Talk:Jack Chick/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

New Jack Chick Picture?

Resolved.

While searching the internet, I found a picture of what, in all likehood, may be Jack Chick. Link follows: [1]--Nog64 20:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Right or left? -Will Beback · † · 20:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I would think left--Nog64 02:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Jimmy Akin talks about this new picture on his blog: [The Face of Chick? http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2007/02/the_face_of_chi.html]Chadrack 15:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think we can ask the site for it, need be, and put "alledged recent photo of Chick" or something. If it is real, it's pretty valuble.--Nog64 01:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins is the man on the right. Since I don't think he'd appear in a picture with anybody holding a Jack Chick tract, let alone smile in it, the photograph is almost definitely a hoax. -- Augustgrahl 19:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Neither guy looks much pike the photos in our article on Richard Dawkins. I can't imagine why people would have a picture of them together. The blog says it is "Jack Chick & Pastor Bob Nogalski, Summer 2006." -Will Beback · † · 05:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I found some older photos, as well: [2]

[3]. I don't see any reason to think that the photo(and photos I've linked) would be fake. I doubt he's so reclusive from society, yet so well known(Bah, that sounds odd. But you know what I mean), that no photos of him exist on the web. ~ AlbertoTheOdd

Getting a 404 error. So was it Jack Chick or Bigfoot? Anyways, why wasn't it put up? IronCrow 06:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Ths page needs to be corrected and locked

Resolved.

I hold no brief for Chick, but come on. Does Wikipedia even *want* to be taken seriously?

I didn't bother to correct it because I don't like wasting my time.

67.185.114.32 04:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

--People take us far more seriously than you'd like to think, mister anonymous diss... 76.90.141.94 12:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use of Image:Jack Chick frame.png

Resolved.

Recently[4], an image showing a single frame from a Chick Tract was removed from the article. The editor's summary (and bless you, Steve, for actually using one) indicated a question of whether the image qualifies for fair use. While not specifically included in the justifications for fair use, I think that, "This image typifies an artist's style," is close enough. What say ye all? -- Bigwyrm 01:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I've restored it. The image page had a perfectly good fair use justification, which was hardly needed as you point out it is as clear a case of fair use as any. Steve did indicate that it "seems" to not be fair use without actually bothering to indicate why either here or in the edit summary. From his edit history it is hard to avoid the conclusion that he has an agenda. In any event, as you point out this is a typical example of Chick's style. It certainly isn't causing Chick any financial damage to duplicate a single frame of a tract that is handed out by the thousands for free on the street. Including at least one excerpt of a Chick tract is absolutely necessary, as we could write a hundred pages on what Chick's tracts are like and not convey what a simple quotation like this does. NTK 02:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

External Links

Resolved.

The External Links section of this article appears to be being used as a dumping ground for pro- or anti- Chick websites which aren't notable or scholastic enough to be used as a formal reference. I think it needs to be pruned a little. BreathingMeat 20:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

You're either pro- or anti- chick, there's really no middle line. This guy's just crazy. I do agree with you though, it is really ahrd to find a nuetral article/page on this guy. IronCrow 06:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

"WBC"

Resolved.

If it was felt that Westboro Baptist Church deserved mention, then reverting the entire edit, which was not simply a removal of the mention of that church, was uncalled for. However, that is a moot point. The ideaological differences between Jack Chick and the Westboro Baptist Church are no more valid than the differences between Jack Chick and any other random Christian organization which could be included for mention in his article. And unless those myriad organizations were to be mentioned here to contrast their stances towards the issue of homosexuality with Jack Chick's, whether more conservative or much less (a list which would be completely unfeasible and ridiculous to attempt, as well as ultimately inappropriate for an article about one particular individual who is/would not be affiliated with many and probably most of them), mentioning the Westboro Baptist Church in particular is not appropriate. It comes off as a gratuitous attempt to simply make Chick's beliefs seem less extreme by in comparison bringing up an organization whose beliefs are even more extreme. To reiterate: WBC deserves no more mention than any other individual or organization whose beliefs regarding homosexuality happen to differ with Jack Chick's. That is why the reversion of the previous edit has been itself reverted.4.225.161.116 00:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Then remove the mention of the WBC, but not the whole passage. That Chick's stance on homosexuality is different than those of other organisations is in itself a valid information relevant to the article.—Graf Bobby 07:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

External links

Resolved. WP:EL needs to be followed. Benjiboi 13:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that there's a whole lot more anti-Chick sites linked to on here than pro-Chick sites. Whether or not you like or hate him has no relevance here. For the sake of neutrality, can we please have either more pro-Chick links or less anti-Chick links so there's a balance and it's not just a bunch of Chick-bashing? Thanks Scorpionman (talk) 01:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

thanks for pointing that out. There were a lot of sites that didn't conform to WP:EL that I've removed now. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Jack CHick is so out there that it is unlikely you can get a balanced view based on numbers. I should mention many of his own tracks violate the "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research" clause of WP:EL. If we were to follow these guidelines to the letter we would have to remove the link to Chick's own web site.--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

You left out the part directly above that: "Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject...". Obviously a link to an official website of the subject isn't going to fail those guidelines. In any case, the general idea is to provide links to a few sites that are representative of what's available; providing an overwhelming number of anti-Chick sites isn't as helpful as selecting a few that are good representations. We're not looking to be Google or dmoz. Tijuana Brass (talk) 22:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

But who decides which anti-Chick sites are kept and which get dumbed? Sure we can get rid of the 'ad' links but why remove the Catholic Defense Directory link while keeping the Catholic Response to Jack Chick one? Certainly the later can be argued as being a better representation.--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I've chopped down the list. I especially targeted things like the Geocities site and those sites geared towards sales for removal. I left it with the official site, an archive site, a couple response sites, a couple parody sites, a link to the article and a link to the filmed version. Vassyana (talk) 06:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Nice work. BreathingMeat (talk) 20:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge "The Death Cookie"

Resolved. merged. Benjiboi 13:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I am unable to find enough references to support an independent article on "The Death Cookie", fewer than 1,000 Google hits for "The Death Cookie" "Jack Chick" - mostly blogs and forums. It looks to me as if it should be merged here. Guy (Help!) 12:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd recommend PRODing it or listing it on AfD. There's no content worth merging and it's certainly not notable in and of itself. Vassyana (talk) 20:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Guy here. "The Death Cookie" doesn't seem to have enough to really warrant a separate article and there don't seem to be any other articles on his other tracks (even "This Was Your Life" which supposedly has the most translations.)--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

"Jack_chick_shoop.jpg" vandalism

Resolved. Deleted. Benjiboi 13:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Image identified as vandalism. Can someone nominate this for deletion? [[5]] 68.209.235.149 (talk) 09:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Discrimination category

Resolved. Claims need to be reliably sourced. Benjiboi 13:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

why is he in the category discrimination? Andries (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Category:Discrimination contains articles related to Discrimination, not just forms of discrimination. This includes notable discriminatory entities (which Jack Chick is) and notable instances of discriminatory material (which Jack Chick produces in great quantity). — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 07:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Sources clean-up

Resolved. Sourcing cleaned up, address new concerns in new thread. Benjiboi 13:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm slamming down the reality hammer. If you want to prove someone is anti-Catholic, for instance, using a comic they wrote or published is original research. We need a way better reliable source for that. You could quote his characters in those comics as an example of his work to support the assertion but you still need to have a better source per WP:BLP to make the initial claim. My plate is pretty full and there seems to be a back-log at the BLP noticeboard so let's get this cleaned up asap or per the notice at the top of this page it will be removed altogether. Benjiboi 05:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe there are some articles in Catholic publications that substantiate this claim - some of them may even be used by this very article. I should have some time to check later tonight or tomorrow, but it does seem to me that slapping a huge BLP banner on a page that has numerous sources (36, by my count) is a little extreme. Natalie (talk) 02:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Catholic publications would, by default, not be reliable sources. Each would have to be qualified. And per WP:BLP exceptional claims require exceptional sources. If I want to label you as a bigot to the whole world I better be able to back it up. And of those 30-some sources the majority are Chick himself, or one might think, unless they are to comics. I'm taking this to the BLP admin board so others can have a fresh look. Benjiboi 09:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Catholic news sources would be perfectly reliable: "According to Whatever the Name Catholic Newspaper, Chick's beliefs are blah blah blah" How is that not reliable?

I'm not trying to argue the need for sources with you. I'm telling you that I think the way you are handling this is really extreme. Re-read my statement - did I say anywhere that sources are not necessary? No. I said that I think slapping a huge banner on an article because you think the sources documenting Chick as anti-Catholic aren't good enough is excessive. Natalie (talk) 15:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I felt it was certainly warranted and others apparently agreed as the article and tags have been cleaned up. I don't dispute that the subject of the article may be anti-Catholic but my take on it is that the article would be better if we cited a more neutral source that states this rather than a Catholic one. I've also learned on other articles that there are some Catholic sources that are fine however to address POV concerns it would probably be best to find more neutral sources for all concerned. Where the Catholic sources could help is to fill out details, XX comic had themes of this nature, in XX statement Chick says ___ and so forth. If no better sources can be found then, yes, a qualified source can certainly be used. As the article was prior to clean-up the sourcing was dreadful and the standard on BLP had been violated. Those concerns have been addressed so now better sourcing can improve the article. Benjiboi 16:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I've been cleaning up the refs. The only other person who has edited the article since you tagged it removed huge swaths of it, most of that referenced. I've restored everything referenced, removed the few things that were unreferenced and might be considered negative, and have begun referencing the rest of the article.

As far as the ability to find sources, there are some non-Catholic sources that call Chick anti-Catholic, including Christianity Today and the Association of Christian Booksellers. But, understandably, this issue has mostly gotten the attention of the Catholic community (Catholic League, Catholic Answers, Archdiocese of LA, etc). Additionally, Chick's personal views on the Catholic Church are quite well known, since he writes them into comic books and tries to spread the comics around the world. It seems, then, that your particular issue is with describing his views as "anti-Catholic". The easiest compromise between these two would be to elaborate his views, as he expresses them, note that various Catholic and Protestant groups/publications have described him as anti-Catholic, and refer to his views on the Catholic Church as "his views on the Catholic Church", rather than "his anti-Catholic views". Natalie (talk) 17:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I've removed all the unsourced information that couldn't be sourced, and sourced the rest, so I've removed the tags. There is definitely some room for expansion here, but I think I'm done with this for the day. Natalie (talk) 21:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Copyrighted picture removed

Resolved.

For a second time I took off a frame from one of his comics. I will also nominate the picture itself for deletion. Doesn't anyone else see the problem of WP having an article about someone which is mainly critical and illustrating it with that person's copyrighted artwork without permission? I also think even "deep linking" to individual pictures could potentially be a problem. The article should just have a link to his main site so people can check out his work on their own if they like. (p.s. I dislike Chick as much as anyone, but WP has to follow the law.) Redddogg (talk) 17:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

As I explained on your talk page, we have an image use policy that does allow the use of copyright images in some contexts. Nominate the image for deletion if you wish, but removing it from the article before its deleted is inappropriate since the image has a valid fair use rationale for this specific article. If you wish to discuss the legal implications of this, Brad Patrick is still the Foundation's lawyer, I think.

I'm not sure how the article being critical is relevant in any way. Firstly, there is one paragraph of criticism, compared with several paragraphs about Chick's life and several paragraph's about his ministry. Is this "mainly critical"? How? And secondly, the article's tone is not especially relevant to copyright law. Fair use exemptions allow use for both critical and adulatory works. I am restoring the picture, as your removal of it is unjustified, and I suggest you let the deletion discussion run its course. If the picture is deleted, it will be removed from the article. If it is not deleted, than continuing to remove it seems kind of disruptive.

Lastly, your edit summary refers to this photo as the "most blatent of this article's copyright problems". What other copyright problems exist in the article? Natalie (talk) 17:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned above "deep linking" to pictures on his website is a potential copyright problem. Redddogg (talk) 01:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Deeplinking? If we were to remove all deep links from Wikipedia we would lose about 2/3 of our references. Chick Publications can prohibit deep linking if they wish, and they have not, so there is no copyright violation here. Natalie (talk) 02:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Natalie in that I find removing images without any discussion seems to cause more problems. As a suggestion perhaps simply stating you feel it's copyvio and have nommed for deletion would have covered the issue and those interested could comment there and hopefully free images could be sought. Benjiboi 02:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I concur also with Redddogg that linking should be done with care. The test is generally - if this were a featured article what would we have. My hunch is that we could have several links in the external links section pointing to his main site and artwork site and one to a list of publications. This is all in an effort to help our readers looking for that information. I'm unsure of a link to a photo of him unless 1. we have no doubts it's of him and 2. we have little doubt that the subject doesn't have privacy concerns that suggest he would not want his photo shown. If we are positive the photo is of him and ha has no problem with his photo being posted then seems an OK stop-gap solution. Benjiboi 02:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The image has already been nominated for deletion, and I would welcome any comments on the discussion page. I wouldn't hold your breath for free images, though. Chick did not produce artwork before 1923, produced no work for a government agency or anything else ineligible for copyright protection, and has been notoriously difficult to photograph. He himself has not released a publicity photo and rarely appears in public. Two photos were linked in the article, which I removed because they were posted on blogs and thus not terribly reliable. There are no photos of Chick on his website or any other reliable source.

As far as deeplinking is concerned, we currently have one link in external links to his main website, and several links to specific comics in the references. Obviously the links in the references aren't required (the comics can be referenced without being linked) but there is no copyright-related requirement to remove them. Deeplinking is only a copyvio if the linked site forbids it, whether in writing or through technical means, and Chick Publications has not done either. Natalie (talk) 03:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, sounds like the current image files are being addressed and they can be added again if they survive. I think links within references is actually preferred so please use a cite template and keep those. Benjiboi 16:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The image files have to stay on the article until the deletion discussion finishes. All fair use images have to be used, so removing this image from the article would render it orphaned and thus a speedy deletion candidate. If the outcome of the debate is to delete, we can remove the image then, but it is really disruptive to remove it beforehand. As far as the links are concerned, I do already use the cite templates and provide the URLs, and have no intention of stopping that unless Chick Publications requests that people not deeplink, or prevents it by technical means. Natalie (talk) 16:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Outdent. Agreed that image file is fine to stay. If deleted then so be it. Links in refs are not an issue and I don't think Chick folks would care regardless. The links issue came up, I believe, in relation to the photo links possibly violating WP:EL and those have been removed. Benjiboi 12:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV tagged

Although efforts to clean-up and add better sourcing have started this article still reads like a smear piece. Isn't he one of the largest publishers of Biblically themed comics in the world? Shouldn't we state that? Don't his tracks reach a massive audience? We should spell that out as well. We also seem to have plenty of criticism, I'm still firmly in belief that the sourcing should not be just his comics and his statements on much of that, but is there any response or defenders of his work to add balance to all that criticism? What is true is also not always verifiable and we need to get it right. Let's pretend this was your misunderstood grandfather - how does the article feel now? We are writing about a real person and should do no harm, let wikipedia have such a good article on this subject so those who love and hate the guy can all agree that it is at least accurate and balanced. Benjiboi 02:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

What do you think, specifically, makes the article non-neutral? How does it read like a smear piece? His views are listed, but those are quite well-documented by the subject himself and he seems very proud of them. I haven't found any source stating that he's the largest publisher of Biblically themed comics in the world, which is why that information is not in the article. He is, however, the most published single comic book artist, which the article does state. The information about his tracts reaching a large audience, if it can be sourced, would be better placed in the article Chick tract, and may in fact already be in that article.

The man is quite reclusive, which is mentioned by nearly everyone writing about him, and has not made many statements defending himself. And there are two paragraphs of criticism - considering how controversial Chick is that does not seem like a lot. How much criticism do you think we would need to include to be balanced? Your statement about verifiability seems to be a bit of a red herring, considering that everything in this article is verified. Natalie (talk) 03:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

That policy there that you linked to up there using the word "verifiable" says: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. We cannot include statements we think are true in articles unless we have references. This holds particularly in biographical articles. Unsourced statements make Baby Wikipe-tan cry. BreathingMeat (talk) 09:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, what is your point? Natalie (talk) 13:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

My apologies Natalie, I guess it wasn't clear what I was responding to. My concern was that Benjiboi was using arguments like "What is true is also not always verifiable and we need to get it right"; apparently implying that we should be putting unverified statements into the article. BreathingMeat (talk) 18:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've done a bit of clean-up. In the final criticism section we state "Chick's views have been subject of extensive criticism by some of the groups he targets, including Jewish and Catholic organizations." and "Many Catholics consider Chick to be anti-Catholic, based on his various claims about the Roman Catholic Church." Neither of these statements seem to be supported and we have a Wiccan being sourced but no one from the above groups. To me I think we should show ___ labels Chick as ____ and we should include representatives from as many of the groups as possible to support that he indeed has widespread criticism from many cultures. Benjiboi 16:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You're right that we don't have any statements from Jewish groups. When I was editing yesterday I saw what appeared to be a well-referenced paragraph about Chick's antisemitism, but all of the refs were to his tracts. Leaving the "Jewish groups" in that sentence. was just an oversight. But there are cites from Catholic and Protestant groups regarding his anti-Catholicism, including Catholic Answers, Christianity Today, and the Christian Booksellers of America. And all of those cites are in the form of "____ calls Chick ___". I believe I also have a cite from the Catholic League that is not currently in the article, and saw reference to a censure from the Archdiocese of LA which I can try to find. Natalie (talk) 16:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally from all that I've seen I wouldn't bother with the Catholic League as they seem to label all sorts of folks as anti-Catholic which even many Catholics find troubling. Thank you, by the way, for all the ref work. i know it can be drugery but the article is much better for it. Benjiboi 18:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Since we have an article on the Catholic League, we could just include their criticism, attributed and sourced, and link to the article. I assume it contains some criticism, and people can consider the source as they so desire. Natalie (talk) 19:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think the article would be better with just better sources rather than qualifying why the ones we are using aren't as credible. Benjiboi 04:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting qualifying anything about the source, merely referencing it in the text so people can draw there own opinions about how credibly they think the Catholic League is. They may be somewhat reactionary, but they are a huge Catholic organization and they've apparently been tracking Chick for about 30 years. That seems worth mentioning. Natalie (talk) 04:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Outdent. If we have a good ref supporting that the Catholic League has been tracking Chick for 30 years then that would be worth mentioning. I'm used to Donohue simply spouting against various things and a 30 year history would predate Donohue's reign there. Benjiboi 12:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)