Talk:Jack Chick

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jack Chick article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4: 3 months

Biography: Arts and Entertainment

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Christianity Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comics: Creators / United States Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Related work groups:
/
	This article is supported by Comics creators work group.
	This article is supported by United States comics work group.

California Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Discrimination Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies

Religion: New religious movements Low‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Creationism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CreationismWikipedia:WikiProject CreationismTemplate:WikiProject CreationismCreationism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

John Mitchell (October 23, 2004). "A dose of small-minded hate". North Adams Transcript. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Carol Chick date of death incorrect?

Sorry I'm new at this.

This article lists his daughter Carol's death as 1998, not 2001.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/oct/25/jack-chick-christian-comic-cartoonist-death — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmschilling (talk • contribs) 14:26, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

The SPLC has a picture of Jack Chick at https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/ir162_briefs_mrchick.jpg should we use it here? 50.58.161.98 (talk) 17:20, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Catholicism category

@Ixocactus: Regarding this edit: it doesn't matter that Chick's anti-Catholicism is reliably sourced in the article text (and self-evident from his body of work): there is consensus against categorising individuals by their [alleged] biases. Please see the 2011 "bias categories" RfC; see also the guidance at Category:Anti-Catholicism in the United States, This category must not include articles about individuals, groups or media that are allegedly anti-Catholic. Cheers, gnu 57 22:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and it doesn't matter that lots of articles get added to the categories contrary to the consensus either. On the other hand, it is completely appropriate that Chick tract be included in the category. St Anselm (talk) 23:00, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. But I think that sources matters. He is a notorious anticatholic and his tracts too. We do not need weasel words nor wikilawyering here. Ixocactus (talk) 00:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree St Anselm - Chick's anti-catholic bent is well established - So why did you revert the edit to add the category back in? Ckruschke (talk) 19:06, 20 August 2020 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]

I'm not sure why there's such a debate about adding Jack Chick to Category:Anti-Catholicism in the United States. He seems to fit the bill. There are other evangelical authors like Dave Hunt who have been placed in that category. Dustytumble (talk) 23:28, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dustytumble: There's longstanding consensus against grouping people in categories like "Antisemites", "Islamophobes", "Homophobes", "Racists", etc. (Here are some past discussions: [1][2][3][4][5][6]). The 2011 RfC concluded that biographical articles should be omitted from "bias categories" more generally. I know various other biographical articles are in these categories right now (thank you for pointing out Dave Hunt); I've been checking through them gradually, as I have time. Cheers, gnu 57 02:59, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

gnu - thanks for the clarification! Ckruschke (talk) 17:58, 21 August 2020 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]

No. These past discussions don't clarify anything. They are about ugly deleted categories. This category will be not deleted. Sources matters. Ixocactus (talk) 21:52, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

His name is Jack T. Chick.

"Jack T. Chick" is name that Jack T. Chick inscribed on every Jack T. Chick tract he wrote. That's the name he used. It's the only name I ever knew him by. I can't bring myself to say or write "Jack Chick". He seemed to want the specificity of "Jack T. Chick", to avoid cross-coupling with possible other [in]famous Jack Chicks (even if there weren't any).

Searching Truepeoplesearch.com lists 20 people named "Jack Chick" in the USA, including the "Jack T Chick", Age 96, in Glendora CA (they register many deaths, but they also miss many). There could be many more nicknamed "Jack". ("While Jack is now a proper name in its own right, in English, it was traditionally used as a diminutive form of John. It can also be used as a diminutive for: Jacob, Jason, Jonathan, Jan, Johann, Johannes, Joachim, and sometimes for James, from French Jacques.") Truepeoplesearch counts 190 people named "John Chick" and 10 people named "Jacob Chick". (That's a lot of Jack Chicks.)

Findagrave.com lists 18 named "Jack Chick", including the "Jack Thomas Chick" (no grave photo). Also 171 named John Chick and 3 named Jacob Chick.

Move history (not one of which was discussed):

2002-08-12‎ Egoinos created page Jack Chick (397 bytes)
2008-02-25 Benjiboi moved page Jack Chick to Jack T. Chick over redirect (name of person used on all his publications)
2016-10-24 JasonAQuest moved page Jack T. Chick to Jack Chick over redirect: (most common way it's referred to WP:NAME)
2020-12-30T14:55:03 A876 moved page Jack Chick to Jack T. Chick over redirect: ("Jack T. Chick" is the author's name inscribed on every Jack T. Chick tract. it's the name he used and the only name i ever knew him by.')
2020-12-30T15:27:59‎ StAnselm moved page Jack T. Chick to Jack Chick over redirect: (reverted undiscussed move - we go with the common name rather than the published name, and "Jack Chick" is most common in news results)

Nondiscussion is not an offense, so why mention it first? You evaluated the move and decided that it made the article worse (which is actually the only valid reason for reverting). Finally, "we" is a dangerous euphemism for "you" (pedantry), "I" or royal "we" (autocracy), or editorial "we" (spokesman and gatekeeper).

Is it that simple? It's tempting to make something as simple as "the most common way it's referred to" or "most common in news results" the arbiter. But "most common" by whose count? Google is no arbiter; sometimes Bing inverts the preponderance. (Bing finds 13,500 results intitle:"Jack T. Chick" -Wikipedia, but it give no count for intitle:"Jack Chick" -Wikipedia because it thinks "Jack Chick" is his name (featuring the Wikipedia article (circular reference)).

And whose references should count? And does a newspaper article's title reflect what the newspaper deems his real name? Some articles list his name 2 or 3 ways – do I count the title name, the first mention, or every mention? One could survey people who've heard of the guy (like most people did, by finding his sordid tracts), given that my "survey of one" and our survey of five are inadequate. All his books, on chick.com and Amazon, are by Jack T. Chick. Books about him are split between Jack T. Chick and Jack Chick. Were they trying to put him down? Due weight? I'm not about to search gigabytes of discussion to find a "precedent".

I know his name. I assume a lot of other people do too. How about a statistic for type-in searches, on engines or on Wikipedia – how many "Jack T. Chick" and how many "Jack Chick"?

A consequence of deciding by a statistic is that writing his name the way he liked on every work simply wasn't enough.

If his name really mattered to him, I suppose it was his responsibility to campaign harder to get more "news results" to come up his way – at least statistically most of the time.

Counts:

Google News: "Jack T. Chick": About 135
Google News: "Jack T. Chick" -"Jack Chick": About 120
Google News: "Jack Chick": About 947
Google News: "Jack Chick" -"Jack T. Chick": About 1,460 (Subtraction adds in Google Search.)
Google News: intitle:"Jack T. Chick": 9 results (NYTimes, WaPo, Comics Alliance)
Google News: intitle:"Jack Chick": 36 results (LATimes, Smithsonian, Guardian, Vox, New Republic, Daily Beast, Vice)
Google: intitle:"Jack T. Chick" (verbatim): About 2,110
Google: intitle:"Jack T. Chick" -Wikipedia (verbatim): About 1,830
Google: intitle:"Jack Chick" (verbatim): About 4,270
Google: intitle:"Jack Chick" -Wikipedia (verbatim): About 3,600

WP:INITS: Middle names and initials: "Generally, use the most common format of a name used in reliable sources: if that is with a middle name or initials, make the Wikipedia article title conform to that format. Examples: John F. Kennedy, Thomas John Barnardo, George H. W. Bush, J. P. Morgan."

MOS:INITIALS: Initials: "Use initials in a personal name only if the name is commonly written that way." (Commonly written by whom? The person themself? Or editors and typesetters? (due weight?))

MOS:FULLNAME: First mention: "While the article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known, the subject's full name, if known, should usually be given in the lead sentence (including middle names, if known, or middle initials)." (And if he never used his middle name?)

Bottom line: If I'm right about how people think of him, and/or what weight should be given to what he called himself and how people remember him, I think this article should be named "Jack T. Chick", notwithstanding that numerically more media content calls him "Jack Chick". In conversation, people probably addressed him as "Jack" and introduced him as "Jack Chick", but I don't see a good reason or excuse for authors to shorten his written name when writing about him. -A876 (talk) 00:12, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KJV Only People/Not 1611, it is a newer Version 1769

“…almost all such printings presenting the standard text of 1769 extensively re-edited by Benjamin Blayney at Oxford, and nearly always omitting the books of the Apocrypha. Today the unqualified title "King James Version" usually indicates this Oxford standard text.” - Wikipedia The 1611 KJV version to the today’s 1769 KJV, reads more different than 1769 KJV to the 1984 NKJV. I have all three versions, the NKJV is based on a newer “Textus Receptus” than Erasmus or Stepen’s 1550.Easeltine (talk) 21:08, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]