This 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.

I had never heard of jack chick until a few years ago, and now it seems he's fairly well known. Has his work received wider readership/interest for any reason? Meelar 00:16, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Fark.com. Seriously. I don't think anyone knew about him until Fark started linking to him regularly. RadicalBender 00:17, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This article could probably use a section on reactions to Chick tracts. Certainly everyone I know finds his material unintentionally hilarious. And if it's been mentioned on Fark, it's not an isolated phenomenon, but probably how a large segment of the population knows about his work.-- 128.163.161.40 1 July 2005 11:08 (UTC)

I have to disagree; I lived in the American South until 1993, and his tracts were well-known there. Chip Unicorn 21:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Heck. Chick's been around a long time, lurking in laundromats and phone booths. Fark just made him bigtime. -- Decumanus 00:18, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

His tracts can often be found anywhere where people can discreetly drop them off. I've found them in laundromats and newspaper dispensers. I found one in a bathroom stall, which seemed appropriate. People have found his tracks in the pews of Catholic churches, which I suppose is as welcome as Mein Kampf being left in a synagogue.-- RLent 22:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I think (but can't confirm, or I'd have put it in the article) that he's mostly a phenomenon in the U.S. south (aside from fark of course). Most of the tracts I was handed in Texas were his; most of those up here in MN aren't. - Hephaestos| § 00:20, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I learned about him in wisconsin, and I've seen his tracts here in Ohio. And what the heck is fark? Sam [ Spade] 20:08, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Fark.com? Jonathan Grynspan

He's also well-known in the roleplaying scene ever since he published "Dark Dungeons", which (along with groups like BADD) led to the stigmatization of roleplaying by many conservative Christians.

I first learned about him in the late 1980s from Ivan Stang's book on odd subcultures, High Weirdness By Mail. In that article, a page of a very lurid Chick comic was shown as well as an isolated panel or two. Once I'd had exposure, then I started to notice it on the fringes of mainstream culture. Not prominent, but there if you were sensitized to it, invisible if you weren't. Catbar (Brian Rock) 18:42, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I first heard of him a few years ago on a pagan forum where his tracts were a regular source of humor. Since then I've shared them with many people, and lost count of how many I've read myself and I've yet to see any results. I'm still an athiest, rock fan and role-player. The best result I've ever seen to his work is laughter. Danikat 20:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard of fark.com, but I've know about "Chick Tracts" and "Chick Comics" for about 25 years. Not at all a "southern" phenomenon. They were fairly well known in the conservative Evangelical/Fundamentalist Christian culture of Western Pennsylvania (where I lived) and Central PA (where I attended college). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.240.28.152 ( talk)

Not only a US phemonenon. Hate to say it, but I'm Mexican and I live in northern Mexico, and sadly he is also known here, I know firsthand. Not as much as in the States, but it is not hard to drop into someone who has seen these tracts. He is also known in the Área Metropolitana (The Area surrounding the capital city of Mexico. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.156.15.78 ( talk) 19:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there any NPOV way of noting how spectacularly stupid this guy is? :) -- Furrykef 19:53, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

easy, just ad facts ;) Sam [ Spade] 20:07, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

But they're scary horrifically scary. :( Jonathan Grynspan

hehehe... my favorite kind! The scarier they are (or more suprising, shocking, unexpected, etc...), the more important to cite and verify tho, of course :) Sam [ Spade] 23:53, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Jack Chick is spreading seeds of prejudice and hatred rather than soul winnng.He si really good at promoting traditional anti-catholicism in the form of tracts,comics and books.During the 19th Century and even up to the 1960s,anti-catholicism was part of American Protestant lifestyle.The King James Version is hard for someone who doesn't understand the English it uses and it is not the only PERFECT version. I like every Bible version because they all are God's Word. That is why we have the New International Version,New King James Version,The Living Bible,The Good News bible,The New Jerusalem Bible and etc. Jack Chick is a fool to believe such nonsense !Then there is that infamous and hated Alberto Rivera whose's views contradict history including Church History.Whoever or whatever Alberto was,he is a deceiver and false prophet.Then,there is the 'claim' that Islam was created by the Catholic Church.How can this be when they fought and killed each other during the Crusades and still oppose each other till today.Hitler was never a Catholic though his parents were and he hated both Catholics and Protestants and tried to replaced them with his Nazi Religion.No one is perfect including Protestants,for example Martin Luther the founder of the Reformation preached antisemitism and told his followers to persecute Jews. I might agree with him concerning Evolution and abortion but not with cATHOLICISM

Thanks for your comments! They are not entirely NPOV, so please try to be careful of neutrality. Would you like to form a user account? Sam [ Spade] 23:26, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If you'd like to express a POV I'd suggest adding to the Uncyclopedia article on Jack Chick:

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Jack_Chick. Frankly, this parody is far too nice for the vile piece of garbage that is its subject matter. Get in there and tear him a new a--hole! -- Naughtyned 15:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I have taken my own advice: [1]. This article was helpful as a reference for editing the Uncyclopedia article, especially the revelation that his work was partly inspired by Chinese Communist propoganda tracts (I hope my reference to that won't be considered too much of a "true fact" for Uncyclopedia!) It figures that a hate-filled "Christian" cult leader would find Communist techniques of indoctrinating and manipulating uneducated, vulnerable people worthy of emulation.-- Naughtyned 15:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm very surprised that there isn't more incisive information on this page about the characteristics of the strange, insane nightmare world Jack Chick lives in. I think more people, Christians and non-Christians alike, deserve to have identified to them specific examples of his incredibly warped perspective on the world. I'm a Christian myself, and honestly, Mr Chick is an incredible aggravator of anti-Christian sentiment. Adrianke77 05:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

In 1996, Jack Chick's website was elected the best Christian website

Elected by who?

It was Lola's mother who converted Chick to Christianity.

What was his religion before this?

I'd be fine w you removing these, unless someone wants to verify them. Sam [ Spade] 00:36, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'll trim the "best Christian website," since there's no source.

Probably talking orthogonally with the comment about his conversion versus his prior "religion." Fundamentalist-Christians see conversion ("born again") as an adult event. Before that, even if you are "raised Christian," you are in general considered to be "unsaved." Jdavidb 21:32, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I never understood that belief. I'm pretty sure the Christian bible says that you only need to accept Jesus to be saved. (But then, who am I to tell fundamentals how to bible-bash?) Jonathan Grynspan 06:14, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As a "fundygelical" who "converted" or was "born again" about 22 years ago, I'll explain that yes, we believe that "you only need to accept Jesus to be saved." And when you make that conscious volitional choice to accept Jesus, you are "born again."

Jack Chick claims somewhere on his website (I'll find a link if anyone really wants to see it) that he was incredibly anti-Christian before his being "born again", and was antagonistic towards Christians. This may just be him painting himself that way to encourage people who are like that to become like him, though. So, it's probably fair to say that he converted to Christianity, even if he didn't actually espouse atheism at any time.-- -SpaceMoose 06:14, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Is it worth adding in a note that at least a few people seem to think that he's a Catholic mocking the fundamentalists? -- Kadett 01:01, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't think so. Anyone as over-the-top as Chick is bound to have a few people who come along and say "this can't be real" if they don't know the background. The same could be said of Fred Phelps. NTK 16:05, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Isn't the wording of the opening paragraph just a bit lacking in the NPOV department? "Anti-Roman Catholic" implies some agenda against RC *people*; might it not be better to say "Anti-Roman Catholicism," showing his argument is with the belief system? Also, isn't "homophobic" a "loaded" term?

No, none of these are lacking in the NPOV department anymore than saying Hitler's Mein Kampf was anti-semetic. Chick has demonstrated through tracks like "Are Roman Catholics Christians?", "Death Cookie", "Holocaust", and "Last Rites" that he is rabid Anti-Roman Catholic. As for homophobic one need to look at "Doom Town" and "Birds and the Bees" to see that.-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 07:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

When did he start to publish his tracts? AxelBoldt 20:19, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1964, according to http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1346/is_5_48/ai_101173128/pg_2 -- Po8crg 20:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Most of the wikipedia article relating to dispensationalism rang true for Chick, however, the quote on the antichrist did not: "By consistently teaching that the Beast of Revelation, or the Antichrist, is a political leader, dispensationalism has weakened the traditional Reformation-era identification of that figure with the Pope, and the Roman Catholic Church with the Whore of Babylon. Dispensationalism has led many evangelical Christians of the USA to temper their traditional anti-Catholicism, at least a little."

Chick has repeatedly made claims that the Catholic church is the whore of babylon, and that at the end of times, the Pope will be the anti-christ. -- Havermayer 01:20, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It might be appropriate to inlude mention of similarities between Jack Chick's views and the Book THE TWO BABYLONS by Alexander Hislop. Most 20th Century Anti-Catholicism movements revere that book. Chick's tracts repeat many of Hislops accusations almost word for word. (LisaPollison 1/17/06)

I was confused for a moment when I read this article and it said "After his marriage, he began working at the AstroScience Corporation etc." Shouldn't it say "After his wedding" or something? Because to me marriage is the entire period that you are married to someone, but if he did all this AFTER his marriage this would imply he split from his wife Lola somewhere in the 60s or so, doesn't it? Yet the article later indicates that he stayed with his wife until his death in 1998. Or am I misinterpreting this word? At any rate, it's rather confusing and maybe "wedding" would be a better choice of word. -- Little-quiqueg 18:17, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Changed to "after marrying." Samaritan 06:56, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The image of Jack Chick was drawn by Jimmy Akin, who never gave permission for its use and who retains the rights to the drawing. Proof: http://www.jimmyakin.org/2005/04/happy_birthday_.html

I emailed Jimmy Akin, and he answered me this :

It's okay with me if Wikipedia uses it, though it is not a public domain image, and I want to retain the right to insist that it be pulled at some future point if I deem it necessary.

hence, wikipedia has his permission to use it. Wedineinheck 07:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I think placing the Jack Chick Museum of Fine Art in a Pro-Chick category is a huge stretch. It's hard to say it's anti-Chick, since it also supports his right to free speech, but the site contains a gigantic repository of tract reviews that pick apart almost every tract ever published. The "fan club" is an obvious spoof club, what with the "Get Out of Hell Free" card you get.

I would put this in the "Relatively Neutral" category myself. Rebochan 17:19, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I have reverted most of JohanL's changes. First, the spelling of "theater" was changed to the British "theatre" in two places. First, I believe it against policy to make these changes except for the sake of consistency, but moreover this article is about an American so it makes sense to use the American spelling, especially for "Pasadena Playhouse School of Theater" where "Theatre" is actually wrong. Secondly, a profusion of superfluous links was added, most of which were not really related to this article and which hurt the flow and readibility of the article, detracting from the relevant links. In fact, looking at the current state of the article there are already far too many useless links. NTK 20:01, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Some time back, I came across a page that had a point-by-point refutation of Jack Chick's (in)famous Big Daddy comic - the anti-evolution one. I was trying to find the page again, but wasn't able to - does anyone know the page I'm talking about? If so, do you have a link? It would be much appreciated.

Is this it? Anville 13:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

There is also Who's Your Daddy that tears the Big Daddy strip to shreds.-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 10:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that these words conform to a NPOV. What do y'all think? On the other hand, I think that a summary of some of his tracts might help give a stronger impression of how wacked out this fellow is. Chip Unicorn 16:21, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

There really should be some mention of how a fair number of people enjoy Jack Chick's works solely for their preposterousness (the "Death Cookie", etc. etc.). AnonMoos 10:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

It's true that at least within Comic fandom, there is a subgenre of Chick fans who adore his tracts not for their Christian message but for their inadvertant comic content. Sadly, many of those same fans poo-poo the Anti-Catholic and Anti-semtic messages in those comics. It's a bit like telling a survivor of the Holocaust that they should read Mein Kampf because it's a "laugh riot!"

I've yet to meet an observant Jew or devout Catholic Comic fan who finds Chick's tracts very amusing. They may be out there, but I haven't come across them. I believe this speaks more to the continuing undercurrent of Anti-Catholicism and Anti-Semetism in American culture. People I know who would never use the 'N' word, think nothing of using the 'K' word or repeating some of Chick's assertions that Catholics and Masons are in it with "the Jews" to pave the way for a 'new World order.'

Like it or not, Jack Chick's tracts reveal a great deal about what is quietly held to be true by mainy 'mainstream' Christians.

(lisapollison 1/17/06)

Well, I'm (At least technically) Catholic, and I think that these things are a laugh riot, I mean, the pope=the antichrist? That's like saying Tab cola tastes better than fresca, it may be true, but nobody cares 67.160.39.151 06:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bisexual, and I find Birds and the Bees a laugh riot! Chip Unicorn 21:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

My roommate and good friend, who is a lesbian, works as a cook and waitress. There are these two women that frequented the restaurant and had the habit of leaving Chick tracts in place of tips. A few weeks ago they left her a "tip" consisting of that tract, because apparently they overheard my roommate mention herself as being gay in conversation with someone else. My roommate didn't find "Birds and the Bees" a laugh riot. It reduced her nearly to tears of rage; I've never seen her so angry. She wasn't mad because the pamphlet disses gays; she can handle that sort of thing. She was furious because the tract puts words of hatred and bigotry in the mouth of a child. Her manager at the restaurant was also outraged. The women came back several nights later and were escorted out and informed that they were no longer welcome at the restaurant, which they had frequented for some years. Looking back on my life, I think their "tip" is about the most shockingly rude thing I've ever seen one human being do to another. Kasreyn 10:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Ouch. You have my sympathy. If someone gave me that tract as a statement against me, I would be equally outraged. I found that tract funny for its poor writing, and its over-the-top rudeness. Chip Unicorn 23:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Obviously these things can be seriously offensive and hurtful if directed at someone personally but I've also seen their target audience thoughly enjoying laughing at them. I was first introduced to them on a pagan forum and I've actually gone on and read many of them myself, purely for humor value. As a biologist (well ok, final year biology student) I think my favourites are the ones on evolution, with Dungeons & Dragons a close second. I may be confusing Chicks site with another website but I seem to remember something about a zoo hidden in the Amazon rain forest where dinosaurs were collected so scientists could keep up the "myth" of evolution. Prehaps a section on the full range of possible reactions? Discuss the fact that many people are seriously offended and hurt by having these statements made about (and to) them, but also that many people including those the cartoons are directed at find them amusing. It would also answer one question thats bothered me since I first learned of Chicks work: Have these things ever, ever worked on anyone? Is there even a sigle case of someone falling to their knees and begging forgivness from Jesus after reading one of his cartoons? Danikat 20:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• I think his tracts provide an interesting historical perspective on religion. To be honest, I think his comics are well done. I just needed to get that out. Danny Lilithborne 04:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

  I suppose the perspective is interesting in that it shows exactly how far wrong it is possible to be... Chick is batting about .001 on comprehension of any religion except his own. Kasreyn 10:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

  Historical perspective is not interesting if it's false. And I'm not talking about religion. Mdoc7 04:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

  Mister Lilithborne, it says you like the band "Rush" on your userpage. Are you aware that rock music was invented by the devil to promote witchcraft and spread homosexuality? You ought to read the chick tract "Angels". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.53.233 ( talk) 21:40, 17 October 2006

If anyone agrees with Chick, they should A. talk with a psychiatrist, B. talk with a member of the clergy (Protestant or Catholic) to get the actual history of the Church, C. if these dont work, bash yourself on the head with a blunt object to save yourself from a lifetime of your own extreme idiocy. Therequiembellishere 07:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC) BTW My Chem Rocks, so I guess that means I'm gay. Wow, my g/f will have a problem with that . . .

I like Chick. RichardT

Then you need to be put on much medication. Centurion Ry 20:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

nt RichardT

Sheish... I don't like that idiot either, and it's disgraceful that this page is written "almost" neutrally when so many other pages of "better" people have obvious anti-bias... but all that bashing wasn't really needed.

Yoda921 12:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Yoda

• I have removed the "canada" section of this article because it contained non-NPOV content claiming that canada has massed a "hate crime" law nick-name the 'fred phelps law" or "jack chick law". Living in canada myself i would know about this if it were true.

""Canada

Canada has passed hate crime legislation, alternatingly referred to by the informal names "Fred Phelps Law" and "Jack Chick Law". Pure inuyasha 00:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

While I'm no fan of Jack Chick, I wouldn't say that [2] is taking a "relatively neutral" stance on his work. An excerpt from the page: "Who does Chick like? Well, apart form the gullible turkeys who shell out their hard-earned dolleros for this tripe, that’s a good question!". 80.202.102.215 21:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

"Chick's cartoons depict delusional conspiracy theories featuring Satan, the Catholic Church, Communists, Muslims, rock musicians, scientists, and politicians, as well as other groups and subjects behind popular entertainment, (role playing) gaming, and other perceived ills of modern culture..." The word delusional, is POV, so I am removing it. Also there is a sentance that says, "chick has been considered anti-semitic," that's weasel-wording. It needs a source 88.154.158.42 15:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Some of Jack chicks claims are so out there that delusional is the only word that can politely describe them. His dark dungeons track claims that the D&D game teach REAL spells that can be cast in the REAL world; that is on par with telling people your hiding from the little grey aliens led by Elvis who are coming after you in their black helicopters. At best his choice of supporting material is really bad as demonstrated by the trashing I gave to one of his form letter responses regarding Dark Dungeons.

Another example of Chick's delusions are in tracks like Holocaust where the Nazis are revealed to be a master plan of the Roman Catholic Church to wipe out the Jewish people. Then there is the Story Teller which has the Roman Catholic Church creating Islam and claims that the attempted assassination of Pope John Paul II was planned by the Jesuits as a well to make Muslim people feel guilty. Even if Chick himself is not delusional his choice of source material is horrid and his verification of said material is non-existent.-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 03:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

"His new wife is considerably younger than he is, and Asian." Come on. Is that NPOV? Is it important? When I was at journalism school, I was taught that pointing out somebody's race was not required unless it was vital to the context of the story. Seems like just a disparaging attmept to call Jack Chick a dirty old man with a mail order bride. (I'm definitely not a Chick fan, but let's try and be professional!) -- Affentitten 23:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree - "considerably younger" is imprecise and therefore meaningless. 211.30.237.66 14:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The World Chick believes is out there is a place filled with godless scientists, demon possessed games, and vast conspiracies. Any amount of anything resembling research will show much of his claims to be out and out drivel if not outright fraud. As with many fundamentalists he takes quotes from the bible out of context and ignores any contradictions. For example Micah 6:8, Matthew 25:31-46, Matt 24:45-51, Luke 19:8-9 all have good works as a path to salvation with NO mention given to faith.

I pruned a couple of large chunks of text (see below) from the 'Comics' section, now 'Publications'. There are already pages for Chick Publications, Claims by Chick Publications, and Alberto Rivera - let's use them, rather than duplicating and triplicating material here that should be on those pages. A lot of what remains should also be moved to those pages, but needs cleanup. In particular:

• I'm pretty sure Chick's first publications were not the Crusader Comics but tracts such as 'This Was Your Life' and 'A Demon's Nightmare' (see Chick website here), so the chronology in this section is out.

• The article claims Chick wrote 24 comics in the 1970s-1980s (didn't he do way more tracts than that in that period?) and says that the first 17 of these are known as the Crusader Comics, but then calls the last 6 'Crusader Comics' as well. (Perhaps it could also say what the other one was about?)

• NPOV. Lines like 'this is one of the more rational claims Chick makes' are not encyclopaedic. Yes, I know he offends a lot of us, but there are more appropriate, encyclopaedic ways to indicate that his claims are widely disputed. And the less we duplicate discussion, the less we *have* to deal with this problem.

• General structuring. This section is all over the place. -- Calair 00:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

In each of the six comics, Dr. Alberto Rivera's character claims that the Vatican is behind many evil acts throughout history such as World War I and World War II. In the first comic Rivera claims that he was a Catholic priest and he tells how he left the Catholic Church. In the second comic "Double Cross," Rivera tells how he went to London and rescued his sister from a nunnery. In that comic, he also claims that the Vatican is trying to kill him. In "The Godfathers," Rivera claims that the Catholic Church founded Communism and Nazism and tried to destroy the Jews. In "The Force," Rivera's character claims that the Catholic Church is using Occult power to destroy the souls of Her followers. In "The Four Horsemen", Rivera claims that the Vatican persecuted Christians and is using organisations to do its work. In "The Prophet," Rivera claims that the Catholic Church helped start Islam to destroy the Jews so that the Vatican could move its headquarters to Jerusalem. (It should be noted that research by Christianity Today and other evangelical publications has revealed that Rivera was never ordained as a Catholic priest.) It should also be noted that the majority of evangelical Christians are either uncomfortable with, or adamently opposed to, both Chick's allegedly hate-filled message and his methods...

At least one tract has been changed after correspondence revealed Jack Chick had no evidence for the statement it contained. In 'The Death Cookie', Jack Chick describes the consecration of wafers in ancient Egypt. It contained the line 'They called this process transubstantiation'. After being pressed on the issue, the publishers contacted Jack and found that it had indeed been based on no verifiable evidence. The new tract now reads 'This is called transubstantiation'. -- Calair 00:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

There's never been a photograph of him? THat's a huge claim to make, five seconds on google gives me http://www.havelshouseofhistory.com/Chick,%20Jack%20T..jpg at the very least ((c. 1920s, California-Alive). Christian Cartoonist. Had a conversion experience on his honeymoon, 1948.) Sherurcij ^{( talk) ( Terrorist Wikiproject)} 16:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

That site looks like it could as easily be a "own a piece of history!" scam site as reputable. Either way, the picture is terrible and unverifiable. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

There used to be a site that archived all of his strips, and it had a photo of him before they took it down. He looked sort of like a live-action Ned Flanders. Felicity4711 22:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

lol, happen to remember the url at all - archive.org likely has a cached version of the site stored :) Sherurcij ^{( talk) ( Terrorist Wikiproject)} 19:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I have a photograph of Chick taken at the Victory Baptist Church, it has now been removed from the website but I obtained a copy of it here http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=146273 If that copy is also removed, I have a copy on my hard-drive. Simon Rafe (Webmaster, Saint Michael's Media)

I've removed a number of external links, as they were becoming excessive. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a repository of links; the guidelines at WP:EL and the previous link point out that they should be kept at a representative minimum. Tijuana Brass 03:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC) The matter of what can be considered "excessive" comes into question. Taking into account the size of this article and the amount of controversy, a dozen or so anti-Chick links doesn't seem excessive, while a single link can hardly be "representative". I also fail to see how zero pro-Chick links could fit the definition of "representative". That collection of external links certainly doesn't "dwarf" the article, and each one contributes its own unique perspective, distinct from what is already covered in the article. -- Eldritch 06:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

While I agree the link situation was getting out of hand it does NOT excuse the removal of REVIEW sites like Enter the Jabberwock Trick Tracts: The Truth Behind Those Little Comics and especially the Los Angeles Magazine article by Robert Ito. Reviews links are perfectly valid under WP:EL even if the reviewers allow blogs to their reviews. There is NO REASON to delete the Robert Ito's article link, except to hide reviews of Jack Chick's positions. NONE.-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 12:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

These 1953-1955 single panel "Times Have Changed" cartoons were written by P. S. Clayton and drawn by Jack Chick. Sort of like a cross between "The Flintstones" and "B.C."---but older than both!

http://strippersguide.blogspot.com/2008/12/obscurity-of-day-times-have-changed.html

http://library.osu.edu/blogs/cartoons/2013/05/16/found-in-the-collection-jack-t-chicks-times-have-changed/#comment-5982

A mention of these single panel cartoons should be in this article, as they did appear in U.S. newspapers.

Google books has nearly 100 hits and Google news has a few. Benji boi 12:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

here.

here.

I removed this as unsupported but believe it's true and should be re-added with better writing and ref. "He also opposes both Christian and secular Rock Music, believing that it's pagan and will lead teenagers to hell." Benji boi 00:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Chick expressly states this in his 1989 track Angels?. He even has Lew Siffer claim he invented Christian Rock. It really hard to tell what's worst in the track: the dialogue, the plot, or the pun on Satan's name.-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 11:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for removing the Jack Chick quotes that said something like "god was using him to help other find the way" it was full of that quotes until recently. Good job, I appreciate it very much. Could anyone help me out with the Spanish article? I'm new at this and it's freaking me out, because every time I remove the vandalism, it comes again and I don't know how to lock the page. Thank you. Alejandro Alatorre Vargaslugo ( talk) 04:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

See if you can apply a "template" to label the article as frequently vandalized, and ask an admin for help. As for the vandalism itself, if you don't already know how, I suggest you learn how to revert. —  NRen2k5^{( TALK)}, 12:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The only cite for the statement about Chick being the most published author in the world is a bare assertion from Catholic Answers. If nobody can come up with better support for that statement I'm going to go ahead and remove it. —  NRen2k5^{( TALK)}, 01:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the claims of "most-sold comic book author" or "500 million tracts" are accurate. Claims that large need better sources than the ones we have, especially on such a controversial subject. (For comparison, there have only been 400 million Harry Potter books sold.) -- Jedravent ( talk) 20:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

There are two third-party references to support the claim that 500 million have been sold - though both references are somewhat informal. Personally I am inclined to believe the figure: it seems that there are people who buy the things by the thousand! BreathingMeat ( talk) 03:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Somewhat informal? Both references are just parrotting a sensationalist claim from Jack Chick's own publishing company. And that claim is dubious. The people who buy the tracts generally don't read them. They buy them by the hundreds and thousands to hand out to people on street corners, at sports games, etc. where they promptly are thrown in the trash. My point being that the number of tracts printed/bought doesn't say anything about his popularity. —  NRen2k5^{( TALK)}, 11:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The 500 million figure is actually grossly out of date. Chick Publications has conservatively produced over 800 million as of Summer of 2008 (according to their own representatives). They installed a new web printer in 2006 that allows them to produce over a million a week when desired, and at even cheaper prices (although the cost of paper and energy have increased). I've seen this thing operate. There is film footage of it in the new documentary (God's Cartoonist) and it produces multiple tracts at a very high rate of speed. Of course, this does not mean people read them or that they are important, but third parties are buying them and passing them out by the truckload every week. The arguement could be made that his tracts have a greater impact on readers than most books because a small % actually convert and radicallly change their lifestyles. (It's a small %, but a larger % than most authors affect their readers). People can debate this influence as bad or good, but it's dramatic either way. Chick has found a nitch, refined it and exploited it very effectively. His tracts are everywhere in the third world, in over 100 different languages, and even wordless tracts are made for places they can't read. Poor people read and often pass them on to friends, so although many are thrown away or lost, many others are passed along like chain letters until they are worn out. It's quite an interesting way to get their message out! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.254.172.245 ( talk) 04:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Really? I've been to my fair share of 'third world' countries and I've never seen any tracts or heard his name mentioned. And I lived in a town which believes pretty much everything he does too for a year and never heard of him. 86.131.100.36 ( talk) 01:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I suspect SineBot is just reporting what is said at the Jack Chick page. This is why I have restored the links to two sites critical to him. The The Jack Chick Universe for example points out "On their Web Site they claim that Chick Tracts are available in virtually any written language. However this is a bit misleading. Most of his comics are available in the more common languages such as English, French, German and Spanish, but as you get to the lesser-known tongues, the number of comic titles falls off dramatically. Actually, for the vast majority of the languages listed, there is only one title available: the ever-popular "This Was Your Life!"". I also have to agree with 86.131.100.36, as the ONLY place I have seen a Jack Track is on the internet.-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 21:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Coupla things - that comment was from 86.131.100.36, not Sinebot

I've had to remove those links per WP:EL, and

We go by verifiability not truth. If there is a reliable source that disputes what we currently have then we work to reconcile the difference. -- Banjeboi 02:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The various article Trick Tracts use verifiability references such as the University of Virginia, a museum site, The straight dope, as well as several others. If those don't met verifiability guidelines then what the blazes does?!-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 12:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

We have a few issues here but the main hurdle that prevents those links is the external link policy - that is, any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a wp:Featured article. Those links might be useful for the article's content but are not suitable as links. -- Banjeboi 22:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

This is totally non sequitur tap dancing. EL also allows "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews." as well as "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." You cannot use an source that fails the reliable sources test within an article except under within very narrow guidelines. Both the links full under these guidelines under EL.-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 15:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I should mention that by a literally reading of EL the link to Chick Publications website would have to be removed as well per "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research.", perhaps "Links mainly intended to promote a website", perhaps "Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising.", and "Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article." Since this page is about Jack Chick himself the Chick Publications website would seem to fail this final test because it is mainly about his tracks (it would be a suitable link for the Chick Tracts article if that thing wasn't a total train wreck).-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 15:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

There is the letter and also the spirit of policies - why we do or don't do something. Policies are created by community consensus over time and there are exceptions. On a WP:BLP there will be less wiggle room for links that seem to serve only to disparage the subject. These could potentially be used as sources or for critical commentary . -- Banjeboi 17:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

When WP:BLP actually say something substantial rather than some vague "higher standard" then that issue can be kicked about. Right now there is not much there to work with other than a link back to EL and nothing there says external links cannot be critical of a living person's work only that you cannot use links that are "derogatory". If you want to get right down to it nearly all the external links for or against could be said to violate EL by the spirit and letter of the policy. I don't think WP:BLP was meant to be used as a way to remove criticism of a living person which is how it is being used. You are right in that a criticism section needs to be added to salvage some of the better links.-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 11:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually a criticism section should not be added. It's a sign that an article is poorly written and POV. Instead appropriate criticism should be presented in a NPOV manner alongside the content the criticism addresses. The Chick articles have a long history of being used as a WP:coatrack and everyone is better served by simply presenting reliable sourced content and letting the readers decide for themsleves what to think. On BLP we trend towards a conservative approach. I think you'll find reliable sourced criticism is welcome when present NPOV. -- Banjeboi 17:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

(remove indent) The key words there are "reliable sourced". Most of the information in Chick's own tracks is horrorable sourced in terms of reliability. Take "Big Daddy." for example which uses Kent Hovind (Panel 14) as a reference despite the fact the man got his post high school degrees (including his "doctorate") from unaccredited institutions and this is to back up the insane claim that KNM-ER 1470 was a "normal human skull" found in rock 212 million years old both of which are totally false (Leakey R.E. (1973) "Evidence for an advanced Plio-Pleistocene Hominid from East Rudolf, Kenya." Nature, 242:447-50). Then you have tracks like "Kiss the Protestants Good-bye" which make such insane black helicopter Illuminati-level conspiracy claims such as "All stops were pulled to block the book, "Alberto". Rome sent priests into every area of Spain to remove all records of Dr. Rivera's existence." (page 21) that Chick Publications doesn't even offer them anymore. No, the Chick articles have not be used as a WP:coatrack but rather people have been trying to put in links showing that the information in those tracks is most often than often totally wrong when it isn't misleading.-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 23:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Wonder when he'll die? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.2.125 ( talk) 20:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Given how the artwork has varied over the years (see "Who (or what) is Jack Chick?") I have to wonder how much input he has on the tracts these days.-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 23:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Going over one of the sites critical of jack Chick I found that Hovind's claim of "It has never been against the law the teach the Bible or creation in public schools" are WRONG. Abington Township School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) declared school sponsored reading of the Bible to be unconstitutional (ie against the law) and Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987) stated that teaching creationism in public schools was unconstitutional (ie against the law).

So what do we do when a reference Chick uses is factually wrong?-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 12:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, we point that out carefully. Something like "X claims that Y is not illegal even though Z says otherwise". That "Z" happens to be a court decision makes the fact that it's illegal quite solid, but doesn't break neutrality. Farsight001 ( talk) 13:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, that makes sense. The only problem is that so many of Chick's claims are factually wrong the disclaimers alone would like require another article. Take Big Daddy which has Hovind as it only reference, for example. Hovind's claims are so bad that just going to relevant articles by accepted professionals (never mind the academic journals they also published in) is enough to discredit them.

Then you have tracks like There Go The Dinosaurs that has no references other than scripture and don't even make logical sense. There Go The Dinosaurs claims that the dinosaurs died because the air changed due to the flood killing off the majority of plants slowing down the dinosaurs and making them easier to catch. The problem with that claim is no dinosaur equaled the size of a whale and it certainly doesn't explain why dinosaurs elephant size or smaller didn't survive into recorded history.-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 21:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

You have a point in saying that there would then need to be a whole lot of disclaimers. I'm thinking that since this is an article about the man himself, that perhaps we shouldn't go into so much specifics regarding the tracts as they have their own article. He is famous for the tracts and for being a lying *bleep* in them, which should be talked about. In that regard, mention of a few of his claims and the subsequent "disclaimers". This would keep it to a minimum so we wouldn't clutter up this article or have the need to start another one.

Though to be honest, I would actually love a "factual innacuracies found in Chick tracts" article. It would be nice to compile a lot of them in an easy to read page. I will think more on how to improve this article. Farsight001 ( talk) 23:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Well there is the Chick tract page that looks like little more than a sounding board for his tracts. IMHO that page has little reason to exist as much of what it deals with is already covered in either here or Chick Publications.-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 08:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Could we please get a real photo for the article? The cartoon isn't going to cut it. -- 98.232.188.173 ( talk) 08:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by isn't going to cut it, but Jack Chick is a gigantic recluse. There literally are no confirmed pictures of him, and frankly, some doubt as to whether or not he is even still alive. We work with what we have. The current sketch is by Jimmy Akin, a guy who has at least met Chick. It's really the best we can do. Farsight001 ( talk) 08:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at the October 12, 1974 article in the PROGRESS BULLETIN, published in Pomona, California, which has a photograph of Jack Chick. The article is entitled "Cartoonist to Appear at Central." Here's the link: http://www.newspapers.com/newspage/71733430 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.146.2 ( talk) 18:03, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

<<Many Catholic and Protestant organizations consider Chick to be intensely anti-Catholic, based on his various claims about the Roman Catholic Church.[46>> I think this sentence and the ones following it are kind of odd. The article uses the term anti-Catholic like it's a slur, but anyone who is Protestant is anti-Catholic. That's what it means to be Protestant. Is there a better way of getting whatever it is that we're trying to get across than using a neutral term as though it were a slur? 198.229.242.182 ( talk) 04:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Anti-Catholic is not a neutral term. Elizium23 ( talk) 05:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Anti-Catholic is a perfectly neutral term, one which he and many others wear like a badge of honor. Farsight001 ( talk) 21:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Anti-Catholic does not have the definition offered by the IP. Elizium23 ( talk) 22:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

This article makes a claim about the possible identity of Chick and a recent edit inserted this speculation into the article. I nearly removed it outright; this is a WP:BLP and "exceptional claims require exceptional sources". I chose to leave it in for now, but clearly attributing the opinion to the author by name. I would welcome further opinions on the passage here. Elizium23 ( talk) 05:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

as an aside, a casual user already familiar with Crumb, or who takes the link to his article would likely be left entirely counfounded as to the basis of the speculation. a half sentence summating the source's line of thought is probably warranted. Asdf98761 ( talk) 01:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm really confused if I'm actually in an edit war about this. Were there a medal for being anti-Catholic, Jack Chick would be sad if he didn't win it, according to everything I know about him. -- Kendrick7 ^talk 00:10, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, please stop edit warring. This is much more about how categories work on Wikipedia, and as far as category policy goes, the categorization was clearly inappropriate. I think your appeal to WP:IAR is also misguided. St Anselm ( talk) 01:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Please instead justify your removal of the category, per WP:BURO. You have to be a unique sort of insane to suggest Jack Chick isn't opposed to Catholicism in a rather virulent and insensitive way. -- Kendrick7 ^talk 04:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The Nightmare World of Jack T. Chick at Catholic Answers documents Chick's anti-Catholicism

Philip Jenkins 2003 Oxford University Press The New Anti-Catholicism : The Last Acceptable Prejudice book identifies Chick as among anti-Catholic on page 25.

Gary Metz, “Jack Chick's Anti-Catholic Alberto Comic Book is Exposed as a Fraud,” Christianity Today 25(5) provides even more documentation.-- 216.31.124.219 ( talk) 16:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The category description itself says "It must not include articles about individuals, groups or media that are allegedly anti-Catholic. Repeat: articles about individuals, groups, or media must not be placed in this category.". I have removed the category. Do not restore it. Elizium23 ( talk) 16:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:BURO "instructions" on that category do not apply to consensus here. -- Kendrick7 ^talk 04:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

What part of WP:BURO are you referring to? I don't see anything there of relevance to this issue. St Anselm ( talk) 05:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I guess a serious downside of being a bureaucrat is that you can't even understand that you are acting like one. "Written rules do not themselves set accepted practice." -- Kendrick7 ^talk 13:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I would have thought that the edit warriors would have backed down, or at least become open to a discussion on the merits, during, or even after, the recent page protection. Alas. -- Kendrick7 ^talk 06:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, especially since a few months ago you were blocked for edit warring on this very article. St Anselm ( talk) 06:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I have flagged this article to be vetted for NPOV.

Using a newspaper quote to condemn someone in the first paragraph of his bio seems very improper. Shouldn't the first paragraph be more definition-like and consist of FACTS?

If you want to include criticisms of a person, they should be grouped somewhere down below. And the criticisms should be balanced by praise (if any exists). We should see positive and negative views of the subject.

PaulSank ( talk) 16:15, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

First of all, grouping criticism is discouraged. Its supposed to be dispersed throughout the article.

Second, the lede, or the opening of the paragraph, is supposed to basically be a summary of the rest of the article. Furthermore, that the newspaper said what it said is a fact.

Third, npov policy dictates not that praise and criticism be balanced equally, but rather that it be balanced according to the balance of reliable sources. If they are heavily critical, as is the case here, then the article is supposed to be heavily critical. Farsight001 ( talk) 17:18, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the template. It's inclusion is based on a fundamental misconception about the WP:NPOV policy. If you want to come back with some actual evidence in the form of reliably sourced content to demonstrate that the article does not comply with policy then fine, but articles shouldn't be tagged based on misunderstandings policy and assertions that something is "very improper". Sean.hoyland - talk 16:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0004up.asp

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers. — ^{cyberbot II} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I have removed this picture of Chick: File:Jack T Chick and Pastor Bob Nogalski.jpg.

The reasons are as follows. Firstly, although I am assuming good faith, I do not know on what authority the man standing at the left is said to be Chick. Some caution has to be used, given that Chick is a recluse; I do not think it unreasonable to ask for more information. Secondly, I believe it is possible that the man on the left could be wearing a mask. The eyes, for instance, do not seem natural. The picture is of sufficiently poor quality that one cannot easily tell whether a mask is being worn or not. Finally, I believe that even if that image is of Chick, it is an inappropriate image to use in this article. It reflects the article subject in a less-than-serious light, and it doesn't seem neutral or appropriate to use it here. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 02:54, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

An IP editor restored the picture here, without bothering to discuss the issue on the talk page. The user's comment was, "Restore picture that was removed based on personal feelings rather than Wikipedia policy (no one is wearing a mask and no other picture is available and thus it should be used regardless if it reflects badly on the subject - which is also subjective"). I reject every part of that comment. The picture raises obvious BLP concerns. The statement that no one is wearing a mask is based on no evidence, and the assertion that the man on the left actually is Jack Chick is also based on no evidence. It seems that the user who originally added the picture to the article (DavidSpencer.ca) simply took it from a website without real evidence it is actually Chick. I respectfully suggest that the user in question has some explaining to do. The assertion that the picture should be used "regardless if it reflects badly on the subject" is foolish and irresponsible. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 03:59, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

The original source of the image is visible here. Note the absence of real evidence of any kind at all that the man on the left is Chick. The website itself hardly qualifies as reliable under WP:RS. Also, for whatever it's worth, someone might want to view the discussion here, when the image appeared years ago. None of the commentators in the discussion suggest that the man on the left is wearing a mask, but several noted that the image seems strange and may have been falsified. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 08:16, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Here's the discussion so far. I basically just think like things belong with like things, and by putting one man's opinion next to another man's definition, it suggests that opinion defines him. Seems incongruent and unduly weighted. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Of the 57 footnotes in this article almost 3/4 appear to be related to Chick publications in one form or other. Just saying. Mannanan51 ( talk) 04:40, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jack T. Chick. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160409021755/http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/meet-jack-chick to http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/meet-jack-chick

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{ Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.— ^{cyberbot II} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:49, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Given Chick's advanced age, and changes in style and substance to recent tracts (and other works) is it not reasonable to at least consider that he has possibly died? If he had in fact died it is unlikely ever to be confirmed through official channels. Even if not Changed to say "deceased" is it not worth adding a note under age or to have a section referencing suspicions that he may have died and/or at least reference theories that "Jack T. Chick" was a pseudonym or has become a pseudonym in recent years Spikelops ( talk) 01:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

@ Spikelops: Nobody is going to put "probably dead" or something like that without, at a bare minimum, a reliable source. Do you have any? RunnyAmiga ※ talk 01:55, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

@ RunnyAmiga: I understand and agree with that. But given the possibility that which Chick does die it will go unreported, along with inconsistencies in things allegedly coming from him, I think it may be prudent to at least entertain the idea that he may be dead or that it may no longer be the same person as it was in the 70s Spikelops ( talk) 02:00, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to "entertain" such speculation. Jonathunder ( talk) 02:22, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

@ Spikelops: If text saying this were added and kept, Chick or his family would have really, really strong grounds to sue Wikipedia into poverty and believe it or not, that would be true even if Chick were dead and/or getting credit for another person's work. Adding theories like these is literally the exact opposite of what the word "prudent" means so no, it's not going to happen. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 19:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

@ RunnyAmiga: -- I'm not saying that this is because of @ Spikelops:'s thread, but it does seem that Chick actually did die less than a month after this discussion was made. My condolences to his loved ones. I will seek an appropriate source to ensure that this material is valid for inclusion. Alicb ( talk) 19:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Do you have an obit or news source? I couldn't find one. Until shown otherwise, this article remains subject to BLP policies. Jonathunder ( talk) 19:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@ Jonathunder: - I don't have an obit or a news source. I haven't yet included any material relating to Chick's alleged passing into the article; as I said earlier, I am currently seeking an appropriate source to ensure that the material is valid for inclusion. Alicb ( talk) 19:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

OK, it seems as if the story stems from this tweet. I am not sure that social media sites are an appropriate reliable source in a BLP or anywhere else though and I have no earthly idea how to verify that this twitter account is even officially related to the Chick organization. The other tweets on that page are surreal and bizarre, but that could still be legitimate and not a troll. Until and unless I have more policy guidance or an obituary then my suggestion is to not include this material right now. Alicb ( talk) 19:40, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Given that the link in that tweet is broken and that Chick's biography on his own website gives information about his wife's death but not his, skepticism is warranted. Jonathunder ( talk) 19:53, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Chick Publications posted an announcement on their Facebook page today. Kaleb70 ( talk) 20:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@ Kaleb70: Is that Facebook page verified? I don't even know if Facebook has anything like Twitter's blue badge but it might make a difference with whether or not this can be used as a source. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 20:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

One strange thing about that unverified Facebook post is the reference to his "widow". His website says his wife died years ago. Jonathunder ( talk) 20:18, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@ Jonathunder: Whoa. Good catch. That Facebook page saying he's dead is linked at the bottom of chick.com, which is definitely the company's website. But on second thought, "his widow?" What? At this point, with all the conflicting information, I think we ought to wait until a decent-sized media outlet confirms it with a source that isn't that Facebook post. I'm seeing a few reliable sources saying he's dead but they all seem to have gotten it from Facebook. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 20:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

It is not a verified account, but chick.com links to both their Facebook page and Twitter account, both of which carry the announcement. I believe the website's biography is simply out-of-date, since even the Wikipedia article says that he remarried after his wife died in 1998. Kaleb70 ( talk) 20:39, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Is it not obvious that the whole Chick Mythos is a troll? It's parody. Do people not read Swift's A Modest Proposal in school anymore? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.151.204 ( talk) 10:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The consensus of those who have studied him is that Chick believes everything he writes. He isn't a troll. 66.76.242.44 ( talk) 23:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I noticed the facebook death announcement http://www.facebook.com/chicktracts mentions a widow. But Lynn Chick died years ago. Anyone have more information on this to add? 172.58.73.253 ( talk) 20:37, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

That's been addressed above. He remarried. I missed that too. Jonathunder ( talk) 23:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Jimmy Akins briefly met Chick's second wife at the premiere of The Light of the World, and wrote about it at http://www.jimmyakin.org/. He described her as a younger (well, younger than Jack) Asian woman and quite pretty. 66.76.242.44 ( talk) 23:52, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I think it would help to reorganize how we're presenting information about Chick and his work. Right now there are two articles (this and Chick tract) each trying to cover the same subject matter (Chick's work). I think it would be better to have this article focus on Jack Chick the person, and have another article about Chick Publications, covering the tracts and the other work published by that corporation (which is a separate entity, and likely to continue). The shortage of reliable information about Chick himself would mean that this article would be likewise short, referring the reader to the article about his publications to learn more about those and the views expressed in them. - Jason A. Quest ( talk) 14:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I think we are dealing with unnecessary content forks. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 15:00, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

A standard way to avoid content fork in such situations is to organize information per Wikipedia:Summary Style. Staszek Lem ( talk) 21:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

The content is already forked. I'm suggesting that it be done better. - Jason A. Quest ( talk) 03:34, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I've been hearing pings through the interwebs that Chick is deceased now (probably tried to keep secret so us evil Catholics can't desecrate his body). I doubt we could get a source for it, but he is rather old, and people as reclusive as him tend to live shorter lives, so could we put a "possibly deceased" in the info box or a blurb in the article mentioning that he's such a recluse that no one knows for sure? Or would that be a no no? Obviously, either way, we err on the side of caution and still treat this like a BLP. Farsight001 ( talk) 23:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Sources?   Will Beback  talk  23:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I got none. It's just a fan of Chick here and an opponent there. Per above, I don't think we'd ever know when it really happened, which makes me partially wonder if he actually has died. Farsight001 ( talk) 00:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

According to the CDC, about 13% of people over 85 die every year, which I suppose means that any 85-year old has at least a 87% chance of making it to 87. Those who live long tend to keep living. I've set up an alert request with a newspaper archive, so if it's mentioned there I'll catch it.   Will Beback  talk  01:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Jack Chick died on October 23, 2016 (aged 92). At least he won't have to experience another Halloween... -- Guy Macon ( talk) 10:24, 26 October 2016 (UTC)