Talk:Chick Publications

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 10001 (talk | contribs) at 11:56, 31 March 2005 (~~~~). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

I was working on getting the stuff I'd added NPOV'd... I think that the issue of whether it is a parody site or not is just as important as the site itself. In addition, I'm not the guy who's IP you're referring to. I'm a bit confused. Mo0 05:05, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
My comments about NPOV weren't addressed at you - that was to a previous poster. I reverted your changes, then started writing an explanation, and you got here before I'd posted it, hence the confusion. Explanation for that is below. --Calair 05:23, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Satire?

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

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

Well, this all sprang out of a conversation in the Wikipedia IRC channel regarding Chick Tracts. Myself and a couple others started having a discussion about whether they were real or not, with arguments going back and forth on both sides. I personally have had a few arguments on IRC about it, and when it was first shown to me over a year ago, it was under the implication that it was satire, and not meant seriously. Mo0 05:28, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I myself have taken part in many a "is this real or not?" argument on IRC (with plenty of people, sometimes the majority, believing it isn't real) and via other mediums to say that the article should fairly represent the belief many hold that it is satire. To say there is no foundation for such a claim is silly, and to completely throw out one side of a topic because you've never experienced it personally is rather silly as well. Reene (リニ) 05:32, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'm sure some people on IRC were incredulous when they first saw Chick's stuff, but that's not what I'm talking about - after all, we all know plenty of people who were incredulous when they first heard the World Trade Center had collapsed. When I said 'believe' above, that was in the sense of 'believe on the basis of evidence'. A few easily-verifiable facts about Chick:
The tracts & books advertised on his site - both Chick's and those by other authors - really exist, and they really do sell them.
Chick has been publishing his tracts for decades, during which time he has sold vast numbers of them - the site claims 'millions a year', and that's certainly consistent with the number that turn up.
Chick's company publishes books by several other authors of a fundamentalist Christian bent, consistent with the theological claims made in his books. Some, like Charles Chiniquy, were around long before Chick was born. Others, like William Schnoebelen, are well-known in fundamentalist Christian circles; while Schnoebelen's veracity is questionable, he's evidently *not* just a figment of Chick's imagination. It's hard to see why somebody who was secretly opposed to fundamentalist Christianity would labour so hard to promote it, not only with his own tracts but by distributing other fundamentalists' books & tapes.
Chick has done business with a great many fundamentalist Christians over the years. While I know plenty of Christians who consider him an embarrassment to their religion, I don't know of anybody who's dealt with him and believes him to be other than genuine in his beliefs - and that sort of suspicion is not the sort of thing fundamentalists keep quiet about.
"To say there is no foundation for such a claim is silly"... very well, then, what *is* the foundation for claiming it to be satire? That it's full of mistakes is not an answer, unless you want to claim that every 'creation scientist' on the planet is knowingly part of a giant practical joke.
'It's so extreme and awful, it can't be real' is not an answer, because there are plenty of people as extreme as Chick who are genuine believers. Chick is *mild* compared to someone like Fred Phelps, and Phelps is all too real.
Put simply: There are a large number of fundamentalists who hold views similar to those professed by Chick. Given the choice between accepting that he is what he acts like & claims to be, or that he's spent a lifetime constructing an elaborate satire against Christianity, without any of those around him becoming aware of it - while using his company to help sell books by other authors pushing the very same brand of fundamentalism he's supposed to be mocking - there doesn't seem to be much reason to go for the elaborate conspiracy theory.
To suggest, as the article currently does, that Chick Publications might merely be a hoax website is downright absurd - my wife's church was handing Chick tracts out in the '80s, before the WWW existed. --Calair 13:05, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Just because the evidence points to it being real doesn't mean the issue doesn't deserve mention. If someone came here after seeing the site for the first time and wondered whether it was a hoax or not, and came here for information, it would behoove this article to have information on both sides of the issue for a person to make their own decision. Admittedly, the evidence for it being real is more damning than the evidence for it being satire, but allowing a reader to come to their own conclusions is better than leaving them in the dark due to a conclusion the author has previously made. Mo0 19:23, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
*What* evidence for it being satire?
It is certainly appropriate for Wikipedia to present multiple sides to a controversy, when there are deeply-held beliefs on both sides. But this doesn't mean we're obliged to present them as if they were all equally credible. We acknowledge the Flat Earth theory, for instance, because a great many people believed it at one point - but we don't mislead them by presenting it as if it was an unresolved question. Even though there are some people who still believe it today.
I would certainly be happy for the page to *acknowledge* that some people initially think Chick must be satire. But there can be no excuse for telling readers "it might just be a hoax website" when people were passing out Chick tracts *before the WWW existed*. --Calair 23:02, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
If someone comes here without any of this background knowledge, not knowing that these were being made before the Internet existed, if they came here and recieved no evidence either way (as the article you originally reverted to provides no start date for Chick's work), and no evidence provided either way, whatever opinion they had before won't get changed. I understand you wish to let people know it isn't satire; if you edit what is already there to present a damning case against satire, then the issue will be done once and for all. Just because you dislike one side of an issue that has both sides presented doesn't mean the whole issue needs to be discarded. Mo0 00:31, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Yes. As evidence of the strength & popularity of such beliefs, we have any number of books presenting purported first-hand accounts of alien abduction, encounters with ghosts, etc etc, which is why such things merit airing on Wikipedia. (Although if you look at Abduction Phenomenon, you'll see a good example of how such things should be presented: "While few mainstream scientists believe the phenomenon literally occurs as reported--some experts contend the field is rife with kooks and pseudoscience--there is little doubt that many thousands of sincere persons report alien abductions they believe are utterly genuine." The latter belief is *represented*, but is not treated as equally credible.)
An Amazon search on e.g. 'alien abduction' or 'apparition virgin mary' will demonstrate that there are literally *thousands* of books on these supposed phenomena. To the best of my knowledge, and I've looked, there is not a single published book claiming Chick to be satire. If just one such book existed, there would be some grounds for treating this as a genuine controversy. --Calair 00:26, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm happy to mention that some people refuse to believe it, and I believe the article now does so. What I'm not happy with is presenting it in a way that implies to the reader that this belief has a strong foundation to it - unless somebody can provide examples of such a foundation. See above comparisons to 'alien abductions' etc for what I mean here.--Calair 05:28, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
As it stands, the rewrite presents a decidedly one-sided point of view, whereas the way it was written previously provided evidence (whether solid or not) for both sides. Mo0 01:29, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The previous version said: "The views stated almost universally adhere to the stereotypical view of a Christian fundamentalist while being extreme to the point of absurdity in some cases due to sheer factual incorrectness. Some of the subject matter is so shocking and seemingly deliberately intended as such that shock value may be a motivating factor." Let's go through those, point by point.
  • 'Adherence to stereotypical view of a Christian fundamentalist': as Chick claims to be a Christian fundamentalist, and there are many such who closely resemble the stereotype, this is hardly evidence of satire. It can equally well be taken as proof that he *is* a fundamentalist.
  • 'Extreme to the point of absurdity': the rewrite notes that 'many readers might consider the views expressed in his tracts extreme', and now I look at it again the 'might' can certainly be removed.
  • 'Factual incorrectness': is already covered below, under 'Criticisms of Chick Tracts'.
  • 'shock value may be a motivating factor': the rewrite refers to 'the deliberately shocking approach of Chick's tracts'. If anything, strengthened by removing the 'may be'.
What evidence did the previous version include that the rewrite has left out?
Yes, the rewrite presents stronger arguments against the 'satire' theory than in favour of it. That's not a matter of bias; it's because the arguments against *are* stronger. NPOV doesn't mean that strong arguments should be watered down and weak ones puffed up to make all sides come out equal. --Calair 05:28, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'm under the impression that it also doesn't mean completely eliminating one side of the argument just because someone feels it isn't a good one. People aren't stupid. Present both sides of the issue, let them come to their own conclusion. This current writeup, in simpler terms, says "Some people think it's satire. This is why they're wrong."
No, it does not. It says: "[stuff in favour of satire theory]has caused some who first encounter Chick via his website to take it for deliberate satire similar to that of the Landover Baptist Church. However, [stuff against satire theory]." That's the standard form for presenting a dispute; if you feel there's not enough before the 'however', I would be *delighted* to see more by way of substantiation.
I will further note that "let them come to their own conclusion" is not an absolute rule of Wikipedia. There are people who still believe that the Earth is flat, but we don't present that as a "decide for yourself" question. We tell people that it's round, and that the evidence is overwhelming.
The idea of a flat Earth is an ancient one that dominated scientific thinking for centuries. It's initially credible for many reasons - it certainly doesn't *look* round to an eyewitness, there are many religious scriptures that talk about things like "the corners of the Earth" that don't make sense for a round planet, and the idea of people walking around upside-down under our feet is counterintuitive. So powerful was this idea that even in the late 20th century the International Flat Earth Society had a regular newsletter & over three thousand members... and we *still* don't present the flat-Earth theory as credible, nor do we discuss it at length on the main page. Instead, after a very brief mention on Earth, that discussion is shunted to Flat Earth and Flat Earth Society - which still don't try to tell readers that "maybe it's true".
I think Chick Publications treats the 'satire' theory at least as generously as Earth treats flat-Earth theories, and I've yet to see evidence that three thousand people are serious about the former.
Perhaps, as a compromise, "Some people believe Chick's tracts to be satire; see Jack Chick (satire theory)", and move the rest of the discussion to that page? I would be happy for such a page to present arguments for and against in an "equal time" format (you guys can write one half of the page, I'll write the other) and leave it at "decide for yourself"; I just don't feel it's appropriate to do it this way on the *main* Chick Publications page. --Calair 22:58, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Calair - this is a good idea.

--User:watersrw 5 Nov 2004

At least before, we had both sides of the issue presented. If one side is more solid than the other, why not just let people realize that for themselves instead of taking out one whole side of the argument? Mo0 06:34, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I don't accept that it *has* been taken out. Of the four arguments you presented: one is equally applicable to *both* sides of the question. One has been deleted only because it's duplicated elsewhere in the article. One was reworded - NPOV considerations make "while being extreme to the point of absurdity" a poor choice of words - but remains in that discussion. And one has been *strengthened* by changing it from "shock value may be a motivating factor" to saying outright that Chick's tracts are *deliberately* shocking. But for an alternate possible format, see above suggestion of a separate page for the satire theory. --Calair 22:58, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)


'Weasel wording'

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

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

"Doctor" versus no "Doctor"

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

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

(Begin moved section, indentation added by Calair:)

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

generic msg to you; form me

(End moved section.)

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

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

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

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

More debate

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

  1. You don't have to include every detail (indeed, this article could be sadi to be somewhat obsessive in the amount of detail it goes into, given its topic).
  2. In the previous sentence (!) we were told that the tracts are left around for people to pick up; you don't have to repeat all of that just in order to add the detail that this is for 'shy Christians'... If that detail were needed (I don't think that it is — see 1), it should be added to the existing sentence. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:45, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I agree that the article's getting rather unwieldy, especially in the 'claims' section. I'm not sure Wikipedia needs to track every single claim made by Chick, and if we do then IMHO it would be better to do this in a separate page, with just a few left here for illustrative purposes. --Calair 02:16, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yes, that was my feeling. The 'claims' section looks almost obsessive (and, to be honest, rather a lot of them take a single incident and describe it in general terms). I think that the article's length and detail serves rather to give credence to the claims than to present a neutral account. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:38, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I've squeezed the 'claims' bit into a summary. I tried to write it so it encompassed most of the deleted material, but when I looked carefully I found that some of the claims from that list *aren't* backed up by the references offered with them. For instance, "The Catholic church created communism so that later it could destroy it, uniting Catholics and Protestants against a common enemy [5]" - in fact, the page referenced there says nothing about the creation of Communism, only that the Vatican made use of it after WWII. (I'd be surprised if Chick *doesn't* believe the RCC created Communism, since he seems to hold them responsible for just about everything else, but it's not in that page.) --Calair 04:05, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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


Claims by Chick Publications

The following is a list of claims made in the tracts and other publications. Some are fairly standard beliefs of conservative Christianity (e.g., Jesus is the only way to God[6]), so are controversial only outside that belief system; others are more generally controversial and likely to offend (e.g., Muslims worship a pagan moon god demon[7]).

Religions

  • Islam
    • Islam was a movement founded by the Catholic Church [8]
    • Muslims are persecuting Christians more and more [9]
    • Muslims worship a pagan moon god that is in fact a demon [10]
    • There are scientific errors in the Qur'an [11]
    • Muslim arabs are going to "eradicate the freedoms, prosperity, and advancement of the rest of the world"
    • Muslim parents order their children to blow up buses [12]
  • Jehovah's Witnesses
    • JWs use a bible formed from corrupted Roman Catholic manuscripts [13]
    • The Watchtower Society is a false prophet, making inaccurate prophesies [14]
    • JWs spy on each other, being ordered to 'turn in' members [15]
    • JWs are an 'organization of slaves, working desparately to "earn" eternal life' [16]
  • Freemasons
  • Catholicism
    • IHS (In hoc signis) stands for the Egyption gods Isis, Horus, and Seb[19] [20]
    • the Klu Klux Klan is run by a Catholic [21]
    • The Catholic church is a government agency [22]
    • Catholics claim Jesus is a communist [23]
    • Mary is a goddess to whom the Catholic church puts up shrines [24]
    • The Catholic priesthood is full of homosexuals [25]
    • Popes were involved in many kinds of sexual sin [26]
    • The Catholic church kills Protestants who attack it, using, for example, fake car acidents [27]
    • Every church and religion now and in the past has been infiltrated by the Catholic church [28], and attempts are made to destroy them, including seduction and false witness [29]
    • The Catholic church is rewriting history with respect to the Inquisition[ http://www.chick.com/reading/comics/0112/0112_fourpages.asp?PG=13]
    • There are secret tunnels between nuns' and priests' buildings, with dead babies in between [30]
    • The Pope does not rule the Vatican, rather it is the Jesuits, in the form of a black general or black pope [31] who is a Mason and a member of the communist party [32]
    • The Catholic church strongly influences Hollywood movie production and series such as MASH, making Protestants look bad and Catholics look good [33]
    • The Catholic church created communism so that later it could destroy it, uniting Catholics and Protestants against a common enemy [34]
    • The Vatican caused World War II, and many people know this [35]
    • The Catholic church is the great whore, committing fornication with the kings of the Earth [36]
    • The mass wafer is actually a death cookie, an idea borrowed from Egyptian religions [37]
    • Mary is more important than Jesus to Catholics [38], and people were burnt alive for not saying that Mary was the true way rather than Jesus [39]
    • The Pope is actively seeking control of Jerusalem [40]
    • Christian television is being secretly used by Catholics against Protestants [41]
    • Ecumenism is being used by Catholics to destroy Protestants [42]
    • Catholicism is a cult [43]
    • Catholic teachings are not based on the Bible [44]
    • The Pope strongly desires world dominion [45]
    • The Pope is the Anti-Christ [46],
    • Catholic practices are pagan [47]
    • The Catholic church uses pagan icons in its worship [48]
    • Catholics worship statues of Mary [49]
    • The Holocaust was a Catholic Inquisition against the Jews [50]
    • The Catholic church founded communism, Nazism, and Zionism and tried to destroy the Jews [51]
    • The Catholic church still supports communism revolutions [52]
    • Freemasonry, the New Age Movement, the Club of Rome, the Council on Foreign Relations, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, and many others are in league with the Catholic church
    • Billy Graham is a catholic agent [53]
    • The Pope claims to be Christ's vice president (vicar) in charge of earth [54]
    • The United Nations is a tool of Satan and of the Pope [55]
    • True Believers will be persecuted in the future by the World Government [56] headed by the Pope
  • Jews
    • If nations are good to Jews, god will bless them [57]
    • Jews will be sent to hell [58]
  • The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
    • Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are polytheists [59]
    • Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are part of a cult [60]
  • Hinduism
  • Buddhism

The Bible

File:Jack Chick frame.png
A frame from the Chick tract "Doom Town"
    • The King James Version of the Bible is the only recorded word of God, and all other editions are corrupt [63]
    • Sodom was punished for homosexuality (rather than the alternative explanation, inhospitality) [64]
    • Jonah really existed and survived three days in a whale[65]

Sex

  • Homosexuals are fundamentally different from hetrosexual people, and do not care as much about life as 'normal' people[66]
  • Young school children are told that homosexuality is OK, and God hates homosexuality [67]
  • A repentant husband should be invited back into a family after he has beaten his wife [68]
  • People are not born homosexual but rather are driven to homosexuality through parental and demonic influence [69]
  • Homosexual parenting is dangerous for children [70]
  • Homosexual behaviour is unhealthy and will cause early death [71]
  • Homosexuals are eight times more likely to molest children than heterosexuals [72]
  • Abortion facilitators will be sent to hell because they are murderers [73]

Modern culture

File:Satan.gif
Satan wears a pumpkin in "Boo!"
  • Halloween
    • Halloween opens the door to satanism [74]
    • Satan can take bodily form at Halloween (typically with a pumpkin head) and kills teenagers [75]
    • You cannot separate Halloween from its origin with the Druids [76]
    • Ancient Greek and Roman authors "dwell heavily on [the Druids'] frequent and barbaric human sacrifices" [77]
    • The Druids used magic "to raise storms, lay curses on places, kill by the use of spells, and create magical obstacles" [78]
    • Druids in the 16th century were still engaging in ritual murder [79]
  • Druids sacrificed humans [80]
  • Wiccans, sorcercesses in the Bible, and the witch of Endor are following the same spiritual path [81]
    • Modern day Druids still engage in human sacrifice [82]
    • The Druids celebrated 31 October with many human sacrifices [83]
    • Halloween is a Druidic festival honoring their sun god and Samhain, the lord of the dead [84]
    • Ancient Celts gave out food on Halloween in order to appease the spirits of the dead [85]
    • Modern day Satanists put razor blades, drugs, poisons, needles, etc. in Halloween treats in order to kill or injure children [86]
  • Harry Potter is repackaged witchcraft [87]
  • Rock music is Satanic [88]
  • Satan turns rock artists into slaves [89]
  • Dungeons and Dragons causes murder and suicides [90] (see Dungeons and Dragons#Controversies for rebuttal of this claim)

Science, anthropology and history

The future

  • Europe is actively preparing for the new world order (and has been for the last twenty years) [97]
  • Human sacrifice will increase as we get closer to the end times (which are now quite close) [98]]
  • The world will be turned into a big-brother culture, where people are killed for 'only' claiming that Jesus is the only way [99]
  • Bad things according to Chick Publicatinos – torture, drugs, killing for 'fun', claiming Godhood for self, homosexual marrage, Satan worship – happened in the time of Noah and will happen again in future before a rapture [100]

Miscellaneous

Criticisms of Chick Publications

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

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

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

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

Protected

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And this one is 53KB!

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

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

Regarding the *accuracy* of the 'claims' section - i.e. the fact that some of the claims attributed to Chick aren't actually found in the references provided - I don't think it's good enough to say that most of them are accurate, because one bit of false information far outweighs one bit of good information. What people *don't* know, they can often find elsewhere, even if it's a bit more trouble to do so; but when we tell them something that's incorrect, they have no reason to look further. When they *do* realise they've been misinformed, that casts doubt over the rest of what they've learned, making it harder to trust the parts that *are* accurate.
One of the main arguments for keeping the claims list seems to be that it provides very specific information on what Chick says. One of my biggest objections to the claims list is that, in fact, often it only appears to provide specific information on what Chick says. At least when something is presented as a general summary, it's likely to be understood as a general summary, with the limitations that that implies.

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

But when we list something like "Muslim parents order their children to blow up buses [103]"... well, I've been through that tract three times now, and I'm yet to find any mention or depiction of a bus, and the protagonist has never even *met* either of his parents - his father's in jail, his mother died giving birth to him. While his grandmother certainly *encourages* him to become a suicide bomber, the actual order comes from a mullah. While it's reasonable to presume from this tract that Chick *does* believe Muslim parents order their children to blow up buses (among other things), it's misleading to imply specifics that the 'reference' doesn't back up, and it erodes confidence in the other claims.

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

No, the grandmother isn't a parent; she's a grandparent. And the other point still stands. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:47, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
a grandparent is a parent, in name and role, at least in the middle east, but anyway, if you wish to change it to grandparent, fine. Nevertheless, the neighbours (presumably parents) danced about their own children, says the tract. And what other point stands, any why? You see, we can debate points in turn, but let's get the page unprotected and move on...10001 11:04, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This is beginning to sound more like a desperate attempt to defend what Chick says — moreover, by depending upon your assumptions and a twisting of the English language. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:46, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Well, I am not going to argue or defend myself against your insults... I gave my view, said I didn't care if the item was changed, and suggested we we move onto broader issues that this single claim. May I ask, how do you feel we should move forward? 10001 11:56, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
"The Catholic Church created communism so that later it could destroy it..." - already dealt with.

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

"The Catholic church founded communism, Nazism, and Zionism and tried to destroy the Jews [104]" - actually, while that page says that the Vatican supported and manipulated Nazism, it makes no claim I can see that it founded Nazism; communism and Zionism aren't even *mentioned* on that page.
And so on. IMHO, there are enough shaky entries in the 'Claims' section to make it undesirable for inclusion in its present state. --Calair 00:17, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chick_Publications&oldid=11739309"