the matter of respect, note that even Chick Publications is happy to refer to him on their front page as simply "Alberto Rivera"[4]. As somebody who has a (real) doctorate, and works with many others who do, I can tell you that most people who've earned their doctorates don't much care whether they're addressed by their title in general discussion. As a rule, the more fussy somebody is about being called 'Doctor', the less they have done to earn that title; people who've earned it are usually more interested in the body of work they did to earn it than the sheepskin acknowledging that work.

After all, if respect demands that Rivera be called "Doctor", then what exactly should we call Bill Schnoebelen - who has, by his account, qualified as a Bishop, a Mormon Elder, a High Priest in four different traditions of Wicca, and most recently a naturopathic physician? --Calair 02:31, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)