This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Charles Chiniquy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Material from René_Vilatte was split to Charles Chiniquy on 2013-12-03T14:19:53. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. The former page's talk page can be accessed at Talk:René Vilatte. |
While nobody can deny that brevity is good, it should not be done at the expense of understanding and fairness, and should not take precedence (especially in such a short article!). The term "conversion" can generically denote changing from one believe system to another. However, brevity does not outweigh undesirable connotation. The word, for Catholics, specifically has the connotation that the change is to something true, and in the case of Chiniquy, Catholics do not consider him to have, strictly speaking, converted. A neutral point of view demands an alternate choice of words. Diligens 00:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
(Hopefully neutral - Diligens, please correct this if I have misrepresented you on anything.)
Diligens and Calair (me) are in disagreement on two points:
1. Whether it is appropriate to describe Chiniquy's shift from Catholicism to Presbyterianism as a 'conversion'.
Diligens has stated that before the 1960s, 'convert' carried a positive connotation (i.e. implying that Presbyterianism was a 'true faith' and Catholicism was not). I do not dispute this, and accept that it would be inappropriate for a Wikipedia article to make such an imputation. I believe we are both in agreement that it does not carry this connotation in modern usage (see examples of modern Catholic usage above).
Diligens has asserted that because of the pre-1960s usage, the word should not be used to describe Chiniquy's change of religion. I assert that pre-1960s usage should not have a bearing on how this article is written.*
Edits were made on this point here, here, and here.
*Except where handling quoted material influenced by that usage (not the case here).
2. Whether it is appropriate for this article to discuss connections between Chiniquy and modern-day figure Jack Chick. Relevant edit comparisons, in sequence: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5].
There was also some argument on whether this article should link to an e-text of Chiniquy's "50 Years...", but I think we are now agreed that it is OK for it to do so. -- Calair 01:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I came in from the requests for comment. I support the reference to Chick. If there are any notable modern figures whose work is significantly shaped by rebutting Chiniquy, they should be included, but I highly doubt there are any such. So it would be pointless to include a modern figure who is against Chiniquy (e.g., I imagine that the Pope would be against Chiniquy, but he probably never heard of the guy). But the influence on Chick is probably the most notable thing about Chiniquy. Also Diligens is assuming bad faith. A.J.A. 01:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
It is a principle of reason - it amounts to link spam to include in an article the mention of a man and his whole web site of a modern person such as Chick just because he, among so many other writings, just happens to sell some of Chiniquy's works. (two of them?) Why not link to Amazon.com? Linking to Chick's whole site, or to books for sale, also is link spam. The article is on Chiniquy, a man who lived 100 years ago, and should link only to his material found for free on the Net. (Personally, however, his materially is obscene and I couldn't in conscience link to it). You don't find the article on Adolf Hilter carry mention in the body of the article of people prominent for selling Hitler writings...and you can bet there are a lot of them. Just try it and see what you get.....your just deserts, and a confirmation of what I am saying here. - Diligens 03:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
(cut-and-pasting the following from the 'summary of disagreement' section, since that's not really the place for this argument - Calair.)
I would like to enter this discussion. I first learned of Chiniquy from a totally different source other than Jack Chick. I think mention of Jack Chick serves to generate bias in the article, because he is not highly regarded by very many people, including a good many Christians. I personally investigated the history of Chiniquy, talking, among other things, to a woman who worked at the Historical Society in Kamouraska. She had made a long-term study of Chiniquy, and filled in many blanks for me. I also contacted his congregation in St. Anne, and obtained a copy of their 100 year anniversary book. I subsequently talked to one of his nieces (I don't know if she was a great-niece or more, but she was born of the line of Chiniquy's brother.) I find this article in general to be highly biased, and contains a number of totally unverified claims, including claims of Chiniquy's comments on the Jesuits. The claim that Chiniquy claimed Abraham Lincoln was assassinated by Jesuits in particular is unsubstantiated. Chiniquy himself describes his suspension by at least one bishop as being the result of a demand that Chiniquy pay him obeisance, which Chiniquy declined to do. The bishop also demanded that he recant. Chiniquy did indeed write about the doctrines regarding Mary, the mother of Jesus, that he said were false. It was these doctrines that he says caused him to renounce Roman Catholicism. It is important to be careful to distinguish between what the real disagreement between Chiniquy and the bishop or bishops was. It would not be unexpected for a bishop to level charges of impropriety at him to cover up the real disagreement. Unless this can be substantiated, I have to call into question the entire objectivity of the article. I don't know how to flag it, but I would very much appreciate if someone would flag it for insufficient substantiation and documentation of some of the claims. Obviously Chiniquy was a controversial figure, and it would be inappropriate for one side of the debate to use Wikipedia to further its own agenda. Femcofounder 02:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
G Tandberg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grtandberg ( talk • contribs) 16:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I would appear within Wikipedia there is a great deal of dialog focuses on the conversion of Charles Chiniquy from Catholicism to Protestantism, ignoring the fact that Chiniquy was greatly concern over the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church as he found certain teaching to be in opposition to that what our Lord Jesus Christ commissioned his follower to teach. Within Christendom this is referred to as “Traditions of Men” and this is the issue to which Chiniquy struggled greatly, because he loved the Roman Catholic Church. Chiniquy was a Christian first, and would become a reluctant teacher of a Catholicism second. Be it known, within the ranks of Protestants you will also find teaching that also qualify as “Traditions of Men”, and we find such teachings to be disturbing to both our Lord, and to our soul.
Whether you consider yourself Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, etc., Christians strive above all to follow the examples of our Lord Jesus Christ. Above all Chiniquy understood The Church was not an organization or buildings, but defined by our Lord as those who followed Him...His Sheep. Below is an excerpt from Charles Chiniquy’s writings that should shed light on the circumstances of his excommunication from Roman Catholic Church. Thereafter Charles Chiniquy would be referred most unfavorably by the Pope in the Vatican, Bishops, and Catholic historians. One must search your heart to understand the truth of these matters.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Grtandberg ( talk • contribs) 15:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I have searched my heart and the facts. The fact is that Chiniquy was a fraud and a womanizer. He was always in trouble with every church he joined, for the same reasons. His accusations have no merit and he presents no evidence. He was a self-serving demagogue and bigot. 75.174.140.39 ( talk) 21:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Surely the heart is a good start point for a not biased article, isn't it?... With editors like this one we will have the more biased encyclopedia in the world! Chiniquy was not a womanizer but apparently the Catholic zealots don't want let the man rest in peace without slander his reputation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.230.120.128 ( talk) 07:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I added the {{
citation needed span}} in August 2013. It was removed but the source fails to support the claim about the first of what was to be called the "Christian Catholic Church".
The cited page failed verification. It does not claim to be the first of what was to be called the 'Christian Catholic Church'
, only that it was the "First board of trustees" of that particular corporation. No claim is made on that page that others had not used that name before. I added the {{
citation needed span}} again, with the old date. —
BoBoMisiu (
talk)
22:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi there I didn't really understand this part of the article... Maybe it could be made a bit clearer? "Chiniquy claimed that he was falsely accused by his superiors (and that Abraham Lincoln had come to his rescue), that the American Civil War was a plot against the United States of America by the Vatican, and that the Vatican was behind the Confederate cause, the death of President Lincoln and that Lincoln's assassins were faithful Roman Catholics ultimately serving Pope Pius IX." Thanks Jemmy2006 ( talk) 08:52, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Per standing Wikipedia policies, there is no need to include "Roman" in front of "Catholic" on this page, especially when linking to pages with a title that just says "Catholic". Further, Chiniquy's views seem to fall squarely under "anti-Catholic", hence my wikilink change in the lede.
Several contentious reverts have been made on both points above, so opening this thread for discussion here. natemup ( talk) 19:02, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
@ Natemup: Show me where the sourced content which refers to Catholics as Roman Catholics and to the Catholic Church as the Roman Catholic Church is in contrast with the WP policies WP:RS, WP:NOR, and WP:Burden. Moreover, the cited sources throughout the article report that Chiniquy was a well-known former Roman Catholic priest turned Protestant Christian and critic of the Roman Catholic Church and its doctrines, [1] but the paragraphs which refer to him as an anti-Catholic are still unsourced.
I'm not saying that he couldn't have been both things, but we need reliable sources as evidence for these informations; otherwise, we're just accusing a dead man of something that he never was. GenoV84 ( talk) 19:25, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
{{
cite magazine}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Charles Chiniquy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Material from René_Vilatte was split to Charles Chiniquy on 2013-12-03T14:19:53. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. The former page's talk page can be accessed at Talk:René Vilatte. |
While nobody can deny that brevity is good, it should not be done at the expense of understanding and fairness, and should not take precedence (especially in such a short article!). The term "conversion" can generically denote changing from one believe system to another. However, brevity does not outweigh undesirable connotation. The word, for Catholics, specifically has the connotation that the change is to something true, and in the case of Chiniquy, Catholics do not consider him to have, strictly speaking, converted. A neutral point of view demands an alternate choice of words. Diligens 00:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
(Hopefully neutral - Diligens, please correct this if I have misrepresented you on anything.)
Diligens and Calair (me) are in disagreement on two points:
1. Whether it is appropriate to describe Chiniquy's shift from Catholicism to Presbyterianism as a 'conversion'.
Diligens has stated that before the 1960s, 'convert' carried a positive connotation (i.e. implying that Presbyterianism was a 'true faith' and Catholicism was not). I do not dispute this, and accept that it would be inappropriate for a Wikipedia article to make such an imputation. I believe we are both in agreement that it does not carry this connotation in modern usage (see examples of modern Catholic usage above).
Diligens has asserted that because of the pre-1960s usage, the word should not be used to describe Chiniquy's change of religion. I assert that pre-1960s usage should not have a bearing on how this article is written.*
Edits were made on this point here, here, and here.
*Except where handling quoted material influenced by that usage (not the case here).
2. Whether it is appropriate for this article to discuss connections between Chiniquy and modern-day figure Jack Chick. Relevant edit comparisons, in sequence: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5].
There was also some argument on whether this article should link to an e-text of Chiniquy's "50 Years...", but I think we are now agreed that it is OK for it to do so. -- Calair 01:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I came in from the requests for comment. I support the reference to Chick. If there are any notable modern figures whose work is significantly shaped by rebutting Chiniquy, they should be included, but I highly doubt there are any such. So it would be pointless to include a modern figure who is against Chiniquy (e.g., I imagine that the Pope would be against Chiniquy, but he probably never heard of the guy). But the influence on Chick is probably the most notable thing about Chiniquy. Also Diligens is assuming bad faith. A.J.A. 01:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
It is a principle of reason - it amounts to link spam to include in an article the mention of a man and his whole web site of a modern person such as Chick just because he, among so many other writings, just happens to sell some of Chiniquy's works. (two of them?) Why not link to Amazon.com? Linking to Chick's whole site, or to books for sale, also is link spam. The article is on Chiniquy, a man who lived 100 years ago, and should link only to his material found for free on the Net. (Personally, however, his materially is obscene and I couldn't in conscience link to it). You don't find the article on Adolf Hilter carry mention in the body of the article of people prominent for selling Hitler writings...and you can bet there are a lot of them. Just try it and see what you get.....your just deserts, and a confirmation of what I am saying here. - Diligens 03:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
(cut-and-pasting the following from the 'summary of disagreement' section, since that's not really the place for this argument - Calair.)
I would like to enter this discussion. I first learned of Chiniquy from a totally different source other than Jack Chick. I think mention of Jack Chick serves to generate bias in the article, because he is not highly regarded by very many people, including a good many Christians. I personally investigated the history of Chiniquy, talking, among other things, to a woman who worked at the Historical Society in Kamouraska. She had made a long-term study of Chiniquy, and filled in many blanks for me. I also contacted his congregation in St. Anne, and obtained a copy of their 100 year anniversary book. I subsequently talked to one of his nieces (I don't know if she was a great-niece or more, but she was born of the line of Chiniquy's brother.) I find this article in general to be highly biased, and contains a number of totally unverified claims, including claims of Chiniquy's comments on the Jesuits. The claim that Chiniquy claimed Abraham Lincoln was assassinated by Jesuits in particular is unsubstantiated. Chiniquy himself describes his suspension by at least one bishop as being the result of a demand that Chiniquy pay him obeisance, which Chiniquy declined to do. The bishop also demanded that he recant. Chiniquy did indeed write about the doctrines regarding Mary, the mother of Jesus, that he said were false. It was these doctrines that he says caused him to renounce Roman Catholicism. It is important to be careful to distinguish between what the real disagreement between Chiniquy and the bishop or bishops was. It would not be unexpected for a bishop to level charges of impropriety at him to cover up the real disagreement. Unless this can be substantiated, I have to call into question the entire objectivity of the article. I don't know how to flag it, but I would very much appreciate if someone would flag it for insufficient substantiation and documentation of some of the claims. Obviously Chiniquy was a controversial figure, and it would be inappropriate for one side of the debate to use Wikipedia to further its own agenda. Femcofounder 02:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
G Tandberg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grtandberg ( talk • contribs) 16:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I would appear within Wikipedia there is a great deal of dialog focuses on the conversion of Charles Chiniquy from Catholicism to Protestantism, ignoring the fact that Chiniquy was greatly concern over the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church as he found certain teaching to be in opposition to that what our Lord Jesus Christ commissioned his follower to teach. Within Christendom this is referred to as “Traditions of Men” and this is the issue to which Chiniquy struggled greatly, because he loved the Roman Catholic Church. Chiniquy was a Christian first, and would become a reluctant teacher of a Catholicism second. Be it known, within the ranks of Protestants you will also find teaching that also qualify as “Traditions of Men”, and we find such teachings to be disturbing to both our Lord, and to our soul.
Whether you consider yourself Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, etc., Christians strive above all to follow the examples of our Lord Jesus Christ. Above all Chiniquy understood The Church was not an organization or buildings, but defined by our Lord as those who followed Him...His Sheep. Below is an excerpt from Charles Chiniquy’s writings that should shed light on the circumstances of his excommunication from Roman Catholic Church. Thereafter Charles Chiniquy would be referred most unfavorably by the Pope in the Vatican, Bishops, and Catholic historians. One must search your heart to understand the truth of these matters.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Grtandberg ( talk • contribs) 15:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I have searched my heart and the facts. The fact is that Chiniquy was a fraud and a womanizer. He was always in trouble with every church he joined, for the same reasons. His accusations have no merit and he presents no evidence. He was a self-serving demagogue and bigot. 75.174.140.39 ( talk) 21:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Surely the heart is a good start point for a not biased article, isn't it?... With editors like this one we will have the more biased encyclopedia in the world! Chiniquy was not a womanizer but apparently the Catholic zealots don't want let the man rest in peace without slander his reputation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.230.120.128 ( talk) 07:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I added the {{
citation needed span}} in August 2013. It was removed but the source fails to support the claim about the first of what was to be called the "Christian Catholic Church".
The cited page failed verification. It does not claim to be the first of what was to be called the 'Christian Catholic Church'
, only that it was the "First board of trustees" of that particular corporation. No claim is made on that page that others had not used that name before. I added the {{
citation needed span}} again, with the old date. —
BoBoMisiu (
talk)
22:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi there I didn't really understand this part of the article... Maybe it could be made a bit clearer? "Chiniquy claimed that he was falsely accused by his superiors (and that Abraham Lincoln had come to his rescue), that the American Civil War was a plot against the United States of America by the Vatican, and that the Vatican was behind the Confederate cause, the death of President Lincoln and that Lincoln's assassins were faithful Roman Catholics ultimately serving Pope Pius IX." Thanks Jemmy2006 ( talk) 08:52, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Per standing Wikipedia policies, there is no need to include "Roman" in front of "Catholic" on this page, especially when linking to pages with a title that just says "Catholic". Further, Chiniquy's views seem to fall squarely under "anti-Catholic", hence my wikilink change in the lede.
Several contentious reverts have been made on both points above, so opening this thread for discussion here. natemup ( talk) 19:02, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
@ Natemup: Show me where the sourced content which refers to Catholics as Roman Catholics and to the Catholic Church as the Roman Catholic Church is in contrast with the WP policies WP:RS, WP:NOR, and WP:Burden. Moreover, the cited sources throughout the article report that Chiniquy was a well-known former Roman Catholic priest turned Protestant Christian and critic of the Roman Catholic Church and its doctrines, [1] but the paragraphs which refer to him as an anti-Catholic are still unsourced.
I'm not saying that he couldn't have been both things, but we need reliable sources as evidence for these informations; otherwise, we're just accusing a dead man of something that he never was. GenoV84 ( talk) 19:25, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
{{
cite magazine}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)