Jump to content

Talk:Chick Publications/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

More debate

As I said in the edit summary, I removed the line because it merely duplicated what had already been said (it was also ungrammatical, but leave that aside). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:38, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  1. You don't have to include every detail (indeed, this article could be sadi to be somewhat obsessive in the amount of detail it goes into, given its topic).
  2. In the previous sentence (!) we were told that the tracts are left around for people to pick up; you don't have to repeat all of that just in order to add the detail that this is for 'shy Christians'... If that detail were needed (I don't think that it is — see 1), it should be added to the existing sentence. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:45, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I agree that the article's getting rather unwieldy, especially in the 'claims' section. I'm not sure Wikipedia needs to track every single claim made by Chick, and if we do then IMHO it would be better to do this in a separate page, with just a few left here for illustrative purposes. --Calair 02:16, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yes, that was my feeling. The 'claims' section looks almost obsessive (and, to be honest, rather a lot of them take a single incident and describe it in general terms). I think that the article's length and detail serves rather to give credence to the claims than to present a neutral account. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:38, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I've squeezed the 'claims' bit into a summary. I tried to write it so it encompassed most of the deleted material, but when I looked carefully I found that some of the claims from that list *aren't* backed up by the references offered with them. For instance, "The Catholic church created communism so that later it could destroy it, uniting Catholics and Protestants against a common enemy [1]" - in fact, the page referenced there says nothing about the creation of Communism, only that the Vatican made use of it after WWII. (I'd be surprised if Chick *doesn't* believe the RCC created Communism, since he seems to hold them responsible for just about everything else, but it's not in that page.) --Calair 04:05, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Good. That was my impression, too, but I was already in conflict with 10001 over other details, and I didn't want to escalate things. Indeed, I've just noticed that he's reverted all your edits. I'm afraid that we're in for a rough ride. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:48, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

10001 - they are backed up by the references, but there probably are mistakes - the communist one is supported - i read it recently, although the web-page could be wrong...you shoundn't delete material that is npov, even if it seems too long - rather do as you suggest and move it to another page. if you did that, the specific defenses would need to be moved as well...if you move the stuff properly to a new page, and provide an link in the main artical, i will stop reverting

  1. Please sign your messages.
  2. Reverting isn't a weapon, to be bargained with. You've just reverted four times in well under twenty-four hours, thus breaking the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:29, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

can you address the issue - calair's idea of seperate pages was fine - but to simply remove lots of material is nasty vandalism - 10001 BTW the 'changed wording' was my attempt to mimmic the vandalism to show up why it should not be done:

the material i think should be on a seperate page, not last touched by me, is


Claims by Chick Publications

The following is a list of claims made in the tracts and other publications. Some are fairly standard beliefs of conservative Christianity (e.g., Jesus is the only way to God[2]), so are controversial only outside that belief system; others are more generally controversial and likely to offend (e.g., Muslims worship a pagan moon god demon[3]).

Religions

  • Islam
    • Islam was a movement founded by the Catholic Church [4]
      • The Catholic Church was founded to persecute true Christians and itself founded Islam to bind Arabs to the control of Catholicism.
    • Muslims are persecuting Christians more and more [5]
      • Muslims are becoming increasinly intolerant of Christians in their midst.
    • Muslims worship a pagan moon god that is in fact a demon [6]
      • Muslims believe that Allah had no son [Jesus] and have been deceived to workship a moon-god and if they realized this they would turn to Christ for salvation
    • There are scientific errors in the Qur'an [7]
      • The Qur'an promotes the scientific inaccurate idea that the sun is extinguished each night
    • Muslim arabs are going to "eradicate the freedoms, prosperity, and advancement of the rest of the world"
      • ( No citation )
      • '[8] - a direct quote10001 18:58, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Muslim parents order their children to blow up buses [9]
      • Muslim parents consider that having their children kill others by becoming suicide bombers is fulfilling religious destiny
  • Jehovah's Witnesses
    • JWs use a bible formed from corrupted Roman Catholic manuscripts [10]
      • This is a tough one because I believe they are completely misreprsenting JW logic in refusing blood transfusions and the Catholic connection is a minor one
    • The Watchtower Society is a false prophet, making inaccurate prophesies [11]
      • The Watchtower Society claims to be the word of God on earth, but If they were their teachings and prophecies would be perfect, but are not and have been changed over time.
    • JWs spy on each other, being ordered to 'turn in' members [12]
      • JWs keep tabs on all their members, and will intervene with threats of loss of salvation is they don't follow doctrine
    • JWs are an 'organization of slaves, working desparately to "earn" eternal life' [13]
      • Yes, this citation does say that, but the thrust is to characterize JW beliefs and this DOES make 7 specific claims about JWs, perhaps the most religiously significant of which is that JWs do not accept the Trinity.
  • Freemasons
  • Catholicism
    • IHS (In hoc signis) stands for the Egyption gods Isis, Horus, and Seb[16] [17]
    • the Klu Klux Klan is run by a Catholic [18]
    • The Catholic church is a government agency [19]
    • Catholics claim Jesus is a communist [20]
    • Mary is a goddess to whom the Catholic church puts up shrines [21]
    • The Catholic priesthood is full of homosexuals [22]
    • Popes were involved in many kinds of sexual sin [23]
    • The Catholic church kills Protestants who attack it, using, for example, fake car acidents [24]
    • Every church and religion now and in the past has been infiltrated by the Catholic church [25], and attempts are made to destroy them, including seduction and false witness [26]
    • The Catholic church is rewriting history with respect to the Inquisition[ http://www.chick.com/reading/comics/0112/0112_fourpages.asp?PG=13]
    • There are secret tunnels between nuns' and priests' buildings, with dead babies in between [27]
    • The Pope does not rule the Vatican, rather it is the Jesuits, in the form of a black general or black pope [28] who is a Mason and a member of the communist party [29]
    • The Catholic church strongly influences Hollywood movie production and series such as MASH, making Protestants look bad and Catholics look good [30]
    • The Catholic church created communism so that later it could destroy it, uniting Catholics and Protestants against a common enemy [31]
    • The Vatican caused World War II, and many people know this [32]
    • The Catholic church is the great whore, committing fornication with the kings of the Earth [33]
    • The mass wafer is actually a death cookie, an idea borrowed from Egyptian religions [34]
    • Mary is more important than Jesus to Catholics [35], and people were burnt alive for not saying that Mary was the true way rather than Jesus [36]
    • The Pope is actively seeking control of Jerusalem [37]
    • Christian television is being secretly used by Catholics against Protestants [38]
    • Ecumenism is being used by Catholics to destroy Protestants [39]
    • Catholicism is a cult [40]
    • Catholic teachings are not based on the Bible [41]
    • The Pope strongly desires world dominion [42]
    • The Pope is the Anti-Christ [43],
    • Catholic practices are pagan [44]
    • The Catholic church uses pagan icons in its worship [45]
    • Catholics worship statues of Mary [46]
    • The Holocaust was a Catholic Inquisition against the Jews [47]
    • The Catholic church founded communism, Nazism, and Zionism and tried to destroy the Jews [48]
    • The Catholic church still supports communism revolutions [49]
    • Freemasonry, the New Age Movement, the Club of Rome, the Council on Foreign Relations, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, and many others are in league with the Catholic church
    • Billy Graham is a catholic agent [50]
    • The Pope claims to be Christ's vice president (vicar) in charge of earth [51]
    • The United Nations is a tool of Satan and of the Pope [52]
    • True Believers will be persecuted in the future by the World Government [53] headed by the Pope
  • Jews
    • If nations are good to Jews, god will bless them [54]
    • Jews will be sent to hell [55]
  • The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
    • Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are polytheists [56]
    • Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are part of a cult [57]
  • Hinduism
  • Buddhism

The Bible

A frame from the Chick tract "Doom Town"
    • The King James Version of the Bible is the only recorded word of God, and all other editions are corrupt [60]
    • Sodom was punished for homosexuality (rather than the alternative explanation, inhospitality) [61]
    • Jonah really existed and survived three days in a whale[62]

Sex

  • Homosexuals are fundamentally different from hetrosexual people, and do not care as much about life as 'normal' people[63]
  • Young school children are told that homosexuality is OK, and God hates homosexuality [64]
  • A repentant husband should be invited back into a family after he has beaten his wife [65]
  • People are not born homosexual but rather are driven to homosexuality through parental and demonic influence [66]
  • Homosexual parenting is dangerous for children [67]
  • Homosexual behaviour is unhealthy and will cause early death [68]
  • Homosexuals are eight times more likely to molest children than heterosexuals [69]
  • Abortion facilitators will be sent to hell because they are murderers [70]

Modern culture

File:Satan.gif
Satan wears a pumpkin in "Boo!"
  • Halloween
    • Halloween opens the door to satanism [71]
    • Satan can take bodily form at Halloween (typically with a pumpkin head) and kills teenagers [72]
    • You cannot separate Halloween from its origin with the Druids [73]
    • Ancient Greek and Roman authors "dwell heavily on [the Druids'] frequent and barbaric human sacrifices" [74]
    • The Druids used magic "to raise storms, lay curses on places, kill by the use of spells, and create magical obstacles" [75]
    • Druids in the 16th century were still engaging in ritual murder [76]
  • Druids sacrificed humans [77]
  • Wiccans, sorcercesses in the Bible, and the witch of Endor are following the same spiritual path [78]
    • Modern day Druids still engage in human sacrifice [79]
    • The Druids celebrated 31 October with many human sacrifices [80]
    • Halloween is a Druidic festival honoring their sun god and Samhain, the lord of the dead [81]
    • Ancient Celts gave out food on Halloween in order to appease the spirits of the dead [82]
    • Modern day Satanists put razor blades, drugs, poisons, needles, etc. in Halloween treats in order to kill or injure children [83]
  • Harry Potter is repackaged witchcraft [84]
  • Rock music is Satanic [85]
  • Satan turns rock artists into slaves [86]
  • Dungeons and Dragons causes murder and suicides [87] (see Dungeons and Dragons#Controversies for rebuttal of this claim)

Science, anthropology and history

The future

  • Europe is actively preparing for the new world order (and has been for the last twenty years) [94]
  • Human sacrifice will increase as we get closer to the end times (which are now quite close) [95]]
  • The world will be turned into a big-brother culture, where people are killed for 'only' claiming that Jesus is the only way [96]
  • Bad things according to Chick Publicatinos – torture, drugs, killing for 'fun', claiming Godhood for self, homosexual marrage, Satan worship – happened in the time of Noah and will happen again in future before a rapture [97]

Miscellaneous

Criticisms of Chick Publications

Some people consider the claims made by Chick's publications – and especially the cartoon tracts – to be offensive and even absurd. All of these claims are found in other Christian publications, but the tracts' blunt language and wide distribution make them particularly prominent as targets for criticism.

His critics also accuse Chick of misrepresentation — for instance, Chick's tract Big Daddy accuses evolutionary scientists of circular reasoning in dating geological strata by the fossils they contain, with nothing in the tract to inform its readers that the usual technique is in fact radiometric dating.

Some critics have observed that Chick's comics present Jesus as a superhero in an alternative universe in which sins are punished in Biblical style

Chick's claims about Catholic, Masonic, Satanic, etc., conspiracies are based in large part on the testimony of people who claim to have been members of these groups before converting to Evangelical Christianity, most prominently Rivera and Schnoebelen. Many of Chick's critics consider these sources to be frauds or fantasists, yet many Christian supporters acknowledge these claims as legitimate. Further discussion of these controversies may be found in the articles on Alberto Rivera, William Schnoebelen, and John Todd.

Protected

As an admin not involved in this article, I have protected it so the various sides can present their justifications. I observe that this is not a simple revert war in the sense that there are not only arguments about wording changes introduced by User:10001, but also significant added material. I see that this is already being brought up as a 3RR violation against 10001, but several in opposition to him/her are also reverting in rotation.

I'm not judging the "right" version, but speaking as outsider, it seems to me 10001's additions' (no opinion on the changed wording) are useful in giving a picture of the bent of where Chick Publications stands on religious issues and so a non-cognizant reader (like me) doesn't have to go through Chick's website to see what's up. That's what an encyclopedia should do; though it might make sense to move it to a subpage, if it's accurate and NPOV.

Please consider my reasons for protection and how you wish to work it out. I stand ready to mediate it need be. If several editors believe that protection is inappropriate, tell me so, I will unprotect and go on my way, but I believe, considering that there is no issue of simple vandalism here, that this should be worked out in Talk, not the 3RR forum. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 16:48, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  1. You need to scroll up this page quite a way to see the discussion concerning the material removed by Calair. In brief, it was felt that there was far too long a list of examples, much of it rpetitive, and some of it inaccurate (the claims not in fact backed up by the citations).
  2. I don't think that there was any concerted attempt to revert 10001 in rotation; I reverted him three times, and then had to give up. Other editors arrived and reverted him after I'd added him to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR; I assume that they were drawn here by that. He has, incidentally, vanadalised the [Vandalism in progress' page, my user page twice, and Guettarda's page once. He also reverted the article a fifth time. after I'd warned im, and added a link to the 3RR page for him.
  3. After many requests, 10001 has finally come to the Talk page, just as you protected the page. His comment was aggressive and not very useful, but there's hope.
  4. I'm more than happy for the page to remain protected for the time being; I think that it's clear that 10001 won't stop reverting otherwise. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:03, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'll be away for a coupla hours, and will check this on my return to see if there is any kind of progress on how to deal with this. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 17:14, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

can you address the issue - calair's idea of seperate pages was fine - but to simply remove lots of material is nasty vandalism, and the admin. seems to like the idea of the information. On a seperate page, any erroneous entries can be found out, without wholesale distruction. Compromise is the best way forward. On all sides. I am not threating reverts, just suggesting a way forward that removes the need to revert. 10001 17:23, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You must read more about what's acceptable and what isn't on Wikipedia. Actually, even aside from that, accusing other editors of 'nasty vandalism' isn't likely to gain you friends or convince those who disagree with you.
You haven't addressed the reasons given my Calair and by me. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:33, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

reasons? I have said I agree with Calair - move the stuff to another page, leaving a link + summary - I am not arguing about the whether the material should be there or not. I am simply saying don't throw it away - is that what you want to do? If so then we can discuss this. Does the material contain incorrect links? Probably, but certainly not all of them, or indeed most of them. I am happy to work on the wording and claims, in terms of what the links actually say. Yes it is probably too long - but not for a new page... 10001 17:47, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Does this article warrant a separate page listing all the, at best amusingly loopy, at worst unpleasantly offensive, claims made by this cretin? Surely all we need to do is to explain the sorts of claim he makes, give the criticisms and defences, and leave it? What purpose is served by repeating his claims in Wikipedia? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:09, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

They are gathered from throughout his publications, providing a comprehensive look at what Chick Publications produces without having to wade through mountains of text on the website. It is not our purpose here to say these views are correct or wrong, but to present them in summary fashion, as accuratly as possible, whatever the needs of the research - a 'fundamentalist' Christian looking for supportive material for his / her viewpoint or a catholic appoligist evaluating some what some Christians think or an 'athiest' laughing at the apparent absurdatly of some claims.

So, I see reasons for their inclusion in full, but do not make any claims as to the relative importance in the artical. The material is information - info. that is hard to gather in that level of detail without a lot of time or a lot of people. Researchers will find it valuable, as did the admin. above 10001 18:27, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

besides, there aren't that many anyway 10001 18:29, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

have created a claims page - Claims by Chick Publications 10001 18:37, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am having trouble working out the issue (huge talk page and a lot of edits for a causal user), but it seems to be over the list of claims. I have shown the article to numerous people, and they found the list the most useful/interesting part of the article. Not sure on the procedure (voting?), but I am of the opinion the list should stay in the main article (with perhaps references). --Vodex 18:46, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

I see that the response to criticisms / claims was also removed - but I have now added it to the claims page. It might be better to put the two together since it is hard to see what the response refers to. The response is valuable since it shows researches how Chick Publications defends its claims, rightly or wrongly. In paticular, mixing them reduces the 'legit.' that people think is implied by the inclusion of detailed claims 10001 19:22, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As for a new page - I am undecided, but would point out that the size was >32KB with all the stuff 10001 19:24, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And this one is 53KB!

When I replaced the list of claims with a summary version yesterday, I considered pasting the deleted material here, so it could be added to a subpage in the event that somebody wanted to do so. However, I didn't see what this would achieve that can't be done easily enough by pasting from the relevant edit summary, and it would have taken up a great deal of space on this talk page (as indeed it now has), so I decided against it. I certainly wasn't trying to *prevent* anybody else from using that material - such an attempt would be futile, given the way Wikipedia works - and I don't particularly appreciate the accusation of 'vandalism'.

'if i went to an article and removed lots of material, i would be accused of vandallism as well10001 04:53, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) even if it was a misunderstanding10001 05:20, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Not if you made a case for removal of that material on the Talk page first, gave people a chance to voice objections, received none, and then replaced that material with a summary. People might well argue whether it was a *good* edit, but vandalism it ain't. --Calair 23:35, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Regarding the *accuracy* of the 'claims' section - i.e. the fact that some of the claims attributed to Chick aren't actually found in the references provided - I don't think it's good enough to say that most of them are accurate, because one bit of false information far outweighs one bit of good information. What people *don't* know, they can often find elsewhere, even if it's a bit more trouble to do so; but when we tell them something that's incorrect, they have no reason to look further. When they *do* realise they've been misinformed, that casts doubt over the rest of what they've learned, making it harder to trust the parts that *are* accurate.
One of the main arguments for keeping the claims list seems to be that it provides very specific information on what Chick says. One of my biggest objections to the claims list is that, in fact, often it only appears to provide specific information on what Chick says. At least when something is presented as a general summary, it's likely to be understood as a general summary, with the limitations that that implies.

'well ok, what specific points? 10001 04:53, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I gave three examples in the comment you're responding to. --Calair 23:35, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
But when we list something like "Muslim parents order their children to blow up buses [100]"... well, I've been through that tract three times now, and I'm yet to find any mention or depiction of a bus, and the protagonist has never even *met* either of his parents - his father's in jail, his mother died giving birth to him. While his grandmother certainly *encourages* him to become a suicide bomber, the actual order comes from a mullah. While it's reasonable to presume from this tract that Chick *does* believe Muslim parents order their children to blow up buses (among other things), it's misleading to imply specifics that the 'reference' doesn't back up, and it erodes confidence in the other claims.

'parents: the grandmother was a parent, the neightbours dancing in the street were presumably parents of the other children who were also being told about there 'bright' future, the father was in prison for blowing something up. bus: no it doesn't say what he blew up, but it always seems to be buses, so this can be infered.

No, the grandmother isn't a parent; she's a grandparent. And the other point still stands. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:47, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
a grandparent is a parent, in name and role, at least in the middle east, but anyway, if you wish to change it to grandparent, fine. Nevertheless, the neighbours (presumably parents) danced about their own children, says the tract. And what other point stands, any why? You see, we can debate points in turn, but let's get the page unprotected and move on...10001 11:04, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This is beginning to sound more like a desperate attempt to defend what Chick says — moreover, by depending upon your assumptions and a twisting of the English language. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:46, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Well, I am not going to argue or defend myself against your insults... I gave my view, said I didn't care if the item was changed, and suggested we we move onto broader issues that this single claim. May I ask, how do you feel we should move forward? 10001 11:56, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Lots of "presumably"s in there. It is not Wikipedia's job to guess at what Jack Chick means, and certainly not to present this material as a statement of fact without any acknowledgement of the interpolation involved. And as for "what he blew up", the tract expressly states that he did not blow anything up - his bomb failed, which is the reason he's still alive to be in prison. I'll further note that a lot of suicide bombings are targeted at things like cafes, checkpoints, etc - there's no reason to claim specifically 'buses', and it gives the impression of a specific claim that isn't supported by the reference. --Calair 23:35, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
it says "the devil wins...Abdula is blown to bits including those nearby" - see the top of one of the images.[101] You are right about buses. But what prison? Oh you mean the father? But the story is about his son.10001 16:47, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"The Catholic Church created communism so that later it could destroy it..." - already dealt with.

'"t the Vatican had to create a common enemy for both Catholics and Protestants to unite against" from the article; other places it says catholism started communism - a jesuit helped carl marx. I think the ref. is valid10001 04:53, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Then link to those other places, rather than an article which begins 30 years after the Russian revolution and 100 years after the Communist Manifesto was written. If somebody lists a claim with a bad reference, it's not anybody else's job to go through the whole of Chick's work looking for a correct reference that may or may not be there. --Calair 23:35, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
maybe not, but what are we to do? lots of editors = some mistakes...let's not through out the baby with the bathwater! 10001 16:47, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"The Catholic church founded communism, Nazism, and Zionism and tried to destroy the Jews [102]" - actually, while that page says that the Vatican supported and manipulated Nazism, it makes no claim I can see that it founded Nazism; communism and Zionism aren't even *mentioned* on that page.
And so on. IMHO, there are enough shaky entries in the 'Claims' section to make it undesirable for inclusion in its present state. --Calair 00:17, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
see below 10001 16:47, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

'the reference does not say that, but elsewhere on the site it does say that Hitler was just following catholic orders when he created the nazis and that jusuits were heads of parts of the nazi party. Perhaps nazism was not created by catholics, but everthing they did was - www.chich.com10001 04:53, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

the communism and zionism are mentioned elsewhere, probably with the other claims, so no need to repeat them in every claim. I think the idea is that the vatican didn't create the party necessarily, but the rather the modern form of it - its structure, hatred of Jews, etc., were from jesuits rather than simply the founding (5) members of the nazi party of Hitlers' there are references to these points, but too many to simply list in one claim (actually, I think the best source for this kind of stuff in the alberto comics, where it quite plainly states that jesuits created these organisations)10001 05:20, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A lot of Chick's claims about Catholicism, Nazism etc, are indeed interwoven, and listing them separately would indeed involve a lot of duplication; that, IMHO, is a good reason for discussing them en masse - as I did in my edit - rather than listing them item by item. --Calair 23:35, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think that there are probably some bad apples in the list, but overall they are OK - you disagree...10001 16:47, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

why not complain about these on the claims page rather than here? people don't always check references when others add stuff, so, wrongly, there are probably erroneous entries. but i don't think they are all bad10001 04:53, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, they're not all bad. However, there's enough bad among them that they should be taken out and then mined for what can be salvaged, rather than leaving them up until they can all be checked. --Calair 23:35, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
you are certainly right about buses - it should perhaps say 'and blow things up' - it does show an explosion. Also we shouldn't assume - you are of course right. Perhaps we can have a summary with specific claims on a different page, removing those that cross-over - as you say, these would be better served by a summary section. You have given samples of claims that are questionable, and that should be altered / removed. 10001 16:47, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To show that not all is bad, let me counter with some claims that are better (IMHO): 10001 16:47, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

from ref. "of Catholics claim Jesus is a communist [18]":10001 16:47, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"November/ December 1988 Headline: Catholic leaders say Jesus was a Communist."

It might be better to say Catholic leaders, but Catholic leaders are catholics and (there is that word again) presumably speak for their church.10001 16:47, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

" Too many people knew that the Vatican was responsible for World War II so it was time for a face lift" from the ref. of "The Vatican caused World War II, and many people know this [30]"10001 16:47, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And (i think you mentioned this one)from the ref of "The Catholic church created communism so that later it could destroy it, uniting Catholics and Protestants against a common enemy [29]"10001 16:47, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"There were so many books in the gospel book stores exposing the whore that the Vatican had to create a common enemy for both Catholics and Protestants to unite against. Bishop Fulton J. Sheen launched the anti-communist attack, and behold, like mushrooms, we saw anti-communist ministries popping up exposing the monster in Moscow."10001 16:47, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

and 10001 16:47, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Listen to these names: Marx, Engels, Stalin, Lenin, Fidel Castro. All were trained and guided by Jesuits." from [103]10001 16:47, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is true that not all claims are backed up by the links they come from, but in my experience, they are supported by links elsewhere on the document. Is this wrong - should we have lots of likes per claim as necessary? I am genuinely asking a question. 10001 16:47, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

At present, without the claims section, the article has ~ 30 external references; before I removed it, it had perhaps twice as many. IMHO, that's enough that it's *not* adequate to say "well, if you look through *all* the references from this page, you'll find supporting material". If a claim merits a reference, it should be the right reference. --Calair 00:34, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And for "The Catholic priesthood is full of homosexuals [20]", the ref. says10001 16:47, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

" Part of this ambivalence had to be because of the high number of homosexuals in the priesthood. Some estimates run as high as 40%."10001 16:47, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And not just roman catholic: 10001 16:47, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Dinosaurs have existed and are probably alive today [89]"'s ref says:10001 16:47, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Author Claims Some Dinosaurs Live Today!"10001 16:47, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC) 10001 16:47, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)


I just changed the claims page to read

"** Muslim families and memebers of Muslim communities order their children to blow up people for the promise of glory in the afterlife[104]" - is that any better? - claims by Chick Publications 10001 16:50, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not really; it's doing what so many of the supposed examples do, namely making a general claim based on a comic depicting a single incident. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:22, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yup. Telling stories involves making up details to fill the space, and not all of those details are an intentional message; just because something appears as a detail in a Chick tract doesn't mean it qualifies as a 'claim'. For instance, it wouldn't be appropriate to use Bad Bob as a reference to prove that "Chick claims difficult babies grow up into criminals, and barkeepers go bald". If I had to bet, I'd guess that Chick believes the former and has no strong opinion on the latter, but neither of them qualify as 'claims'.
That doesn't mean such details have to be ignored, BTW. On their own, they're inconsequential; taken en masse, they can form a stereotype that says a lot about Chick's attitudes, and those stereotypes are certainly worth mentioning. But we shouldn't confuse stereotypes with claims. --Calair 00:34, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unprotect?

Where are we on this? There seems to be discussion. Can we unprotect and move on? -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 22:51, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, speaking personally, I don't see what has been resolved - we seem to be in the same situation we started in. You will insert your revisions, I will delete / add to them a link / contents , you will revert, I will revert, revert, revert, revert? What do you think -- do you have any ideas to avoid this situation repeating itself? BTW to be clear, this is not a threat10001 12:16, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The main problem is that the over-extensive list looks more like a soapbox for Chick Publications' views than encyclopædia material (there's also the problem that too many of the claims turn out not in fact to be backed up by the material cited). Surely all that's needed is a brief account of the sorts of claims that are included, together with a similar section of critical discussion. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:50, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)19:43, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)19:43, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)~~

One or two claims have incorrect references (but correct ones are on the page) and one had incorrect material, which has been fixed. 3 or 4 random claims were selected and demonstrated to be backed up by the references. So, to claim that they are not backed up seems wrong. Why not just a summary? - see above:19:43, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)19:43, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)19:43, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"...whatever the needs of the research - a 'fundamentalist' Christian looking for supportive material for his / her viewpoint or a catholic appoligist evaluating some what some Christians think or an 'athiest' laughing at the apparent absurdatly of some claims..."19:43, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)10001

And besides this, many of his views are in comic book form - you can't search for them on his site. 19:43, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)10001 19:43, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We are not saying anything is right or wrong about Chick Publication views - although you have made yours well known - the encylopedia describes from NPOV. And if this information is comprehensive and accurate and NPOV, so much the better. You seem to dislike Chick Publication and want to hide away their views, in case someone might be influences by the 'credability' of including them in the encylopedia - is that correct? Would you happy to have them included if they were 100% shown to your satisfaction to be correct? 19:43, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)19:43, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)10001

In so far as I can follow all of this, and assuming that it's all from the same person, then you've missed my point, as well as the nature of the NPoV policy. First, much of what is claimed by Chick Publications, at least according to the list of claims here, is absurd, and demonstrably so. We do not have to give equal prominence to such minority viewpoints. Secondly, it's not a matter of hiding it away, but of not allowing it to use Wikipedia as an extra platform. In any case, thirdly, it has an article, and one that's at least commensurate with its stature — how could that be said to be 'hiding it away'? Fourthly, we're not here to provide supportive material for fundamentalists or comedy for atheists; this is an encyclopædia. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:16, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
To put my 2 cents in, I think the list is useful, so long as the short descriptions accurately match the contents of the cartoons linked to. I highly doubt anyone who is not already a believer in Chick's POV will become one through seeing this list in Wikipedia. In fact, the broad enumeration of Chick views, which appear to be otherwise widely distributed, helps the reader gauge their nature. For example, I find interesting the juxtiposition of one article which suggests that God protects Jews by destroying or diminishing nations that have treated them badly, then another article which suggests that the most pious Jew is damned (with only the softening implication that a Jew must know of Christ's teachings, but reject them). Fascinating here is not just the contradiction (God protects Jews in life but would send them to Hell after death) but the fact that two opposing views of some fundamentalist Christians is represented: the older view that anyone who doesn't accept Christ as a personal savior is irrevocable doomed in the after life; and the current view that Jews (and especially Israel) are fulfilling bible prophecy.
As to the fear that this could be a "soapbox" for Chick, there is a limit to how much Wikipedia can or should decide to sua particular viewpoint. Expressing this fear implies that the "summary" would attempt to interpret all of Chick negatively, which is inherently POV, treats Wikipedians as children (and Wikipedia is notoriously bad at protecting children anyway) and deprives the reader an opportunity to judge for him/herself. Put another way, my high school had English language copies of Mein Kampf, Das Kapital, the Communist Manifesto and many other works, which I studied as far as I could stand, but became neither Nazi nor Communist. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 02:39, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
As for the list itself in terms of accuracy, IMHO, 98%+ of references match entries and only that single item 'added' something and over generalised. Clearly, you disagree, but, from above, 10001 04:09, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And for "The Catholic priesthood is full of homosexuals [20]", the ref. says10001 16:47, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

" Part of this ambivalence had to be because of the high number of homosexuals in the priesthood. Some estimates run as high as 40%."10001 16:47, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And not just roman catholic: 10001 16:47, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Dinosaurs have existed and are probably alive today [89]"'s ref says:10001 16:47, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Author Claims Some Dinosaurs Live Today!"10001 16:47, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC) 10001 16:47, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

THIS gets us noware - you say the list is bad, I don't. I like it in principle, you don't. Those are the two items in question and the two poles of opinion. So, this talk is getting us nowhere - let's unprotect and have an edit war - last man standing?10001 04
09, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
BTW, Mel Etitis, that you think the claims are absurd is not the point. Even if everybody agrees with you (and they don't), we are describing Chick Publications, and what that entity believes is part of that description, isn't it? If you wish to argue that his claims are false, you can also do that in the criticism section. I believe the defense section list a number of specific items of defense. And BTW, his views vary - some are more reasonable than others. That believing in God gets you to heaven is shared by billions in this world...that Islam was started by Jesuits is not10001 04:09, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
10001, we really need some Wikilove here, as goofy as that may sound. I see room for a reasonable compromise here. Edit warring or whatever simply leads to blocks and RfCs and ArbComs, none of which would improve Wikipedia in general or this article. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 04:49, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
OK, I'll make an offer... I could cope with a pruned list of claims, as long that list is accurate and organised.
Accurate: besides the issue of references, this means being careful not to treat everything Chick depicts as a 'claim'. While Chick's tracts are certainly intended to impart messages, not everything that appears in those tracts is part of that intended message - even when it sheds light on Chick's attitudes, e.g. his love for stereotypes.
IMHO, if something within a Chick tract is stated as a footnote, or by God/Jesus/angels, or by one of Chick's infallible "voice of truth" characters (who are pretty hard to mistake), it's reasonable to present it as a "claim".
As an example, from 'Big Daddy', it would be fair to say "Chick claims gluons don't exist, and atoms are held together by Christ", but not to say "Chick claims universities expel professors who don't believe in evolution". The former is part of Chick's message; the latter, while certainly depicted by Chick, and no doubt intentionally so, isn't outright claimed as fact. (Not within that tract, anyway.)
Things like that certainly *can* be discussed in the article - Chick's reliance on stereotypes, for instance, certainly bears mentioning - but we should be careful about what we identify as a 'claim'. Applying this criterion would do a lot to trim the list to more manageable proportions.
Organised: Many of Chick's claims, especially those about Catholicism are intended as individual facets of an overall picture. Try to indicate how they fit together, rather than just presenting them as an unstructured list. For instance, as it appears in the above list, "There are secret tunnels between nuns' and priests' buildings, with dead babies in between" comes out of left field; it's much more useful to readers when put into context, as part of Chick's claims of sexual depravity in the church. (I appreciate that it might have more shock value on readers when presented out of context, but I don't think that's an appropriate tactic for an encyclopaedia to employ.) Proper organisation also simplifies referencing - when half a dozen claims come from one tract on the evils of Catholicism, presenting them together as part of a unifying theory means they can all be referenced together. We shouldn't need to have have a dozen different bits on the page all pointing to the same tract. This could perhaps be done by using specific claims to bulk out the Chick_Publications#Catholicism summary of Chick on Catholicism, but there may be other ways to do it.
If those two things could be addressed, I'd be willing to accept the claims list. However, skimming through the current list, it seems to me that a *lot* of the things represented as 'claims' don't strictly count as claims; I would be happier if those who want the claims reintroduced took the trouble to vet them as they're reintroduced, rather than just pasting them all back in and leaving them until somebody else goes to the trouble of checking each of them (because I have an unpleasant suspicion that that somebody would end up being me). --Calair 13:28, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My two cents of opinion

I am major contributor to Christian articles here at Wikipedia, focusing mainly upon Evangelical, Fundamentalist, Reformed and Charismatic/Pentecostal belief. Please feel free to visit my user page to see the articles that I have created and edited.

The reason why I contribute to these articles is because I am a "Born Again Christian" who believes pretty much the same gospel outline that is on the last page of Chick tracts. I have studied at Bible College, I am an Elder in my church and I am an experienced lay preacher. I also have to say that I own a number of Chick tracts and I am familar with their content.

I am saying all this because I wish to add my opinion to the fracas that is happening here. I must apologise for not turning up sooner - this article is flagged in my watchlist but I was probably too lazy doing less important things to come here.

I must say, at this point, that I honestly find that contributions made by 10001 are not helpful at all. This user has taken away vital information and inserted material that is not needed. The vast array of information about Islam and Catholicism that he has inserted makes no encyclopedic sense to me. Moreover, his removal of information that is critical of Chick tracts appears to be very pov. It is important for readers of this article to be given a summary of what Chick tracts contain in a broad sense (eg anti-catholic, conspiracies, end of the world, etc). I had no problem whatsoever with the article as it stood before this user began modifying it.

I can't pretend to know what 10001's motives for doing this are, but I will assume that they are innocent. I am hoping that everything has been an honest mistake on his/her part. --One Salient Oversight 14:08, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It seems you are slightly confused. Material that I 'removed' was a slimmed down version of material existing in the article - not new information. In fact I was saving the article from vandalism. The list of claims existed way before the 'summary' version, which, I am told contains a reduced version of that list. 10001 04:50, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
So, far from 'taken away vital information', I have been trying to revert to the full information that has existed in the article for some time. Sorry to contradict, but wanted to clear this up as a Christian as well (I don't believe every conspiricy theory Chick Publications states, but, I think I would agree with the statement of faith). My motivation is to: justify some of his beliefs and expose others that are 'questionable'.10001 04:50, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep in mind that Wikipedia's purpose is to inform, not to persuade. It's not our job to convince readers that Chick's beliefs are right, or wrong, only to give them an accurate idea of what he does believe and pointers to related information. --Calair 03:53, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but by providing an accurate idea of what he does beleve, does that anyway...10001 04:57, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
What kind of information do you actually want? I mean, I am actually reverting the article to the way it stood before...10001 04:50, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
To Calair, I don't care about order of items in the list - you can do what you want there. As for reintroducing, I think that would take too much wasteful time - I still feel that 95% of the claims are phrased correctly. Why not include the summary you want and the list linked as a seperate page, edited for items that you can demostrate are inaccurate?
Because, IMHO, those who added the claims and want to keep them should take primary responsibility for their accuracy. I understand that people make mistakes when they add stuff, and other editors play a vital role in catching things the original contributors missed, and I am quite happy to do my part in that - but only if the original contributors have *also* made a good-faith effort. Going through a list of nearly 100 claims to check each and every one is an extremely tedious thing to ask of somebody who's not even convinced the list should be there; those who added the claims in the first place and who want to keep them now should take some responsibility for their accuracy rather than just leaving it for the rest of us to check them. If it's not worth taking the time to check this stuff before adding it to the article, it's not worth adding it at all.
As for 95%, well, looking at the current version of the 'claims' article:
* Muslim arabs are going to "eradicate the freedoms, prosperity, and advancement of the rest of the world"[105].
Actually, that article says only that they are determined to eradicate the etc etc, and it also indicates that Christians can stop them. There is a big difference between 'determined to' and 'going to', especially considering the number of times Chick does make genuine 'going to'-style predictions about how the End Times will play out.
Personally, I don't kmow what the difference between determinied and going actually is, but I wouldn't mind this being changed (have done). 10001 04:57, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
'Going to' is a statement that something will happen. 'Determined to' just says that somebody wants it to happen. For instance, AFAICT, Chick believes the Catholic Church is determined to destroy Christianity... and that Christianity is going to win out in the end. --Calair 00:21, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
* Muslim families and members of Muslim communities order their children to blow up people for the promise of glory in the afterlife[106]
We've been through this already. This tract certainly depicts that happening, and that's relevant to explaining Chick's world-view, but it's inaccurate to describe it as a 'claim'. (Another reason why I'm not fond of the "list of claims" approach - many of the important bits of Chick's tracts aren't claims per se.)
What is the differences between a claim and part of Chick Publication's world view?10001 04:57, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The relevant definition of 'claim' here is 'A statement of something as a fact; an assertion of truth'[107]. If Jack Chick says "there are aphids in my rose garden", he has stated it as fact, and we could put "there are aphids in his rose garden" under the list of claims made by Chick.
But if we see Jack Chick reading a book on 'Protecting Your Roses From Aphids', that's not a claim. If we see Jack Chick walking into a garden shop and buying a can of aphid spray, that's not a claim. If we see him take that spray and blast it on his roses and we can see with our own eyes that there are aphids there, that's still not a claim until he says "there are aphids here".
In evaluating his tracts, we have to keep in mind that they use fiction as a device to impart a message that Chick believes to be truth. (This technique is by no means unique to Chick - fables and biblical parables make extensive use of it, because adding colour can make dry material more readable and a good metaphor/simile can help readers understand some of the more abstract ideas involved.) Take Man In Black as an example: anybody familiar with Chick's work understands that what that tract says about Catholicism is intended to be taken as fact. OTOH, it would be unreasonable to take it as a statement that there really was a Catholic priest called Father Damien who was about to jump off a bridge in the rain (with a weird-looking dog walking by) when somebody called 'Bob' stopped and talked him out of it.
Sometimes, as in the above, Chick uses a fictional setting to introduce a character who then delivers Chick's message directly. In other tracts, Chick delivers the message itself in metaphorical form, although he always seems to follow up by explaining it without those trappings anyway - see e.g. [108],[109], [110].
It would be reasonable to take that last tract as claiming "Jesus Christ paid the price to redeem sinners". It would not be reasonable to take it as claiming "there was a family (father 'John', son 'Timmy', living next to a Mrs. Jones) who lost their dog Cleo while on the way to hospital to visit a sick grandmother - it is understood that that sort of thing is just added to fill the story out and make it easier for a young reader to understand the principles involved, by relating something outside their experience to something within it.
Everything Chick claims is part of his world-view. But not everything in his world-view is a claim. --Calair 00:21, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
* JWs spy on each other, being ordered to 'turn in' members[111]
The tract refers to one Jehovah's Witness being turned in by another, but does not say anything about this being done under orders. Even pluralising this, turning it from one incident into a habit, is questionable - while I have no doubt Chick *believes* this sort of thing happens on a regular basis in the JWs, the tract doesn't claim that.
The cartoon says that it is carried out by Watch Tower, the of JWs, making it a religion wide activity, but it could be worded better.10001 04:57, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No, it does not. It says Watchtower had a record of this happening, and that the Elders threatened and punished her when they found out, but it says nothing about who turned her in or why they did that. That it was done under Watchtower orders is certainly plausible, but it isn't a claim. --Calair 00:21, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Fixed, I hope...10001 04:43, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
* the Klu Klux Klan is run by a Catholic[112].
The page in question is an archive of old Battle Cry article titles; the relevant section is a 1986 article titled "Ku Klux Klan has new Catholic leader", and only the title is available. Without the rest of the article, that title is ambiguous - 'leader' could mean the person who runs the entire Klan, or it could mean *anybody* in a position of authority within the Klan. Turning an ambiguous, out-of-context article title from 19 years ago into a 'claim' is stretching things.
True - it should say ' a leader in the KKK was a catholic ' - or not at all, it is somewhat ambiguous - have removed it 10001 04:57, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Further, even if the article in question is indeed referring to the supreme leader of the KKK, that sort of position is unlikely to be held now by the same person who held it in 1986. The presentation gives no indication that there's a 19-year time gap involved, which greatly influences how we interpret that claim.
* Every church and religion now and in the past has been infiltrated by the Catholic church[113]
The tract actually claims this process began in the 1550s.
And says it is continuing...10001 04:57, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Which certainly justifies the 'now' part of the statement, but not 'in the past'. 'The past' goes back *before* 1550. Did the Catholic Church infiltrate those religions that died out before 1550? The tract gives no indication that they did, but that's what the claim implies. AFAIK, even Chick doesn't credit Catholics with the ability to travel into the past. --Calair 00:21, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Fixed (added 1550), but in any case, "in the past" does not necessarly mean the whole of history 10001 04:43, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
* The Catholic church created communism so that later it could destroy it, uniting Catholics and Protestants against a common enemy[114]
Still not fixed. Perhaps Chick claims this somewhere, I wouldn't be surprised, but that particular page does NOT claim the Catholic church created communism. Rather, it claims that after WWII the church used communism as a diversion.
Fixed refs 10001 04:57, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
* The Catholic church founded communism, Nazism, and Zionism and tried to destroy the Jews[115]
Removed - will add back later as seperate items that have references 10001 04:57, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Still not fixed. That page claims the Catholic church *supported* Nazism, but doesn't claim 'founded'; the words 'communism' and 'Zionism' don't even appear on that page.
And perhaps the worst of those I found:
* the Catholic church is a government agency[116].
AFAICT, the relevant part of that page is a 1987 headline that simply reads: "Is the Catholic Church a government Agency?" Now, I wouldn't be surprised if the full article ends up answering that question in the affirmative - but without that missing confirmation, taking a question and representing it as a claim is sloppy in the extreme. This sort of work is why I view the claims section as generally suspect, with the good stuff to be filtered in rather than the bad stuff to be filtered out, and why I'm *not* interested in checking all of the other 90 claims in that list. If somebody takes a decent stab at an article I'm happy to add a bit of polish and fix the odd mistake, just as others have fixed some of mine. But I don't think it is at all reasonable to expect others to put time and effort into improving material unless the original contributor first puts in a similar effort, and that hasn't happened here.
Out of that list of ~ 100 claims, I checked about 20, and found 8 of them to be incorrect. I won't say that translates to a 40% error rate overall, because I started with things that looked most likely to be wrong rather than picking at random. But it is certainly worse than "95% correct". I won't be checking any more, unless I see something unusually interesting in there; what I have checked is bad enough to convince me that those who want such a list should take responsibility for checking each item, rather than sticking it up and waiting for somebody else to catch the errors.
fixed

--Calair 03:53, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think you just demonstrated the problem with the 'someone else' fix it way - missing references are easy to mix, but interpetation is a matter of consensus. I certainly don't see the articles in the same way as you, and would be unable to 'fix' them much more. As you say, you went looking for the problem entries, and found about 3 missing references, and have been fixed. Interpretation is surely some thing to which we can all contrabute. Anyway, unless someone is able to 'reinterpt' the claims, we will simply have an edit war. I will add, you will remove, I will add... we have made no progress...10001 04:57, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
There comes a point past which interpretation is not a matter of consensus. To take a headline asking "Is the Catholic Church a government Agency?" and count that alone as proof that Chick claims the Church *is* a government agency is simply flat-out wrong, no matter how many people think it's right. --Calair 00:21, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Or you could mix the summary and specific points together, removing those list items that are covered by the summary in the equal detail? By keeping the items on a seperate article allows 'pruning' wars without affecting the main article. How about listing the items here that you feel are worded inacurately or misleadingly, for discussion about removal?10001 04:50, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
That would involve me going through the entire claims list, checking every single one against its reference, and I'm only willing to do that when the original author/s has put a similar amount of effort into getting things right in the first place. AFAICT, that's not the case here. --Calair 03:53, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Description of the citations

I've started to put in some descriptions of the list citations. I am not pushing them as the "right" interpretation, but opening them for discussion. I am coming from the position of being a non-expert with some knowledge of comparative religion who is trying to describe an understanding the plain intent of the stories and articles as they might be understood on first reading by someone who does not have a hard opinion on the matter. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 05:39, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Would it not be a good idea to move specific discussion of the claims, to the actual claims article at Claims by Chick Publications? Some changes have already been made (without an edit war, yet :)) 10001 18:58, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I just went through the claim list claims of chick publications, altering / removing entries where necessary. This is the best I can do without help - the rest of the claims seem fine to me. To the best of my ability, I can't see any more generalisations from specific stories, a common complaint. I guess it is when cartoons are used that this risk occurs, but they are the most useful sources since they can't easily be searched... 81.157.129.234 16:37, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC) (10001, not logged in)

Opps - the changes weren't commited - the above problems remain, but can't change 'til Mel goes off the prowl...10001 17:55, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've no idea what that means, but shall assume that it wasn't intended as a personal attack. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:51, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It means that you reverted a change that was fully justified by talk and by page content, without properly checking either, so I thought better than to risk this again... No, it is not a personal attack, but a statement of what you did and are likely to do again - I could be accused of doing the same 10001 11:52, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unprotect

At User:Tony Sidaway's suggestion, I'm unprotecting this, since he notes that things seem to have calmed down here, and it seems to be so. Let me or Tony know if things heat up again. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 15:26, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Argument from Ignorance.

"Some claim that Chick's controversial books and publications have never been debunked or proved false."

That's a rather blatant argument from Ignorance. I'm torn between taking the sentence out entirely, or adding in that it is in fact a falacy of logic. --Havermayer 18:56, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think it's redundant, and can safely be removed. The rest of that section makes it abundantly clear that there are people who believe Chick is right (from which the 'not debunked' bit immediately follows, excepting those with really impressive logical disconnects). Explaining why it's a fallacy would risk turning the article into a debate, which isn't really a good idea. --Calair 23:15, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My only problem is that by putting it in an encyclopedia like that, we are giving that argument an air of legitamacy that it does not have. Neturality does not mean that we have to treat arguments which are known fallacies as valid. What *should* be done to fix that is not known to me, since you're kinda right. So, what must be done then? --Havermayer 20:41, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Removal. It's reasonable for an article to say "some people believe X", because regardless of whether X is true, the existence of that belief is itself a fact. But in this case, the fact has been well established already. The 'criticisms' and 'responses' sections need a bit of housekeeping anyway - they keep bleeding into one another - so I'll work that in.
In addition to the above, I've removed Whilst current mainstream Western thinking may believe Chick Publication's claims to be ridiculous, there is a sizeable minority that agree with them [117] (the link has little to do with the subject matter of that sentence, and the sentence is again redundant).
I don't think material along the lines of "some of Chick's claims are noncontroversial and generally accepted by Christians" really needs to be in the 'Responses' section, because this is so bland as to be valueless - that sort of thing can be said about anybody. (Even Timecube manages a very occasional moment of uncontroversial truth.) No doubt Chick believes that black is black, white is white, and two plus two equals four, too. I've acknowledged in the intro that occasionally Chick says something uncontroversial, but let's face it, it's the controversial stuff that makes him noteworthy.
I'm not very happy with "Some Christians see Jack Chick as persecuted, and claim that persecution is a sign of legitimacy", because it smacks of the "they laughed at Einstein!" fallacy. But I think based on Biblical passages that suggest such persecution will befall the bringers of truth; I'd appreciate it if somebody could make this more specific. --Calair 23:43, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Move the tracts, and the parodies of the tracts, to their own pages?

One central part of Chick Publications is their tracts. (Yes, I know that they publish full-sized comics and even videos.) I'd like to include a lot more detail about the stories that Jack Chick puts into his tracts. Should we split this off into its own page, and separate it from this page?

Further, the parodies are funny -- and they give some ideas about how others see Jack Chick -- but I don't know whether they're about Chick Publications itself. Should they be moved to their own page? Chip Unicorn 00:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I think a basic overview of Chick's tracts ought to be here, since they are such a crucial part of what Chick Publications does and their subject matter is closely related to the non-tract publications. But a more detailed coverage could merit its own page.
I agree that the parodies are a bit OT here, at least at the length they currently get, but there's probably not enough substance to warrant their own page. As a halfway step, what about giving them one section on the tracts page, with a brief mention here? Still not ideal, but they'd be more specific to that page than to this. --Calair 23:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Calair that keeping some information on tracts here is a good idea, and that a more detailed coverage of the subject might deserve its own page. While the parodies probably shouldn't, IMHO, have their own page, I think that info on the parodies would be very at home on the tracts page. As the page on the tracts would likely deal with how they are percieved by the public throughout, dedicating a section to parodies (on the hypothosized new tracts page) might be warranted, or perhaps as a sub-section of a "media responses" or similarly-themed section. --Corvun 02:51, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

I feel the parodies belong here; this article is about Chick Publications and people's response to their publications is certaintly notable. That in mind; I've restored the content deleted in this edit Samboy 21:59, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I have created Chick Publications tracts

In light of the above discussion, I have moved the "Notable Tracts" section to its own article, Chick Publications tracts, and replaced the section with a brief summary and link to the new article here. This should nip in the bud any argument that the parodies of Dark Dungeons don't belong here. Samboy 20:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chick_Publications/Archive_2&oldid=1085911321"