Talk:Jack Chick

message: 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)
thread_title:  Carol Chick date of death incorrect? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: 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,  Cheers, gnu57 22:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. StAnselm (talk) 23:00, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)

text:  Agree StAnselm - 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)

text: There's longstanding consensus against grouping people in categories like "Antisemites", "Islamophobes", "Homophobes", "Racists", etc. (Here are some past discussions: ). 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, gnu57 02:59, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  gnu - thanks for the clarification! Ckruschke (talk) 17:58, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Catholicism category 

message: "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)
thread_title:  His name is Jack T. Chick. 

message: “…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)
thread_title:  KJV Only People/Not 1611, it is a newer Version 1769