Talk:Chick tract/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Redirect

Is this page even necessary? It really seems to me to be a summary of the various religious tracts Chick has put out. The information at Chick's main page seems to be sufficient. I suggest that we redirect "Chick tract" to Jack T. Chick. ---Cappadocian330--- 11:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cappadocian330 (talk • contribs)

This Was Your Life

Unsurprisingly perhaps, the Japanese adaptation of TWYL is staggeringly better from an artistic standpoint than the others or the original. [1] --XL7-Z 17:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

It's Your Life

Perchance a commentary on the Jackson "wardrobe malfunction"? --XL7-Z 13:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Apocalyptic Tracts

The Beast [2]
The Last Generation [3]

These warrant mention, particularly the utterly gonzo Last Generation. --XL7-Z 00:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Be bold in editing! Go for it! (Wow. Last Generation is even more over the top than I remembered.) Chip Unicorn 16:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting case of bowlderism in the German version of TLG—

Apparantly even Chick has his limits.

(and just what was the issue with the name "Bobby"?) --XL7-Z 14:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I just expanded the article with short synopses of several more tracts. But maybe some of these should get their own sections? Some of them are quite notorious - Angels? and The Sissy? for example. Angels? came out around the same time as Dark Dungeons and both of them were spoofed in an insert that came with one of Jello Biafra's albums. I think I just ruined my keyboard looking at The Mad Machine for the first time in years --that Chick drawing of doped-out psychiatric patients is a riot. Another thing I never noticed until now: The Sissy? is full of homoerotic overtones and that young driver who hangs around with Duke clearly has a gay crush on Duke. Jack Chick wasn't born yesterday and I can't help but think he deliberately put a lot of things in his tracts that he knew his born-again audience wouldn't catch but hipsters would. Just my take. I'm looking at more of his tracts and The Sissy? isn't the only one with homoerotic overtones. Did Jack Carter draw them or did Chick? Anyway, somebody feel free to expand on what I added and give them their own sections if you think they deserve them. I noticed The Death Cookie has its own article. should it be merged here? 70.108.86.207 03:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

?

Whatever happened to the article "Criticism of Chick Publications"?

~~---Ferd & Nan the Bulls —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ferd & Nan the Bulls (talk • contribs) 15:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC).

A different gay tract?

Unless someone is copying Chick's style, I'm almost certain I've seen a different tract about homosexuality around. I remember one panel featured a large (hairy?) man facing a scared-looking boy, saying something like "It's play time again!" and the caption talking about what horrible child molesters gay people are. >.> Can anyone back me up on this? Cantras 01:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, found it. It was in Doom Town, about Sodom/Gomorrah. Cantras 02:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Primary sources and original research

If someone who was very strict about WP policies were to notice this article, he or she might say that all of the examples should be removed since they don't come from secondary sources. I think this is a worthwhile article myself, even if not WP standard. Steve Dufour 03:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi There!

That, of course, is the title of a tract that doesn't seem to be found on the list of tracts: [4]

The depiction of the Charlie Conners character grabbing the sandwich has also become somewhat of an internet phenomenon where the text in the bubbles and often the sandwich itself are replaced with phrases and objects, resulting in the "Sandwich Chef" meme. Franck Drake 06:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

A somewhat unusual Chick tract in that the people doubting the truth of Evangelical Christianity do so for some of the actual reasons people do so in real life (the Bible has contradictions, there are many religions and no way to know which is the right one etc.) and seem fairly well-informed about religious matters. More typically the non-Christian people in Chick tracts don't know the first thing about Christianity and when they are told about it they either readily accept it or reject it for fairly implausible reasons ("I don't have time" or "I'm worried what my friends would think"). Indeed we do see Chick returning to this favorite theme at the end of this tract after Jesus delivers his "April 7, 1972" gotcha. Haukur 11:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

This article lacks neutrality. It was obviously written by an adherent. There used to be other external links besides the official page. It was something like pages endorsing the comics and pages against it. I'm not sure, but I think it also used to say something about the tracts subliminally giving approval to death penalty (the one that says you're screwed up if you tell fairy tales to your kid because he will become a murderer no matter how young) and racism (where a man has a black cellmate who loses his dreadlock, i.e. his culture, after ten years of being christian). I'm sorry if I wasn't neutral. I'm not sure if I have to if I'm in the talk section. Please don't block my IP. I regularly donate and help improve articles. And sorry if my English is bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.156.15.78 (talk) 06:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe that these tracts are pretty ridiculous, but agree that the article is clearly slanted. (Especially with the categories.) I'll try to work on that aspect of the article.

By the way, I found the tract where a kid kills his classmate because his parents raised him to believe in Santa Claus to be hilarious -- I almost mistook the website for satire! 65.35.157.31 (talk) 19:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Citations

Here we have about 80 citations to Chick tracts, which looks awfully like Google bombing except we have nofollow enabled these days. Are there no independent sources for this content? Guy (Help!) 13:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually they look like original research, even if they aren't, we should be using reliable sourcing. Benji boi 05:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sent to lake.gif

Image:Sent to lake.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:TLG microchips.gif

Image:TLG microchips.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Thatcrazyguy.gif

Image:Thatcrazyguy.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

3 way merge proposal

I would like to suggest that these three articles be merged: Chick Publications, Chick Tracts, and Jack Chick. Jack Chick is only known as the author of the Chick Tracts and Chick Publications is only known as their publisher. I'm not sure myself how to do a three way merge proposal. (I still object to the use of copyrighted images on these articles, but it seems that I am against the consensus on that.) Redddogg (talk) 22:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Possible source

here. Benji boi 12:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Here are a couple of links removed per WP:EL:

The Nightmare World of Jack Chick
Trick Tracts: The Truth Behind Those Little Comics - Points out factual errors in the tracks

They may be useful for content building as well. -- Banjeboi 20:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Parodies section should be created

In my looking into this guy there seems to be a strong record of parodies of these tracks. see these for instance. Benji boi 12:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

More: http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/lsd/lsd_humor_chick_parody1.pdf

http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/mdma/mdma_humor_chick_parody1.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.123.202 (talk) 06:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Parody Archives

I was looking at the external links, and noticed that the link to wierdcrap goes to a site that hasn't bee updated in nearly a decade. I have one with more recently produces satires, parodies, knock-offs and homages to Chick Tracts and am actively soliciting contributions and working to transcribe some of the wordier or harder to read works. The thing is that it's my own site, and it's not politic to link to one's own pages, so I submit it for other authors to investigate. http://foo.ca/wp/chick-tract-satire/ -- Xinit (talk) 16:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required

This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 16:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Jack Chick writes for Jews?

Jack Chick seems not to be opposed to Jews. We all know he made "Where is Rabbi Waxman". But then again he wrote this--Angel David (talk) 00:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

If "write" can indeed be considered the right word for this crap. Oh well, every Jack Chick tract only serves to keep me rolling on the floor with laughter.... ~~Will~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.16.221.36 (talk) 00:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Chick and the Standard Model

Is it worth mentioning here that one of Chick's tracts (Big Daddy?) attempts extend the supernaturalism of creationism/intelligent design to particle physics? (There's no such thing as a strong interaction -- God holds the nuclei together.) The only significant mention of it I could find is in one snarkier-than-usual post from Pharyngula, and he seems to have gotten the idea from Kent Hovind (see [5] and [6]). 71.248.115.187 (talk) 20:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Qualification of condom's effectiveness

Thanks for taking time to research the effectiveness of condoms, but I think everyone in their right mind knows quite well that condoms are non-porous, and that Jack Chick is bonkers. Chick tracts speak for themselves. WP guidelines say we don't provide editorial comments or do any original research, we just report what the sources say. In any event, stating that Chick's porous-condom claim is false almost obligates us go thru the entire article and point out that claims such as (picking one at random) "Christians will soon face persecution at the hands of a brutal planetary regime installed by the Roman Catholic Church" are also false. Regards, CliffC (talk) 00:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, your example is a prediction, so not really a good one. The claim that condoms do not protect against AIDS is, if not pseudoscientific, at the least fringe, claim, and as such should be qualified so as not to mislead readers. According to our fringe guidelines:

"Ideas that have been rejected, are widely considered to be absurd or pseudoscientific, only of historical interest, or primarily the realm of science fiction, should be documented as such, using reliable sources."

"Ideas that are of borderline or minimal notability may be mentioned in Wikipedia, but should not be given undue weight. "

Having the statement unqualified would surely give the statement undue weight. I think it should be changed back. Aunt Entropy (talk) 23:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this edit today by User:SheffieldSteel should satisfy the concerns of us both without any further changes, I know it satisfies mine. Thanks, Mr. Steel. --CliffC (talk) 23:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

C-Class rated for Comics Project

As this B-Class article has yet to receive a review, it has been rated as C-Class. If you disagree and would like to request an assesment, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment and list the article. Hiding T 12:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Effect/Impact of Chick Tracts?

I have no idea how anyone could go about researching the topic (which is why I'm asking instead of going ahead and doing it) but would it be possible to create a section on the impact of Chick Tracts?

For one thing the article feels incomplete without it. If this was a page about a standard comic strip, book or pretty much any other product we'd have a section on where/how many were sold, reviews ect. something to gauge how many people took notice of it and what they thought. For another it might help persuade skeptics such as myself that these things have any value beyond providing amusement for the people they're supposed to convert and a convenient example of individuals who give Christians, or religious people in general, a bad name.

I suspect reliable numbers or even individual examples of people who converted after reading a tract (if any) would be virtually impossible to come across, but examples of churches/groups that buy and distribute tracts, along with where they operate should be findable (is that a word?). Danikat (talk) 11:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Best thing would be to find a reliable source that describes the impact of the tracts. But to try to connect how effective the tracts are to distribution would venture too much into original research, although more factual information on distribution that can be reliably sourced wouldn't hurt. Auntie E. 17:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

singapore

in singapore a christian couple got arrest for sending the chick tracts to two muslims. chick.com is banned in singapore. please add this info. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.12.252 (talk) 13:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Link here http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/print/435089/1/.html if anyone wants to work it in. "They 'clearly did so with the intent of convincing the Muslim reader to convert to Christianity', a district court found." --CliffC (talk) 17:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. But I'd consider that not notable enough. People get in trouble for spreading hate speech all the time. I don't mean to be rude, but what makes this situation stand out?Farsight001 (talk) 14:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

What does this sentence mean?

"In all versions, the doctor witnesses to Suzi, and she is saved from eternal damnation."

How is witness a verb? Is this some kind of religious thing or are there lots of doctors showing something? This is confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.83.126.72 (talk) 01:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Witnessing is a religious thing. (and my spell checker recognizes it as a word too) It basically means teaching/telling a person about Christianity. It is more popular a word amongst what, IMO, are the more closed minded Christian sects.Farsight001 (talk) 02:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

See Evangelism.--Kevinkor2 (talk) 11:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)