Talk:Chick Publications

This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Comics Low‑importance This redirect 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 articles Low This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Religion: Interfaith This redirect is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive. Christianity Low‑importance Low This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. California: Inland Empire Low‑importance This redirect 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 articles Low This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This redirect is supported by Inland Empire task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Hi everyone,

I have created a navbox, {{Chick Publications Navbox}}, with the purpose of holding pages related to Chick Publications.

There used to be a category for this. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 February 19#Category:Chick Publications.

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 11:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have just stripped out all of the external links except the official website of the subject, as there were some spammy and gossipy links (a movie advertisement, a couple of interviews with the founder of the company), etc., along with several "criticisms" of the subject which made the external links section very

I have to ask in what way, exactly, does the stripping out of all critical links fix the undue issue you see? Societies' and expert's opinions of Chick Publications are EXTREMELY low. Per NPOV policy, most of this article actually should be weighed critically. Removing all critical external links actually creates undue weight, not removes it.Farsight001 (talk) 09:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The external links section was entirely negative and undue, and the article already seems to address the positive and negative per

WP:NPOV. The external links were to biased commentaries which aren't appropriate anyway; if they are useful, they should be refactored as references and used to add to the neutral coverage of the topic as I described. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

No it was not entirely negative. As you said, it had the link to chick's official website. That is one positive link, which is, frankly, still undue in the positive direction because of the sheer level of negative attitude towards Chick. (not that it's reasonable to remove that link though)Farsight001 (talk) 11:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am unenthused about external generally. Why are they there at all? Can something not be cited in the text? Innuendo? Or what? either it should be in the text as "Catholics respond by saying..." or "Supporters says that..." or "Chick replies that..." and we can cite the site. (!?) Anyway, a large number of externals are simply put-offs. No one even tries to reference them.

My thought is, either extract whatever useful information is there for the article, or let them go. Student7 (talk) 11:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the external links fit

WP:EL which they do there is no reason to delete them.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

One of the links added to the page (Footnote #63) now leads to a porn site - the link hasn't been changed but for some reason it now redirects to the improper page. I have left the URL up, just removed the hotlink; perhaps someone more familiar with the original source can update the URL. 68.146.64.9 (talk) 22:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tried using Internet Archive but it kept timing out. I removed the URL altogether and replaced it with the the actual name of the original site. I will keep trying to see if I can get a Internet Archive reference we can use but it generally doesn't have much luck with picture heavy sites.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a little bit more about factually and objectively verifiably preposterous nonsense in Chick publications, such as IHS standing for Isis-Horus-Set (or whatever it is), etc. Also, some of the tracts (such as "The Death Cookie") have developed a kind of camp status among a decidedly non-pious audience... AnonMoos (talk) 21:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is there are few reliable sources that talk about the details of the tracks and those that do don't go into enough detail.

Trick Tracts: The Truth Behind Those Little Comics which points out factual errors in the tracts is borderline and enter the jabberwock has much the same problems.

A related problem is that many times there are no reference to any of the claims in the tracks other than scripture and the few times there are (such as Big Daddy) the source is of very poor quality.

Many of the tracks are sloppy in their handling of their subject matter (such as There go the Dinosaurs) that anyone with a reasonable reference book can rip the track to shreds just on the grounds of basic logic. In the case of There go the Dinosaurs it is claimed that the flood wiped out most of the plants reducing the amount of oxygen available to the dinosaurs making them lethargic. The problem is the track either ignores or is ignorant of the fact that not all Dinosaurs were big-- Archaeopteryx discovered in 1861 is about the size of a modern chicken, Velociraptor discovered in 1923 is the size of a small dog, and Deinonychus discovered in 1931 is roughly man sized. The whole premise of the track falls about with the smallest bit of actual research. This is the case with many of the tracks and explains why there is so little in reliable sources against them--any good armchair researcher can tear most of them apart.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC