Talk:Chick tract: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 04:01, 23 August 2020

Christianity C‑class 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 articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comics: United States C‑class Low‑importance

	Comics portal 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 articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by United States comics work group.

Creationism B‑class 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 articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1, 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

¿Should the article mention that ChickTracts are popular among atheists for their campiness?

This is a 3-year-old topic. Please start a new section if you want to propose changes to the current article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am not sure whether the article should mention the popularity of ChickTracks among atheists. Some atheists like Sam Mulvey of the PodCast "¡Ask An Theist!" collect ChickTracks. I am not certain that this belongs in the article or not. It seems like it belongs in the section Parodies and Popular Culture.

76.102.233.65 (talk) 07:31, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that one guy with a podcast is either notable or equates to the tracks being "popular among atheists".

However, if you could source this in order to prove it is actually a "thing", that would be an interesting note. I'm sure Chick would be rolling in his grave to hear it…

Yours - Ckruschke (talk) 17:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]

Sam Mulvey is an example At no point did I propose the section " ¡Sam Mulvey Collects ChickTracks!".

76.102.233.65 (talk) 13:56, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can only mention that if we have a reliable source that says that they are popular among atheists for their campiness. I don't think it's enough to find one atheist who collects them, though; there needs to be documentation that someone has observed this as a trend rather than finding individual examples. After all, we can't list everyone or even every type of person who collects Chick tracts in this article. Alicb (talk)

I an atheist and all of my friends who are atheists love to read these crazy tracts. I personally do not collect them. I do not see the point in collecting them because they are everywhere. You may not believe it, but ChickTracts are popular among atheists. I am not sure this belongs in the article, but I never heard of a ChickTract converting an atheist.

76.102.233.65 (talk) 13:56, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately stating that you and your friends think Chick Tracts are humorous is what's called Original Research and cannot be included in an encyclopedic site such as Wikipedia. If you can find a magazine article or book that recounts something like that, you'd be great. Ckruschke (talk) 18:49, 8 November 2016 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]

Atheist YouTube pair Hugo and Jake do a popular series in which they read and criticize Chick Tracts both in and out of character and devise additional dialogue for the stories. I don't know if this is Wikipedia-worthy or not, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.25.104.174 (talk) 01:34, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does this meet your criteria of campiness? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 13:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube videos aren't considered viable citations by Wikipedia. It might as well be two people talking on Twitter. Ckruschke (talk) 19:34, 13 May 2020 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]

Ckruschke, it is not YouTube but the fact that an unverified channel has published something that may well be a copyright violation. With YouTube and Twitter, each channel/account must be considered on its own merits. Remember that ABC News has a presence in both places, for example; ABC's videos or Tweets are just as reliable as its website posts. Elizium23 (talk) 19:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Chick tract. 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 this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.catholic.com/library/sr_chick_tracts.asp
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060929071718/http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/totalstab.htm to http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/totalstab.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://wnewsj.com/Main.asp?SectionID=49&SubSectionID=156&ArticleID=194019

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:37, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chick tract. 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 this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:38, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies, Criticism

There is a lot of redundancy and incoherence in the article, in large part because these two sections are independent of each other and have a great big 'in this and that' in between them. I have no time to merge them tonight. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 03:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two years late, but you're right. I'd be glad to merge the two sections. I think the "Controversies" section should include a section on Chick Publications' Islamophobic beliefs too. Dustytumble (talk) 04:01, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 90: / Line 90: @@
 ==Controversies, Criticism==
 There is a lot of redundancy and incoherence in the article, in large part because these two sections are independent of each other and have a great big 'in this and that' in between them. I have no time to merge them tonight. [[User:ZarhanFastfire|ZarhanFastfire]] ([[User talk:ZarhanFastfire|talk]]) 03:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
+::Two years late, but you're right. I'd be glad to merge the two sections. I think the "Controversies" section should include a section on Chick Publications' Islamophobic beliefs too. [[User:Dustytumble|Dustytumble]] ([[User talk:Dustytumble|talk]]) 04:01, 23 August 2020 (UTC)