Talk:Chick tract/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Chick Publications Navbox

Hi everyone,

I have created a navbox, {{Chick Publications Navbox}}, with the purpose of holding pages related to Chick Publications.

There used to be a category for this. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 February 19#Category:Chick Publications.

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 11:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Lengthy OR summaries

Do lengthy comic tract summaries that only rely on the comics themselves (provided by the publisher's website) constitute a version WP:OR due to synthesis? Also it should be noted that pages on other comic books do not contain lengthy summaries of individual issues as part of the main article. --192.31.106.35 (talk) 05:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Not Original Research. WP:PLOTSUM#Citations may be a useful reference. From the essay:

Citations about the work of fiction generally (that is, cites addressing the commentary, impact or other real-world relevance of the work) are secondary sources no different from citations of non-fictional topics. All interpretation, synthesis or analysis of the plot must be based upon some secondary source.

Citations about the plot summary itself, however, may refer to the primary source - the work of fiction itself. For example, primary source citations are appropriate when including notable quotes from the work, citing the act/chapter/page/verse/etc of the quote within the work. For consolidated articles discussing a work published or broadcast in a serial form, a citation to the individual episode is appropriate to help readers to verify the summary. Plot summaries written purely from other summaries risk excessive loss of context and detail. While consulting other summaries may be helpful in narrowing down on what the major plot elements are, be sure to consult the primary source material to make sure you get it right.

Regarding the level of detail of the summaries:

The description should be thorough enough that the reader gets a sense of what happens and can fully understand the impact of the work and the context of the commentary about it. On the other hand, the plot summary must be concise because Wikipedia's coverage of works of fiction should be about more than just the plot. Overly long and thorough plot summaries are also hard to read and end up being as unhelpful as overly short ones. Finding the right balance requires careful editorial discretion and discussion.

All that being said, if the citations are to the publisher's website, even though the summaries clearly don't stem from them, the citations need to be changed to the actual comic tracts (the actual summaries can remain, as long as they are accurately and objectively describing the plots).--RSLxii 18:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Me again--I took a closer look at the citations and the summary. The citations look perfectly fine--they are all pointing to the tracts themselves. The summaries, however, have too much variation--the summary of the Bible tracts is little more than a list, while each of the "Other Tracts" has a 3-line summary. "This was your life", "That Crazy Guy!", "Somebody Loves Me/Trust Me", and "Dark Dungeons" have, for some unknown reason, been singled out for detailed recounting (there may be good reason for the special treatment given to these tracts, but if there is, mention what that reason is somewhere just before the summaries). Given how many tracts there have been, I agree that a summary for each and every tract is a bit excessive. I leave it to you editors to find the appropriate middle ground of simplicity and detail, while maintaining a stylistic uniformity among all the tract summaries. --RSLxii 18:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

One more note: Some of the tracts summaries have the occasional editorial comment inserted in (eg. "Dark Dungeons is one of Chick's most satirized tracts." "Chick opposes Christians celebrating Halloween, and several of his tracts purport to tell a link between Halloween and Satanism."). These types of comments *MUST* use a citation other than the comic itself! Otherwise, these types of statements should be removed. --RSLxii 18:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Recurring Characters

<humor>Feel free to delete this section:

A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z

</humor>--Kevinkor2 (talk) 20:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Removing lengthy tract summaries

This article contained on overly lengthy summary of a multitude of Chick Tracts. The source for all of these summaries was indicated as being the publisher's own website. This source can not be considered WP:RS or WP:THIRDPARTY. The summaries themselves were not summaries provided by the publisher nor were they referenced to a third party source. Instead, they were individual editor's interpretation of the various tracts. That is considered synthesis, which is a clear violation of original research (WP:OR). With that stated, I will again remove the summaries. --192.91.171.36 (talk) 05:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm readding it and suggesting that you read the section again. Other than that it may be a bit overly long, nothing you said was accurate.Farsight001 (talk) 05:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I think my assertions are indeed accurate. For the vast majority of the cites listed in that section all point to the Chick Publications website, where the particular tract in question can be viewed. Just so you know, I'm going to remove the section again, and you can ask a for third party comment/intervention. ---192.31.106.35 (talk) 05:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Then you need to read it again, as I already said. In addition, such large scale deletions, unless violations of BLP policy, which this is not, are to be discussed BEFORE done. It is basically a policy violation to delete such a volume of the article without first discussing it. Because of this, I will give you an opportunity to self-revert as is proper. Then if you feel the need to find a third party, that burden actually falls with you.Farsight001 (talk) 05:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you read it first. The section is primary sourced, with no independent 3rd party secondary sources and totally WP:OR in all wikipedia sense. It is no use keep asking others to read it again just because they don't share your view point. The burden of prove falls on the person who created and added material, not the one removing the unsourced materials. The burden of prove NEVER falls to the side that claimed something does not exist, but to the side that something exists. See below for the 3rd party source I found to support some of the summary, but not all of it. If you really want to keep the summaries, find your own 3rd party source and not stick to the primary sources that showed NO notability in this article. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 06:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Either this is totally not notable or the article is giving way too much weight on the plot summaries.

I see 4 3rd party independent secondary sources, and tons of primary sources. The quality of this article is extremely poor if we are talking about wikipedia standards in WP:PSTS, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE. The whole article, is simply WP:OR. The very first section, with 5 paragraphs in it, contained original synthesis including the first paragraph using a primary source that showed God's visible face to source basically ONLY the last sentence. The second source is one of the 4 secondary source in the whole super lengthy article, which showed that the topic of the article is quite potentially a notable one, yet more of these kind of sources are needed. The rest of the article are sections of plot summary, all primary source except for 3 other, two are pretty much just plain unreliable (97&101), and 102 is not much better, it is only a comic done by a !church, to be honest, the link learn more in it seemed to be a much better source. In fact, those mentioned in that page is much more worthy in the WP:NPOV about this page, it labelled the tracts as hate literature, which this article currently seriously needs. The fact is, this article is totally biased. It did not even show any of the views of other Christian groups, which should not be too hard to find. It showed no sources of views of other people from other religions, which, judging from the appearance of different parody and attack on the material, should be even easier to source than the views from other Christian groups, which I found one (non Christian labeled by the article's subject) by simply googling Chick tract controversy. I have little knowledge on this, I never read any of these before until I came over it here. I saw the discussion above and noticed quite some people pointed out the problems of this article, and I have the same view on it, and is stunted to see the article is still in such shape. A lot of fictional stories with reasonably decent notability have better articles with much less plot summaries than this one. The most ironic thing might be, the Dungeons & Dragons controversies article is better sourced than this article. Either this topic is totally not notable and thus no body found any reliable source through out these years, or editors are so biased and chose not to improve the article. This must be changed. I suggest removing the major monstrous plot summary sections and leaving only those that can be sourced from reliable 3rd party secondary sources.(like the Catholic one up there) —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 06:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that the amount of primary source material is excessive (with related WP:SYNTH/WP:OR problems). Google News turns up a few hits that might help provide secondary coverage, but I suspect some major pruning would be appropriate. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Most of the problem is the lack of RS that exists. Most people either don't know about the tracts, or consider them such vile hatred that they don't merit writing about. I've been all for merging this and the Jack Chick and Chick Publications articles together which I think would help with sourcing issues, but it just never gained any momentum.Farsight001 (talk) 08:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Merging sounds right. If no one opposes this idea in like 5~7 days, just merge it, it is the consensus. Lacking in RS is, in fact, a hint of it being not notable enough. From the few summaries here, I see that it attracts controversy mainly because of its extremist nature, and probably you are right, most people either don't know(like me), or they simply don't write about it. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 08:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Please make a formal proposal and gain a clear consensus, per WP:MERGE, before merging. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Opposition to Roman Catholicism

The section Tracts opposing Roman Catholicism has a "neutrality disputed" warning. I'm not going to look into all the claims there, but at least the first two are reasonably supported. From the section:

The Last Generation⁴⁵ and The Beast⁴⁶ are apocalyptic tracts which warn that Christians will soon face persecution at the hands of a brutal planetary regime installed by the Roman Catholic Church.

Here are relevant quotes from the text of these two tracts, including the Bible chapter and verse numbers:

1. The Last Generation, first two pages
   • Near Future:NEWS BULLETIN
     • [news anchor]:
       "From the World Court headquarters in Rome... Stand by as Supreme Justice Mahoney, S.J. addresses the world."
   • [Talking head in judge's robes]:
     "It is the decision of this court... Anyone who claims that...
   • [View pulls back; same man. He is standing behind what looks like the bench of the US Supreme Court, in the center of six seated similarly robed men, in front of a flag with 13 stripes and the text ONE WORLD around a variation of the UN seal]:
     "...Jesus Christ is the ONLY way to the Father in Heaven shall be committed to a mental camp for treatment and or... be executed! ALL who oppose this new law are officially enemies of the state!"
2. The Beast, p.10:
   • Satan raises up a leader that the world will love. (Revelation 13:8)
   • This "man of peace" stabilizes the world economy and pulls the religions of the world together. (Daniel 11:36)
   • He demands total loyalty. He is Satan's masterpiece and he rules from the Vatican.

Thnidu (talk) 03:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• I'm fairly sure that Chick's anti-Catholicism is fairly well known and fairly widely reported upon -- it shouldn't be too difficult to rustle up a WP:SECONDARY source stating this, rather than synthesising the point directly from his tracts. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Through most of American history, anti-Catholicism has been an exceedingly potent force that often shaped political allegiances. Through the end of the nineteenth century, many Americans believed their country had a specially ordained role in divine providence, and specifically religious critiques of Catholicism enjoyed real force. At least through the nineteenth century, many Protestants accepted that the Roman church was the monstrous creature prophesied in the Book of Revelation, Babylon the great, the "mother of harlots" clothed in purple and scarlet, who held in her hand "a golden cup full of abominations." The Pope, evidently, was the Antichrist. American publishers poured forth books and pamphlets with hair-raising titles such as The Trial of the Pope of Rome: The Antichrist, or man of sin ... for high treason against the son of God.

Though now rarely heard in respectable discourse, these ideas have never entirely vanished, and they survive today. Isolated propagandists continue to circulate anti-papal and anti-Catholic mythologies, presenting the Church as the hidden hand behind the world's governments and financial systems. The best-known such activist is Jack Chick, whose tracts and comics continue to promulgate bizarre allegations of Catholic conspiracy and sexual hypocrisy.

— Jenkins, Philip (2004). The New Anti-Catholicism. City: Oxford University Press, USA. p. 24. ISBN 9780195176049.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was to merge here. -- Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

---

As I can find no evidence that Chick Publications has any notability other than for Chick tracts (there is little or no information on the "DVDs, VCDs, videos, books, and posters"), I'm proposing that that article be merged here, per WP:MERGE criteria 'Overlap'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

This article can be merged to Jack Chick if the few independent sources you list up there are the only ones. Jack Chick's article can cover all these sources without overwhelming that article and this article basically talks about his major work and why he is notable to be mentioned in Wikipedia anyway. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 13:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, I'd rather see Chick Publications merged here, and then see how much third-party-based material can be written on the tracts themselves, before deciding on whether to merge with Jack T. Chick. For one thing, I suspect that the tracts may actually be better known than their rather reclusive creator, meaning that a merge to here, rather than to the biography, may be more appropriate. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

reasonable. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 17:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Chick Publications is the better article in terms of structure and information so what was here should be merged into that.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Section titles & NPOV

I propose to rename the headings "Anti-Catholicism", "Anti-gay" and "Tracts opposing other religions" to "Catholicism" "Homosexuality" and "Tracts on other religions" to maintain a NPOV stance as much as possible. Elizium23 (talk) 05:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

1. Please don't tack new proposals onto 3 year old threads.
2. Given that the tracts themselves are blatantly anti-, anti- and opposing, and are described as such by reliable third-party sources, calling them such in the titles would appear to be simply WP:SPADE, and no violation of WP:NPOV.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Other than users voluntarily indenting their own posts, Wikipedia is not threaded by section heading, and I placed no indentation on my post so as to indicate that it was a new thread. Using diffs can help find posts if they are not placed at the bottom of the page.

Your citation of WP:SPADE does not apply to article building. It is an "Essay on civility" and it has counterparts such as Wikipedia:Don't call a spade a spade and Wikipedia:Don't call the kettle black which are also specifically about civility and inter-editor relations, not articles. They are not policy or even guidelines, they are non-binding essays. That's why contradicting versions are allowed to exist. The relevant policy is WP:NPOV. I only suggested to change the headings, not the text within. Elizium23 (talk) 08:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

1. Your comment had nothing (other than the section-title) in common with the contents of that section. That section ('thread' in my earlier comment -- the words are roughly synonymous in this context) was very, very, VERY old. So tacking a new proposal onto it 'serves no good purpose.
2. WP:SPADE states: "To call a spade a spade is to describe something clearly and directly." To take your first point as an example, Chick's tracts are rabidly and bigotedly (and thus completely unambiguously) anti-Catholic. They have been described by a source, specifically on the subject of anti-Catholicism, as "bizarre allegations of Catholic conspiracy and sexual hypocrisy" to perpetuate "anti-papal and anti-Catholic mythologies". It is thus describing them clearly and directly to characterise them as anti-Catholic -- as this is how the source does (and any reasonable observer would) describe them. This is no way conflicts within WP:NPOV -- that they are anti-Catholic is an "uncontested assertion" so we need not, and should not, present it as "mere opinion" (WP:YESPOV). And in fact it is directly congruent with the MOS principle of 'least surprise' (as it means the reader is never under any false impression that Chick might be supportive of Catholicism).

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:SPADE does, and so does WP:WEASEL. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 11:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

They are fine in the form which tells the simple truth: he is anti- all these things, regularly and with great venom. WP:NOT#CENSORED also applies. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

If this discussion gets too unproductive, I guess WP:IGNORE might apply as well. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 08:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The Chick Publications article has much better references with regards to these claims and the merge should be to THAT article not the other way around especially as its talk pages are far more useful to future editors..--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Sources

• Burack, Cynthia (2008). Sin, Sex, and Democracy. Albany: State University of New York Press. pp. 33–66. ISBN 0791474054. has a whole chapter on Chick tracts.
• Fowler, Robert (2001). The World of Chick?. San Francisco: Last Gasp. ISBN 0867195126. "Robert Fowler has created an exhaustive index and summation of Chick’s works, examining their history as well as the views of this maverick Christian fundamentalist cartoonist. Under the guise of a collector’s resource, this book analyzes each Chick tract in detail with essential information about content and circulation."
• Los Angeles Magazine May 2003, pp56 & 58.
• 'Jesus was Not a Weak Fairy: Chick Tracts and the Visual Culture of Evangelical Fear', chapter in Bivins, Jason (2008). Religion of fear : the politics of horror in conservative evangelicalism. Oxford New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 41–88. ISBN 9780195340815.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Here are some from Talk:Chick_Publications/Archive_3:

• Borer, Michael. (2007) "Drawing Religious Battle Lines: The “Culture Wars Work” of Jack Chick’s Anti-Catholic Cartoons" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, New York, New York City, Aug 11, 2007

• Borer, Michael Ian; Adam Murphree (2008) "Framing Catholicism: Jack Chick's Anti-Catholic Cartoons and the Flexible Boundaries of the Culture Wars" Religion and American Culture Winter 2008, Vol. 18, No. 1, Pages 95–112 (might be the same as above not sure)

• Cearley, GD (2006) Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness: The Truth about the Vatican and the Birth of Islam

• Massa, Mark M. (2003) "The "Death Cookie" and Other "Catholic Cartoons": Jack Chick and the Vatican Conspiracy against "Gospel Christianity"" U.S. Catholic Historian, Vol. 21, No. 4, Anti-Catholicism (Fall, 2003), pp. 63-78

With stuff like that tell me again why are merging to this article?--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

How many of those sources discuss the topic of 'Chick Publications' beyond simply talking about Chick tracts? That is "why" a merger here is more appropriate -- as I pointed out in my original merge proposal. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Belated opposition to the merger

BruceGrubb seems to be attempting to reverse the merger after the fact. I would like to point out that:

• There was a merger discussion, fully compliant with WP:MERGE, that resulted in a consensus to merge.
• That as Chick Publications, except for vestigial unsourced mention of "DVDs, VCDs, videos, books, and posters" is wholly about Chick Tracts, so the merged article properly belongs here.
• Neither article is particularly well-sourced (as tags on both indicate), and in any case it is no great difficulty in adding sourced material and/or structure from that article here.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Chick Publication's may be better know for their tracks but they do indeed publish DVDs and books (There is also a reference to this in Culture wars: an encyclopedia of issues, viewpoints, and voices, Volume 1 By Roger Chapman [M E Sharpe] pg 84).

For instance, the highly inaccurate The Prophet comic (Hodapp,, Christopher; Von Kannon, Alice (2008), Conspiracy Theories & Secret Societies For Dummies, For Dummies, p. 105) is published by as references in in the Criticism section of Chick Publications showed (which BTW proves the claim that the Chick Publications article "is wholly about Chick Tracts" to be inaccurate). Also "the vast majority of the rest seems to be primary-source-only and/or synthesis" claim in the merge edit can also be shown to be inaccurate.

Other sources that talk about Chick Publications (rather than Chick Tracts) are Cyberspace lawyer: Volume 9, Satanism today: an encyclopedia of religion, folklore, and popular culture by James R. Lewis (2010) [ABC-CLIO] pg 26, Booker, Keith (2010) Encyclopedia of Comic Books and Graphic Novels ABC-CLIO Page 163, Understanding Evangelical Media: The Changing Face of Christian Communication, and many others.

Furthermore while I have long said Chick Publications, Jack Chick, and this do need to be merged (back when this was little more than a summery of the various tracts) Chick Publication is clearly the better article as there are far more third party references there then here and better examples of how it is not just the tracks that have problems.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That their non-tract publications WP:EXISTS does not mean that they have any notability. And the dismissive mere mention of them in Chapman certainly does not add notability. In fact it does not even mention the production company at all. The production company is a nonentity notability-wise -- the only two rival loci of notability being the tracts and the man himself -- with most of the emphasis placed on the tracts. I have no problem with addition of third-party sourced information from Chick Publications, but see no point whatsoever in having this article merged-and-redirected into that article, when that article talks as-near-to-exclusively-as-makes-no difference about this topic. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

And kindly leave off the useless company external links. Either link to Google books or simply cite the ISBN. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Although Lewis titles the section 'Chick Publications', all that he says about the company is "Chick Publications is a conservative Christian publishing ministry obsessed with Satan's machinations" and "Chick Publications were dropped from the shelves of many Christian bookstores after the Alberto series ... Sales of ministry products subsequently rebounded enough to keep Chick Publications in business." The coverage of the company is heavily subordinated to the coverage of the tracts and the man. I can find no evidence of the existence of a "Cyberspace lawyer: Volume 9" (though it presumably does exist, as later volumes do), let alone one that mentions "Chick Publications". 06:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

This may come as a shock to you but not everything has either a google book reference or has a ISBN and neither denotes WP:RS; this is fact on one the problems the Weston Price article has--the material exists only in snippet or no preview form and is so old that no ISBN even exists for it.

The fact that your looking for "Chick Publications Cyberspace lawyer" in Google books didn't produce the "Finally, a February 5, 2004 letter from Chick Publications, Inc. to OSP System Management Enterprise, Inc (a Web hosting company) claimed that <www.howardhallis.com>, a comedy and comic-book site, contained copyrighted artwork created" snippet that my search did shows that you're not fully aware of some of the more annoying limitations of Google books (like you can get different previews of books from different locations or even from the same location at different times). This is why I don't use the blasted thing for wikipedia references--it isn't reliable enough that what I get is the same thing someone else will get or even what I will get at a different time.

I should mention by this silly logic [Wiley ] would be one of these "useless company external links" you talk about (which would get laughs and face-palming over on the WP:RS noticeboard).

In any case I am going to take the more relevant bits and paste them here where we can work on them rather than throw the baby out with the bath water situation we currently have.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

"This may come as a shock to you but" I don't assume that "everything has either a google book reference or has a ISBN" -- though I would suspect that any book that lacks either is probably unpublished, and so is most likely not a WP:RS. I do however assume that one or other (which via Google Books or Amazon has at least some probability of letting me look at the relevant passage) will be of more use in determining what the book actually says about a topic and getting some initial idea as to its reliability, than reading a publisher's blurb. I did not look for "Chick Publications Cyberspace lawyer" in my "vaulted [sic] Google books" (I did not know that Google went in for architecture), but in their general search (the first place most people would look for mention of something with no useful citation attached). "[Wiley ]" tells me nothing whatsoever about any given book (not even that it was published by Wiley) -- so is indeed useless in this context. ISBN 0471312789 on the other hand, via its links, quickly lets me find out that Wiley published this book, and allows me to access its text. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

ISBN has nothing to do with WP:RS; Galloway, Thomas C. M.D. (1957) "Relation of Tonsillectomy and Adenoidectomy to Poliomtyelitis" JAMA. 1957;163(7):519-521 for instance is a totally reliable source for the state of tonsillectomy in 1957 but since ISBN didn't even exist until 1966 the 1957 JAMA can't have a ISBN unless one is retroactively assigned to it.

The short lived Electronic Journal of Theoretical Chemistry published by Wiley in 1996-1997 has no ISBN (because it never existed in book form) but it would still be as reliable source for Theoretical Chemistry of that time period.

This is not mentioning totally electronic peer-reviewed publications like the Journal of the American Board of Sport Psychology who is linked to by Adams State College who has the following accreditations: North Central Association of Colleges and Schools (NCA-HLC) Accreditation, Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education (CCNE); Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP); and National Association of Schools of Music (NASM), Commission on Accreditation firmly establishing it as a reliable source despite it not having a ISBN (because it is well electronic and doesn't exist in book form)

In fact, ISBN.org clearly states "The purpose of the ISBN is to establish and identify one title or edition of a title from one specific publisher and is unique to that edition, allowing for more efficient marketing of products by booksellers, libraries, universities, wholesalers and distributors."

From what you are saying it looks like you are confusing ISSN and doi with ISBN; they are NOT the same thing.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I said "any book ... is probably unpublished, and so is most likely not a WP:RS" (that is what the B in ISBN stands for after all -- so I have no idea why you're bringing ISSN in) -- though I should have qualified that with 'written in the last 40 years' (though in many fields >40yo may be reason to distrust as well). And it was links-to-books that was under discussion. Please learn the difference between a book and a journal article before attempting to educate me on anything at all. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Master and PhD thesis are published but don't generally have ISBNs and they can be reliable sources. My own Guidelines for museum computerization and its utilization (1993) is a case in point--it was peer reviewed, got unanimous approval, and was used in two professional museum presentations. And yet it has no ISBN and it is less than 40 years old. This is ignoring that (in the US at least) anyone can plunk down $150 and get an ISBN. Face it, the idea that these is some connection between ISBN and WP:RS null and void.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Masters theses are generally not considered WP:RS, last I saw the subject discussed on WP:RSN. Even PhD theses aren't too highly thought of there. And I said "probably" not definitely. Are you finished dissecting my statement for minutiae yet? Or should I bring a lawyer with me any time I make a fairly casual statement on article talk, just in case I haven't patched every possible loophole? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

You're still avoiding my main contention--that there is no relationship between ISBN and source being reliable. It is a good reference tool but it has problems--like being a total train wreck in the e-book world ((""E-book ISBN Mess Needs Sorting Out," Say UK Publishers" for a sampling of that mess).

The other is ISBN is not always used constantly as I have books from several of the professional organizations I belonged to in my personal library and NONE of these books has an ISBN: three from the American Museum Association (1993), one by the Texas Association of Museums (1995), and two by the Association of Midwest Museums (1995, 2000)

Publications from the US government that are designed to be given to the public is another example. Publication 17 by the IRS in 2010 has no ISBN but then you have the 2008 U.S. Government Printing Office Style Manual with ISBN 978–0–16–081813–4 which barfed when I put into three look by ISBN engines (yes, I did look for it as 9780160818134) including Amazon. It's embarrassing when IBSN search engines can't find a book published by the US government. Kind of defeats the whole purpose of the ISBN doesn't it?--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Response:

1. It has just occurred to me that the question of whether an ISBN is related to WP:RS is irrelevant to my original request.
2. I am therefore striking all my responses to your ridiculously WP:DEADHORSE "main contention", and rephrasing my original request as follows:

IF ^{prominent enough a qualifier for you?} a book that you are citing has an ISBN, then please provide it (or a Google Books link as a frequently-used-by-Wikipedia-editors-alternative), as the easiest means of uniquely identifying a book and finding it online (if it is not a book, or for some other reason lacks an ISBN, then please provide an equivalent unique identifier). Publishers' blurbs are generally promotional and as such generally do little to provide pertinent information.

Happy now? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Jack T Chick Parody Archive back but now blacklisted-do we need it?

The URL for the Jack T Chick Parody Archive for a while went to some porn site with some malware. The author explains in his blog what happened but I have to ask is it worth our time to go and get this url de blacklisted so we can link to it again?--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

It's essentially a WP:SPS, and thus not particularly reliable, so I'd suggest not bothering. Also, as such, any usage of it should comply with WP:SELFPUB, so should probably only be used about their parodies, not Chick's legal threats (making it even less attractive on a cost/benefit analysis). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Sin, sex, and democracy: antigay rhetoric and the Christian right By Cynthia Burack State University of New York pg 41 ISBN: 978-0791474068 documents some of this but it's not as to the point as the site was. Cyberspace lawyer: Volume 9 pg 16 (see http://www.fepproject.org/commentaries/ceaseanddesist.html for the guts of that point) has much the same issues.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

New Scientist also has an article at http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18925371.600-satirical-chick-tracts.html(subscription required) -- same example as fepproject's and states "Leaning on Howard Hallis to remove his satirical version has not helped the publishers of Chick tracts at all - far from it, it has led to the Cthulhu Chick Tract being widely talked and written about." I'd suggest that we'd be better off citing more detached and formal sources rather than the Archive's own engaged and 'colorful' commentary. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

What happened to the characters?

Why was the character section deleted? --Austin Robinson 02:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)User: Robinsonbecky

Nearly all of it was OR and it didn't really add anything to the article.--216.31.124.78 (talk) 00:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Sikh parade

This may be nitpicking, but I was interested that they distributed a tract to a Sikh parade in Hindi, when they ought to have used Punjabi. [1] PatGallacher (talk) 22:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

NPOV does NOT apply to the content of reliable sources but how they are worded in article space

The "In fact, Big Daddy is presented as a "typical of the genre" example of just how "misleading and dishonest" creationist presentations are." section is a summation using actual quotes from Prothero,, Donald R.; Carl Dennis Buell (2007). Evolution: what the fossils say and why it matters. Columbia University Press. pp. 334–335. ISBN 0231139624. [[2]]

NPOV is NOT a magical censorship hammer ESPECIALLY when used to remove QUOTE and information from RELIABLE SOURCED MATERIAL. Refrain from using it as such in the future.--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is a central policy of Wikipedia, in fact, it is one of the five pillars. It applies to everything in an article. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (another of the five pillars), we report what is in secondary sources. That reporting should be neutral in tone. See Wikipedia:Npov#Impartial_tone. An article should give due weight to all legitimate viewpoints on a subject. It seems to me that the section of this article currently in question, "Anti-evolution", is dominated by a negative anti-Chick viewpoint that does not adequately describe the viewpoint of Chick and Christians who may agree with him. Please review the NPOV policy and consider adding positive material to this article - naturally, from reliable secondary sources. Elizium23 (talk) 01:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Honestly, I'm not sure how one edit on my part in the creationist section is a "NPOV dispute", but maybe I'm missing something... Ckruschke (talk) 18:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Ckruschke, in the edit comment you claimed "Nebraska Man was not corrected in a year - not sure what "Home Sapiens" is - again, simply state that its nonsense and move on - non-NPOV fluff is unneeded (especially when it is incorrect))"

First, if you had bothered to actually READ the source sited you would have seen that EVERYTHING was backed up that UNIVERSITY PRESS book. Here are the full actual quotes:

"A quick look at some of the creationist pamphlets and books shows just how misleading and dishonest their presentations are. Typical of the genre is the little pamphlet Big Daddy, published by creationist Jack Chick." pg 334

""Nebraska man," as we outlined already, was the mistake of one scientist and was corrected within a year." pg 334

WP:NPOV states "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." The key words there are RELIABLE SOURCES. To date I know of no pro-creationist material that fits Wikipedia's definition of reliable source especially as creationism has been ruled not to be a science by US courts. In fact based on my own personal experience with pro-creationist material Columbia University Press is being kind.

Second, Home Sapiens was a clear typo of Homo Sapiens

Third, you claimed the information provided in the Columbia University Press book was "incorrect" with no proof to back that claim up.

Face it, you tried to remove reliable sourced information (in a UNIVERSITY PRESS book one of the highest rankings of RS) under the guise of NPOV and got called on it.--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

My point, since you obviously missed it, was that I was wondering why one edit is a "dispute" that needs to goto Talk. Face it, I made some edits - which you have the right to disagree with and have - and instead of simply reverting the changes and putting in the extra info - like "this is an actual quote" and further textual explanations, which you did anyway - you over-reacted and chose to make a big deal about a very minor thing. Relax... Ckruschke (talk) 16:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

User:Elizium23 changed the title of this section from "NPOV does NOT cover quotes from reliable sources!" to "NPOV dispute". I restored the old title and slapped on "(nor does it apply to TALK pages)" so as as you can see it was NEVER a "dispute" but a comment about trying to use NPOV in a way not intended. You claimed things that were refuted by the VERY REFERENCE CITED showing that you never bothered to read the source.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I changed the heading in accordance with WP:TALKNEW. Headings should be neutral, and the heading you chose espoused an incorrect interpretation of Wikipedia policies. Elizium23 (talk) 20:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

As I stated before WP:NPOV clearly states "published by reliable sources" and further on states "These three core policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles." Articles...not talk pages. Either of these make WP:TALKNEW wonky to begin with but both make it totally nonsensical.

Nevermind as Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_24#Talk:Chick_tract showed (which you were involved) revolved entirely around article space...but then at the end we got "WP:TALKNEW applies, which is a behavioral guideline. "Keep headings neutral: A heading should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it." -- Atama頭 22:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC) Please note that EVERYTHING was about article space NOT talk space and we are told with no challenge what so ever "WP:TALKNEW applies"...to article space even though it says it applies to talk space. Ugh.

If you search for WP:TALKNEW ([[3]] you will see the example all involved editors names being used in the section in question. That didn't happened here.

Finally as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Problem on BLP noticeboard and the related talk pages (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_79#Is_a_paper_.28possible_blog.29_by_a_psychiatrist_valid_regarding_old_claims_regarding_dentistry.3F, and Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive97#Noticeboards.2C_source_criticism_and_claims_of_BLP_issues show that less an editors is mentioned by name WP:TALKNEW is basically out to lunch and been so for a long time. Nevermind that WP:NPOV doesn't even have a link to WP:TALKNEW but it does link to WP:PEACOCK and WP:LABEL one of which states "Instead of making unprovable proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance"

This is all ignoring that WP:TALKNEW "Reporting on another user's edits from a neutral point of view is an exception"--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Now you have changed this section's title to something that is still not neutral, but represents a correct interpretation of NPOV. Congratulations on your progress. Rather than edit-war pointlessly with you, I have tagged the section {{POV-section}} and begun an RFC below, you are welcome to comment. Elizium23 (talk) 21:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Running to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Requesting_a_topic_ban_for_User:BruceGrubb shows it is you who has "some misunderstanding of WP:NPOV" You are challenging what a Columbia University Press book is saying. As WP:IRS states "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources."--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

NPOV does not apply to talk pages, Elizium. I don't know exactly what the problem is here, but unless the section title is insulting toward another member, is completely unclear, or it is a blatant and direct attack on the character of the subject of the article, and not simply biased, then there is no justification whatsoever in altering a talk page subject heading. So what in the world is the problem?Farsight001 (talk) 21:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:TPO Section headings: Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better header is appropriate, e.g. one more descriptive of the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons, etc. To avoid disputes it is best to discuss a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible, when a change is likely to be controversial. I apologize for not discussing the change with BruceGrubb but not for changing it, because I was well within my rights to choose an unbiased section heading, not by NPOV, but by common courtesy and etiquette. Elizium23 (talk) 21:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

First of all, you should be sorry for changing precisely because you did so without discussion first. You never should have changed it without asking in the first place. Second, what you changed it to was far, far less descriptive. Third, nothing about the section heading is biased or one-sided, as it was merely a clarification of NPOV policy, so you had zero justification for changing it in the first place.Farsight001 (talk) 21:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Like the etiquette you showed by going behind my back by running to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Requesting_a_topic_ban_for_User:BruceGrubb implying this was still an issue? As you can see I am NOT popular with some people.--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Bruce: Please don't take content disputes to WP:AN. Also, your personal attack there is noted. Would you like a template warning too? Now, the section title was originally NPOV does NOT cover relaible sources! and Bruce changed it soon thereafter to NPOV does NOT cover quotes from reliable sources! which is a clear misunderstanding of how NPOV applies to article space. Bruce is using this talk space as a club to hammer in polemical denouncements of Chick tracts with extremely biased language by saying "it's OK if I took it as a direct quote from a RS." I changed the section title to "NPOV dispute" because it is descriptive and unbiased. There is no need for section titles to be overly long or detailed because the content is in the body of talk. Section titles are there for a quick reference for those visiting the top of the page to skip down to the section they want. Elizium23 (talk) 22:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Elzium, quit trying to play the victim here. YOU took the dispute to WP:AN and he made no personal attack, so cut the crap. If you don't have a specific suggestion for article improvement, the go somewhere else.Farsight001 (talk) 22:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)My concerns are outlined in the RFC below. The content of these sections is entirely negative, polemical and anti-Chick. They make no effort to show significant mainstream viewpoints that agree with Chick's positions. BruceGrubb did not start this, but he exacerbated the problem by adding extreme examples. Surely we can do better than that. Elizium23 (talk) 22:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Let's be clear here. I restored material that was referenced to a Columbia University Press book. WP:V clearly states "You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source The material Ckruschke removed was NOT "lacking an inline citation to a reliable source" which was the original "NPOV does NOT cover quotes from reliable sources!" title was about. WP:NPOV clearly states "Avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion: Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice." To date no reliable source challenging the Columbia University Press book has been presented. In short NEITHER WP:NPOV or WP:V applied here.

However WP:FRINGE does apply: References that debunk or disparage the fringe theory can also be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents.

Stop wasting our time with policies that didn't apply in the first place.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Right, I have have every right to defend myself. Farsight001 and I both say that the original section title was NOT in violation of NPOV. You have admitted to not following the proper guildlines and now are complaining on how things are turning out. Face it you don't have a leg to stand on so give it a rest.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I never claimed that talk pages are subject to NPOV. You are the ones saying that. I showed you the guidelines I obeyed and I deny ever having violated them. The suggestion to discuss changes is just that, a suggestion. I ignored it, because at first, I didn't think it would be controversial.

And congratulations for muddying the waters about the article dispute. This dispute about talk section headings is tangential and utterly worthless to me. Elizium23 (talk) 22:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

Do the sections under "Tract style and themes" conform to NPOV? In particular, are the heading names neutral, and do sections such as "Anti-evolution" present all mainstream viewpoints with due weight and in a neutral tone? Elizium23 (talk) 21:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Not sure. Chick was obviously violently anti-evolution, anti-homosexual, and anti-Catholic (and anti alot of other things) and went WAY overboard on the way these issues were presented (thus the equally hostile backlash) so thus part of me would say that the section headings are accurate. That being said, if we simply edited out the "anti-" in those subject headings, it would be equally descriptive as the topic of the tracts are about "Evolution", "Homosexuality", and "Catholicism". I'm ok with either. Ckruschke (talk) 11:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

• Overall, it seems NPOV but as Ckruschke noted the "anti-"s could be removed to sound less negative. On a different topic, why is "Further information: Evidence of common descent" under Anti-Homosexuality? Fixed. --PnakoticInquisitor^talk 00:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Slightly off topic - but in my opinion, this "Further Info" doesn't even belong - the article is about Chick Tracts so evolution itself is only a peripheral topic. Ckruschke (talk) 18:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Surely the two of you have heard of WP:BEBOLD? siafu (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

True but they have also likely heard of WP:FRINGE which Chick tract's most definitively fall under. WP:FRINGE states "The neutral point of view policy requires that all majority and significant-minority positions be included in an article. However, it also requires that they not be given undue weight"

Both WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE require reliable sources. In fact, WP:UNDUE is quite clear on the matter: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint.

If Chick Tracks are called Anti-Catholic, Anti-Homosexuality, and Anti-evolution by the overwhelming majority of reliable sources then per WP:UNDUE we canNOT invoke WP:NPOV regarding the section titles.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

As the article stands currently NPOV is being abided by. The heading names reflect the content of the headings and the content of the reliable sources. I agree with some of Ckruschke's analysis but I disagree that removing the "anti-" in the subject headings would make them more NPOV. PnakoticInquisitor noted that removing the "anti-" in the headings would make those sections sound less negative. The purpose of NPOV is not to make an actually negative topic sound less negative or neutral. Instead if article topics are sourced to reliable sources which indicate something important and negative, then the heading label of the topic in the article should reflect that. The reverse is true also: if the article topics are sourced to reliable sources which indicate something important and positive, the heading labels should reflect that.

Compare "Contaminated soil" to "Water quality improvements." Given that sources accurately demonstrate these topics in the article text under those headings, these heading are preferable to alternative headings such as "Soil description" or "Water description" because they are more accurate.

Two circumstances would justify the removal of the "anti-" in the headings. 1) Requires that reliable sources stating the tracts were accurate in their treatment of the subject of the headings be included in the text under the subject headings. 2) Requires other reliable sources be cited in the text under the headings which state that these other sources dispute the ideas published in the reliable sources currently being cited. In either of those circumstances the headings could be changed to read something like "Dispute over treatment of homosexuality in tracts" and so forth for other headings.

If the section "Anti-evolution" is not presenting all mainstream or fringe views with due weight, reliable sources should be cited in the text that present the other views. Then the article heading could be changed to read, "Dispute over treatment of evolution and creation in tracts." Factseducado (talk) 13:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I am closing this RFC early, as consensus seems fairly clear. I have removed the tag on the article. Elizium23 (talk) 04:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:35, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality, sourcing

The sourcing in this article is bad throughout, but the section on Chick's views on evolution is abysmal, and further, the axe-grinding going on in that section is startling. Quite a few of the sources used in that section are self-published (and violate Wikipedia's policies on BLPs, for both Chick and Kent Hovind), and one of the books cited is published by an extremely fringe publisher in San Francisco, one whose reliability and fact-checking processes are unknown. The four citations referencing the Hovind paragraph are all suspect, and seeing all four of them lined up leads me to believe that there is probably a fair amount of synthesis used in crafting the statement they ostensibly support. While I don't disagree with any of the information contained in the article, the presentation is inappropriate as well, and really is more of a coatrack than an encyclopedic discussion of the views presented in the tracts. Better references need to be found to substantiate the claims made in the article, and an attempt needs to be made to make the article a bit less of a screed and more of a dispassionate statement of the aims of the tracts. Horologium (talk) 00:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the sourcing there is pretty solid: Columbia University Press, Greenwood; talkorigins is solid in its specialty field, which is evolution/creationism. If by "an extremely fringe publisher in San Francisco" you are referring to Last Gasp: within the field of comics and related matters, they are actually one of the oldest and solidest publishers in that genre, with a good reputation in popular culture studies. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

May we take it that this issue has now been resolved? PatGallacher (talk) 23:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes. siafu (talk) 14:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Parodies and popular culture

Someone tagged this for cleanup and I boldly took a stab at cutting out the less significant parodies - basically anything that had no source or a WP:PRIMARY source, although I gave the benefit of the doubt where the parodist was a notable enough figure to have their own Wikipedia article. This was reverted because it seemed to another editor to just be my opinion, which is fair enough - I should have made those criteria explicit in my edit summary, in retrospect.

What do people think about cutting all the unsourced examples from this section? --McGeddon (talk) 14:41, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I agreed with your cuts. You were bold and went ahead and did it. I'm not sure you need to build concensus, as the revert ALSO seems to simply be the editors opinion, but its probably a good idea so that feelings aren't hurt. Thanks for honchoing this. Ckruschke (talk) 13:45, 4 October 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

After six months with no further comments, I've gone ahead and cut the primary/unsourced examples again. --McGeddon (talk) 10:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Criticism section

I'm hoping that we can rework the Criticism section stuff into the tracts section for better NPOV flow so we can get rid of it. Though we need better material to balance out some of the tracts section.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Since Freemasonry wasn't covered, but is mentioned as a critic, I listed both a website, and the popular book, Is It True What They Say About Freemasonry by Brent Morris PhD, as a source for Freemasonry's criticism at the 3rd paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craxd1 (talk • contribs) 00:43, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Teaching Creation Myths in Public Schools

There has never been a Supreme Court ruling that made it illegal to teach any creation myths in public schools. The ruling was about FORCING the schools to teach a specific creation myth in addition to evolutionary theory.

Dr. John Moore, Professor of Natural Science at Michigan State University for over 30 years, pointed out that in creation science:

No new laws are necessary, there is no possible violation of so-called separation of church and state, since no religious teaching is involved.2 But would the United States Supreme Court buy that? Yes. In Edwards vs. Aguiliard, 482 U.S. 96 (1987), they said:

... teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of mankind to school children might be done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction.

That ruling also sustained the finding of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, as follows:

No court of which we are aware had prohibited voluntary instruction concerning purely scientific evidence that happens, incidentally, to be consistent with a religious doctrine or tenet.

Therefore, the teaching of creation science is solidly supported by law—as long as the court's rules are followed.

If you want to rewrite that section to explain the intricacies of this decision, then please feel free. But it is not illegal to teach creation myths so long as they can be tied to some form of science, and to say so is factually incorrect. Wishing that it were different, as most of us do, doesn't change the law. Primium mobile (talk) 12:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Simply put, you are incorrect. Teaching ABOUT creationism or creation science, specifically in religion courses, is acceptable. Teaching it in a science class, however, is soundly illegal. There are even federal cases making it clear that creation "science" and ID are just creationism re-branded, and are thus, ALSO illegal. Edwards v. Aguilard. The Dover trial. The list goes on.

IF the religious teaching in question were, as the legal statement puts it, "incidentally, to be consistent" with science, it would not be a problem. However, creation science directly contradicts literal warehouses full of evidence, hence it is in no way consistent with science.Farsight001 (talk) 00:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://catholic.com/library/sr_chick_tracts.asp

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

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110904055234/http://www.catholic.com:80/library/sr_chick_tracts.asp to http://www.catholic.com/library/sr_chick_tracts.asp

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

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:04, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

YouTube as a source

BruceGrubb: Re: your edit summary, "did you even LOOK at the video?" Yes. That's why I said it's WP:OR and that youtube is not a reliable source. Anyone could have made those comics. Even if they're legit, the current wording is still OR. I'll run it by WP:RSN since we apparently disagree. —PermStrump(talk) 21:21, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

This Was Your Life

@Diego Moya: What's the source for "worldwide favorite"? chick.com certainly puts it at #1 on their "top ten tracts", but I'm not sure what that's measuring. --McGeddon (talk) 17:12, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea. The assertion was already there, I merely reworded it to provide the missing context (I couldn't make sense of the original caption). The image page has a link to the publishers page, maybe there's something there that could be used for attribution. Diego (talk) 17:55, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I misread it as you adding it. Digging around, this page describes it as their "most popular title" - I'll edit accordingly. --McGeddon (talk) 18:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

No dates ?

The article does not mention any date of first publication or dates of publication for early and well known titles. It could use a "history" section now that this is the only article about Chick Publications in general. {{subst:Jszigeti|07:22, 25 October 2016 (UTC)}}

Unreliable sources

Per the discussion currently taking place on the talk page of Jack Chick, Chick publications are WP:FRINGE and should not generally be considered as reliable sources. Such sources may occasionally be used when discussing specific fringe beliefs or theories, but are not reliable for most subject matter. This might even extend to autobiographical claims given Mr. Chick's track record of making bizarre and obviously false claims. This article is not quite as bad as the Jack Chick one in its reliance on these fringe sources, but it would be better if we could find unaffiliated reliable (non-fringe) secondary sources for as much of this as possible. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:37, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Merge?

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

I think it is a good idea. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:24, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Thnk we should put the template up to start a formal discussion on both pages. Any preferences on merging Jack to the tracts or the tracts to Jack? My suggestion would be this article into the biography. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:07, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion either way, but I would keep Jack Chick and merge and redirect Chick tract. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:28, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Why would we merge this page with the Jack Chick page when the thread directly above this one says its terrible and is rife with references from the man himself? This page is clearly not written in a positive light of Chick and Chick Tracks and deleting all the Jack Chick references (if that's what is decided to do) wouldn't be that hard.

In my opinion, alot of work needs to be done to the Jack Chick page before there is any talk of combining anything. Ckruschke (talk) 19:30, 27 October 2016 (UTC)Ckruschke

Now being discussed at Talk:Jack Chick#Proposed merge with Chick tract. Please weigh in there if you haven't already. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Irony

This is in reference BruceGrubb's recent edit that I just reverted here. Bruce had added "In a final bit of irony the tract itself has evolved with "each leap forward occurring about 5-10 years after real advances in real science turn the older versions into tribble feces", cited to this archived website. (a) I'm not sure the source supports this statement and (b) I'm not sure it's worth updating the wording b/c it seems like a really weak source. I'd second-guess its quality even if it were an active website, but I'm especially wary of the fact that it's an archived website that doesn't seem to be available elsewhere. Where did it go? Was it redacted? Is there any context for why it was removed? What's monsterwax.tripod.com? Who's the author, TERRIBLE TOMMY? This seems like a self-published blog by a non-notable person that hasn't been referenced anywhere else, so what makes it relevant to cite in an encyclopedia? —PermStrump(talk) 05:13, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:SPS only cares about the author, not where it was published, whether that site still exists or why it was taken down. If "Terrible Tommy" is actually the pseudonym of a respected science writer, we could use the essay as a source for the fact that the tract has been modified a few times. No need for the "tribble feces" quote, though. --McGeddon (talk) 09:04, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

The website itself is already referenced as " Monsterwax (2000). "Jack T. Chick's Museum of Fine Art REVIEW WING". Retrieved June 24, 2009." regarding a difference in tract versions (The content of That Crazy Guy! was changed after the rise of the AIDS crisis (the tract was originally about herpes)). The problem is when the site moved from monsterwax.tripod.com to www.monsterwax.com not all the pages made the transition nor were all the links updated. Odds are the page wasn't redacted but the who ever did the move didn't make sure all the pages made the transition and the links still worked.

After all the part that did survive the move says ""BIG DADDY" Review! (Art by Chick ©1970, 1972, 1992, and 2000.) This is one of those tracts that fans love for a variety of reasons: First, it purports to scientifically refute evolution. Second, there are many different varieties of this tract as it evolves over time (creating an interesting paradox: If Evolution is false, why does it exist within the very tract that denies its existence?)". In terms of text the the Jack T. Chick's Museum of Fine Art REVIEW WING page archive is identical to the current version. All Terrible Tommy did was give examples of how it evolved and a very colorful description regarding its evolution. I should mention that the "Go here to see a list of available titles" link at that website is also broken and you have to use internet archive to see what that page said.

If the site has been considered reliable about the original state of That Crazy Guy! tract for 7 years then how is is magically unreliable regarding the original version of Big Daddy? Since the above point about the paradox is on the exact same page used to reference the difference in That Crazy Guy! then that page is also reliable regarding Big Daddy evolving. Conversely if that page is not reliable then why has it remained in the article for 7 years?--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:29, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Bruce, as far as I can tell, it's probably not a reliable source for many claims. McGeddon: Are we reading the same WP:SPS?? It basically says SPS is only acceptable when a high level of criteria are met (and gives the specific criteria) and then says, but even when all of those criteria are met, "Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so." —PermStrump(talk) 10:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Again if the site is "not a reliable source for many claims" why is the very page I am now referencing been used for 7 years elsewhere in this article. Also in the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard is was claimed "it appears that The Jack Chick Museum of Fine Art is the gold standard for sourcing Chick Tract variations." Based on that it would be a reliable source, wouldn't it?--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

As the person who wrote that, I am not so sure that being (in my opinion) the gold standard for sourcing Chick Tract variations translates to meeting our requirements for a reliable source. This is a really esoteric area with close to zero sources that are not created by either fawning fanboys or sworn enemies of Chick and his tracts. It's the best source we have, but should be used with care.

Random info about Kurt Kuersteiner and his Jack Chick Museum of Fine Art:

• Interview with Kurt Kuersteiner
• Book: Religion of Fear: The Politics of Horror in Conservative Evangelicalism By Jason C Bivins
• Los Angeles Magazine
• Non-Sport Update magazine

--Guy Macon (talk) 13:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Another thought: excuse me for being pedantic, but there is no irony in an anti-evolution tract "evolving". Anti-evolutionists have no problem with the concept of a human revising and improving something over time, and both sides of this particular fight regularly incorporate new material into revised editions of older publications. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:32, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Guy Macon Not to mention, I don't even see where the source says it's ironic that the anti-evolutionist literature has evolved over the years, but I do see the sources misusing "irony" in a similar way in reference to something else. It says, "The hilarious irony is that Chick cast aspersions on these genuine casts, then swallows without a gulp the completely FAKE Paluxy "man-tracks" which Jack's surrogate, Bob the Mega-Christian, proclaims to show that man and dinosaur existed side by side." I guess TERRIBLE TOMMY and I have a different sense of humor. Also, I haven't read all of the sources you linked yet, but I started skimming the LA magazine one and... I just don't get what the deal is with Chick Tracts. I wasn't convinced it was a real thing before, but I guess it is if LA magazine wrote about it?? Are any of those sources cited in the article yet? —PermStrump(talk) 05:16, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Permstrump: I was just pointing out that the identity of the author is the biggest issue when deciding whether to use a self-published source like this. Calling it out as "irony" and chuckling about "tribble feces" are both inappropriate for an encyclopedia article, but it seems worth mentioning the reissuing and alteration of some tracts, if this source is any use. (From the look of it, though, I'm guessing it isn't.) --McGeddon (talk) 08:35, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

This all IGNORES my point. If Monsterwax (2000). "Jack T. Chick's Museum of Fine Art REVIEW WING". Retrieved June 24, 2009. has been reliable for SEVEN YEARS as a reference for "The content of That Crazy Guy! was changed after the rise of the AIDS crisis (the tract was originally about herpes)." then how is magically unreliable for the statement "there are many different varieties of this tract as it evolves over time (creating an interesting paradox: If Evolution is false, why does it exist within the very tract that denies its existence?)" which comes from the EXACT SAME PAGE?!? Furthermore, Oxford dictionary online has "A state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often amusing as a result" which fits the quoted sentence like a glove.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:51, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

The Jack Chick Museum of Fine Art is reliable for verifying the fact that "That Crazy Guy" and "Big Daddy" have changed over time, and it is reliable when it gives a neutral description of those changes, but when we get to added editorial opinion such as "creating an interesting paradox: If Evolution is false, why does it exist within the very tract that denies its existence?" the source is only reliable for verifying that Kurt Kuersteine expressed that opinion. This is standard practice for any encyclopedia that uses a source that contains both factual claims and opinion. For example, a web page with a reputation for getting the facts right that says "government spending went up 50% from 19xx to 19xx because of president X's policies" could be reliable for the 50% increase but not for a claim about the cause of the increase being the president as opposed to congress. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:36, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

FYI I just left this "warning" (plea) on BruceGrubb's user talkpage begging him to comply with his topic bans on Christianity and fringe related articles. The whole AN/I thing seems exhausting, so I'm crossing my fingers that that might be enough to resolve it without anyone else having to waste more time than has already been spent cumulatively over the past 10 years by all of the editors who have dealt with him at AN/I and SPI, etc. I feel a little like a tattle tail mentioning it here, but I also didn't want to anyone else to unknowingly waste more time even just trying to comprehend or respond the comments he's made on this talkpage now that I found out about the topic bans. —PermStrump(talk) 20:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

He deleted your warning without comment. I reported it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#BruceGrubb topic ban. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:02, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Result: indefinite block.[4] --Guy Macon (talk) 09:45, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Chick tract. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.catholic.com/library/sr_chick_tracts.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060929071718/http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/totalstab.htm to http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/totalstab.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://wnewsj.com/Main.asp?SectionID=49&SubSectionID=156&ArticleID=194019

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:37, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chick tract. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140108154607/http://www.catholic.com/documents/the-nightmare-world-of-jack-t-chick to http://www.catholic.com/documents/the-nightmare-world-of-jack-t-chick
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140108154607/http://www.catholic.com/documents/the-nightmare-world-of-jack-t-chick to http://www.catholic.com/documents/the-nightmare-world-of-jack-t-chick

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:38, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

¿Should the article mention that ChickTracts are popular among atheists for their campiness?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am not sure whether the article should mention the popularity of ChickTracks among atheists. Some atheists like Sam Mulvey of the PodCast "¡Ask An Theist!" collect ChickTracks. I am not certain that this belongs in the article or not. It seems like it belongs in the section Parodies and Popular Culture.

76.102.233.65 (talk) 07:31, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure that one guy with a podcast is either notable or equates to the tracks being "popular among atheists".

However, if you could source this in order to prove it is actually a "thing", that would be an interesting note. I'm sure Chick would be rolling in his grave to hear it…

Yours - Ckruschke (talk) 17:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)Ckruschke

Sam Mulvey is an example At no point did I propose the section " ¡Sam Mulvey Collects ChickTracks!".

76.102.233.65 (talk) 13:56, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I think we can only mention that if we have a reliable source that says that they are popular among atheists for their campiness. I don't think it's enough to find one atheist who collects them, though; there needs to be documentation that someone has observed this as a trend rather than finding individual examples. After all, we can't list everyone or even every type of person who collects Chick tracts in this article. Alicb (talk)

I an atheist and all of my friends who are atheists love to read these crazy tracts. I personally do not collect them. I do not see the point in collecting them because they are everywhere. You may not believe it, but ChickTracts are popular among atheists. I am not sure this belongs in the article, but I never heard of a ChickTract converting an atheist.

76.102.233.65 (talk) 13:56, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately stating that you and your friends think Chick Tracts are humorous is what's called Original Research and cannot be included in an encyclopedic site such as Wikipedia. If you can find a magazine article or book that recounts something like that, you'd be great. Ckruschke (talk) 18:49, 8 November 2016 (UTC)Ckruschke

Atheist YouTube pair Hugo and Jake do a popular series in which they read and criticize Chick Tracts both in and out of character and devise additional dialogue for the stories. I don't know if this is Wikipedia-worthy or not, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.25.104.174 (talk) 01:34, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Does this meet your criteria of campiness? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 13:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Youtube videos aren't considered viable citations by Wikipedia. It might as well be two people talking on Twitter. Ckruschke (talk) 19:34, 13 May 2020 (UTC)Ckruschke

Ckruschke, it is not YouTube but the fact that an unverified channel has published something that may well be a copyright violation. With YouTube and Twitter, each channel/account must be considered on its own merits. Remember that ABC News has a presence in both places, for example; ABC's videos or Tweets are just as reliable as its website posts. Elizium23 (talk) 19:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Controversies, Criticism

There is a lot of redundancy and incoherence in the article, in large part because these two sections are independent of each other and have a great big 'in this and that' in between them. I have no time to merge them tonight. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 03:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Two years late, but you're right. I'd be glad to merge the two sections. I think the "Controversies" section should include a section on Chick Publications' Islamophobic beliefs too. Dustytumble (talk) 04:01, 23 August 2020 (UTC)