Talk:Charles Chiniquy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)

The word, for Catholics, specifically has the connotation that the change is to something true - Half my family is practising Catholic, so are several good friends of mine, and I've never run across that connotation before. A quick spot of Googling dug up these examples of Catholic usage:

In Egypt, a Christian who converts to Islam can change identification papers... - Catholic Online article

Kosova’s Muslims too were Catholics before, but during the Ottoman-Turkish rule that lasted for five centuries, they gradually converted to Islam. The overwhelming part converted to that religion during the 17th and 18th century. - Monsignor Mark Sopi, Catholic bishop of Kosova, testifying before a US Congress committee.

The pastors sought to put believers on their guard against apostasy, against possible conversions to Islam... Once you convert to Islam, your conversion will be registered... one may convert to Islam, knowing little or nothing about the Islam faith... A Chinese converted to Islam with telling his wife anything... - Asia News article by a Catholic lawyer. (That article also refers to an article by several Catholic bishops titled 'The legal implications of conversions to Islam' and has several quotes from that article which show the same usage.)

Many of my people could not resist the pressures being inflicted on them and thus converted to Protestantism... Many of us converted to Protestantism (the dominant religion at that time) to avoid further persecution. - European Catholics presentation.

Many Catholics were and still are, converted to Protestantism. - Catholic bishop Salvador Lazo, via the Society of St. Pius IX.

The Reinachs had converted to Protestantism... Hedwig had converted to Protestantism with her husband. - Vatican website article on Edith Stein.

If Catholic newspapers, bishops, and websites including the Vatican's have no qualms describing people as 'converting' to Islam and Protestantism, it shouldn't be a problem here; it is certainly more NPOV than 'falling away'. I'm not going to revert that language back, but I'm at a loss to understand why 'convert' should be a problem.

Believe it or not, you are looking at modern usages. Before the 1960's, and all the way back for centuries, it was as I say. I can quote you from Catholic Dictionaries and encyclopedias. It was because of the sudden invention of ecumenism in 1965 that started to change many things radically. You may not be a practicing Catholic, but I am, and heavily involved, so I would know. - Diligens 04:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is written according to modern usage, because it's written for the benefit of modern readers. There is no good argument for restricting articles to the usage of the time they discuss; at best it's unnecessary, at worst it would greatly impede its usefulness. (Note that the Vatican link above also follows modern usage even though the 'conversions' it refers to took place before the 1950s.) --Calair 14:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

It is true that Wikipedia heeds what is modern. It doesn't end there. Wikipedia ALSO does not disregard what is NOT modern. That means that if modern and older clash, a NEUTRAL wording must be given to please both. You are not looking to please both. - Diligens 15:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no 'both'. If we were writing about something like the Palestine conflict, there would be two sides to regard; both Israelis and Palestinians are likely to read the article, and it would behoove us to write it in a way that observes both Israeli and Palestinian understandings of the situation.

But nobody is reading this article in 1950. The only people who are reading it are familiar with the modern usage of 'convert' and well aware that in that modern usage it does not carry the problematic connotations you're concerned about. If the Vatican's own website considers it unobjectionable to talk about pre-1950s Catholics "converting to Protestantism", I am at a loss to understand why it should be a problem for us. --Calair 00:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

And it is entirely appropriate for this article to link to a free copy of Chiniquy's book - it's one of his most important works. (We link to several online versions of Mein Kampf, after all.) That one could find it by Googling is irrelevant; if we applied that criterion, 50% of Wikipedia's content wouldn't belong here. Likewise, his influence on Jack Chick is relevant, since Chick is one of Chiniquy's most prominent 'heirs' today. That material ought not to have been removed, and I'm re-adding it. --Calair 02:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I can see a link to a free copy, but the link to Chick's site was selling books. The article is on "Chiniquy" who lived over 100 years ago; it is inappropriate to name a modern living person in the main body of the article of such a man just because he sells his books and likes him so much. - Diligens 04:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Chick is highly relevant to Chiniquy, because a man's influence on the world does not cease the moment he dies, and Chick has had a great deal to do with perpetuating Chiniquy's claims. Further, Chick's relevance to Chiniquy is *not* just that promotes and sells Chiniquy's books. He is a notable person in his own right, and - as the deleted text said - his own works (in particular, his tracts) repeat many of Chiniquy's claims. When one writer is a significant influence on another, that is worthy of note. When the follower is more famous than the original (and these days, Chick most certainly is better-known than Chiniquy) it would be downright bizarre not to mention them; it's through Chick that most people encounter Chiniquy's claims today. --Calair 14:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

That is a bias and does not foster a neutral point of view. You are trying to promote Chiniquy. That would mean, to give equal time, we could mention another well-known modern person within the article who is AGAINST Chiniquy too. Then the article is ruined. That is not the Wikipedia way. Chick isn't even a Presbyterian as was Chiniquy. You are looking to advertize and promote, not just give the facts about the man who died 100 years ago. If you can link to a free Chick tract specifically on Chiniquy, that would be more apropos. - Diligens 15:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

You have badly misunderstood my intentions. For the record, I believe that Chiniquy's claims are ludicrous, and that Jack Chick is a deeply harmful figure who does a great deal of harm by spreading anti-Catholic fictions sourced from the likes of Chiniquy, Alberto Rivera, William Schnoebelen et al.

But the truth is not served by suppressing information. Jack Chick is an influential figure whose own work has been significantly influenced by Chiniquy's claims, and who in turn has played a major part in keeping those claims alive in the 20th and 21st centuries. That makes him very relevant to this article.

I doubt the two of us are going to come to agreement any time soon, so in the interests of avoiding an edit-war I'll throw this out to Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Religion_and_philosophy. --Calair 00:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brief summary of disagreement

(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)

Well, if you can find external verification for the claim about Chick that isn't his own site, go ahead and replace that link. A.J.A. 03:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I would say there are several indications. One is that he has never had an email address connected with that site. Two, the site talks about Chick in the third person, and when the owners speak about who they are they say "we" and "us". Thirdly, the location is across the country from Chick. I think it is apparent, and at least sufficiently doubtful enough, to say that the group of people like Chick and want to promote his stuff, but it is their own enterprise on the Web. (I will comment about the Hilter thing shortly). ->Diligens 23:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I've understood you correctly here - Diligens, are you saying that www.chick.com is not Jack Chick's website? --Calair 01:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

AJA mentioned it first, and apparently that is already a claim that I didn't know about. I looked into it and see that it is true. If you go to www.archive.org you can see the pages of that site back 10 years. Never is there any evidence that Chick says anything there. He has no email address. And when the authors explain who they are they say "we" and "us". Apparently some other people like Chick so much they started it to promote his material, sort of like if someone were to start a Fulton J. Sheen organization to seel his past publications. The most telling external verification is found on the Chick site in the on-line books section. Among about 20 books, there are two that were authored and copyrighted by Chick in the early 1980;s and both of them say, "Reproduced by Permission". Nobody who owns a web site publishes his own and says this.

I think you've misread AJA's comment - by my reading, s/he was saying "if you don't like linking to Chick's own website to illustrate the links between them, and you can find something else to illustrate those links, go ahead and use that instead". I parsed the sentence as "external verification for the claim about Chick, verification found elsewhere than on his own site", rather than "external verification that the claim isn't Chick's own site", but if AJA's still here perhaps s/he could clarify that? I certainly haven't seen it claimed anywhere else that the site isn't Chick's.

Never is there any evidence that Chick says anything there.

This is incorrect. This page hosts "A message from Jack T. Chick", discussing recent events in his life and signed "Jack T. Chick, President Chick Publications, Inc." (Chick Publications own the website, as indicated by the copyright info on every page and the address info on the front page; checking the domain registration info for www.chick.com will also confirm this.)

Two, the site talks about Chick in the third person, and when the owners speak about who they are they say "we" and "us".

I am not suggesting that Chick personally wrote all the content on the website; I presume that is handled by his employees, who would presumably write about him in the first person; note that the letter I referenced above most definitely is first-person.

Thirdly, the location is across the country from Chick

The website gives their address as being in Ontario, California, which agrees with other online references to them. The only information I can find about Chick's current address is an unsourced claim on a web board that he lives in Chino, CA (which may well have been an assumption based on the company's address). But the earlier bio material at Jack Chick indicates that he was born in LA, lived in Alhambra CA as a child, studied and worked at Pasadena before & after a stint in the Pacific during WWII, and then worked at El Monte CA. Even if he has recently moved from California (and I've not seen any indication that he has), it doesn't exactly seem anomalous that his company is based there.

See also these 1978 letters, in which Chick signs himself as President of Chick Publications and gives a Chino, CA address.

Googling on the phrase "Chick Publications, Inc. is the exclusive licensed publisher for Mr. Chick's work" will find a couple of examples of threatening emails sent by Chick Publications to people displaying parody versions of the Chick tract 'Dark Dungeons' in which they assert their exclusive publication rights to Chick's work; one of them also contains the passage "I am an officer of Chick Publications, Inc. and an authorized agent of the copyright holder, Jack T. Chick."

The fact that Chick has no email address there (or anywhere else, AFAICT) is less surprising when you consider the number of people his tracts manage to offend; I imagine any publicly-advertised email address would be choked with hate-mail pretty quickly. I think it very likely that you've simply misunderstood AJA's comment there; I've been keeping an occasional eye on Chick Pubs for some years, and I've never before heard any suggestion that they're not his official site. The website does list a phone number; if you're in the USA (I'm not), you might be able to call them and ask about it?

You offered "As well as the fact that for the past 4 years nobody saw fit to mention Chiniquy even in the Wikipedia's own Chick article" as a reason for deleting the Chick reference. However, clicking on 'What links here' shows that both Chick Publications and Chick Publications tracts do indeed link to this article - IIRC, the Chick article was split some time back because the amount of detail on the individual tracts was bloating it. --Calair 00:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Calair read my comment correctly. If Chick is mentioned (and as I stated previously Chick's use of him is probably the most important thing about Chiniquy for a modern audience), there ought to be a link verifying the description. I actually don't care if chick.com is owned by Jack Chick himself or not. I'm not very happy with the current version. Is there anyone other than Chick promoting Chiniquy himself today? You still hear accusations against the moral standing of Catholic clergy from Protestants (and atheists, and other Catholics), but the sources are usually... of more recent vintage. A.J.A. 00:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

In the absence of further argument in the last week, I've re-added a single sentence on Chick. As an attempt at compromise, I've left out any mention of Chick Pubs' marketing of Chiniquy's own books, but included Chick's adaptation of '50 Years' and the reappearance of Chiniquy's claims in Chick's own tracts. I hope this is acceptable to all concerned, if not quite anybody's preferred version. --Calair 02:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Unlike Chiniquy, Hitler was not primarily famous for his writings, so that's somewhat of a false comparison. Also, Wikipedia contains far more about Hitler than it does about Chiniquy, with the consequence that much discussion of his legacy etc. is split off into other articles.

However, in addition to linking to various e-texts, the article Adolf Hitler does indeed give information about the current-day status of his most famous writing: "The copyright of Hitler's book Mein Kampf (My Struggle) is held by the Free State of Bavaria and will expire in 2015. Reproductions in Germany are generally authorized only for scholarly purposes and in heavily commented form." Mein Kampf discusses the book again, in greater depth, including a section on 'Current availability' (discussing copyright ownership and listing several modern-day publishers and sellers).

Adolf Hitler also contains an entire section on his (political) legacy, including some mention of subsequent supporters: "there have been instances of public figures referring to his legacy in neutral or even favourable terms, particularly in South America, the Islamic World and parts of Asia. Future Egyptian President Anwar Sadat wrote favourably of Hitler in 1953. Bal Thackeray, leader of the right-wing Shiv Sena party in the Indian state of the Maharashtra, declared in 1995 that he was an admirer of Hitler." The 'Legacy' section then links to two further articles on 'Consequences of German Nazism' and 'Neo-Nazism', the latter of which further describes the people who espouse Hitler's ideas today much as Jack Chick describes one of the prominent modern-day advocates of Chiniquy's claims.

For a better comparison, look at e.g. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The article contains copious references to modern-day publishers of that repulsive document and modern texts such as the Saudi Arabian schoolbooks that regurgitate its claims. It also links to an online version of the same.

So, yes, we certainly *do* discuss the influence other people have had on a historical figure or text's legacy. --Calair 03:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The Protocols is not a person, but a controversial and mysterious writing, and is not a good analogy in this. Chiniquy is a very short article, and it is disproportionate to write Chick up in the main body of that article. Even the Hilter article, gives only the briefest mention of several people in one sentence. And this is proportionate because it is newsworthy to mention people who actually promote the man since Hitler is so universally notorious for being dispicable, that it becomes newsworthy to actually read if someone has the nerve to promote him. Chiniquy is entirely another story. Chick should only be mentioned outside of the main body of the article, such as in the links or external interests section with brief mention. Chiniquy's gripes are common fare arguments among Protestants. If you research the Nazis you will even find that they wrote the same things as Chiniquy to try to discredit Catholicism, even with cartoons. Chick really has not unique connection with Chiniquy. Selling his books is not unique. It would be like mentioning the man behind www.newadvent.org in the main body of the St. Thomas Aquinas article just because he has the entire and most famous work of that Saint available on his web site. Links are already abused enough, but when these things start to make it too much into the body, it is a more sever abuse.

[edit] Conversion

(cut-and-pasting the following from the 'summary of disagreement' section, since that's not really the place for this argument - Calair.)

The bearing is this - a good portion of Catholics would disagree with the connotation of "conversion". Why not please everyone by changing it? The objection of "brevity" is not a proportionate one. For example, just because "gay" has two legitimate and almost opposite meanings, I would certainly object to using the adjective to describe a person who was joyful, now since the 60's its meanings has been irreversibly corrupted. -> Diligens 03:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, and some who remember the older usage of 'gay' find the new one offensive. Nevertheless, that new usage appears extensively in a great many articles (see e.g. Gay, Gay rights, Gay pride). Aside from an occasional 'it used to mean something different' discussion, Wikipedia almost exclusively follows the modern usage. Same standard should apply here.

And no, changing it would not please everyone. IMHO, the substitutions offered for 'conversion' so far have been more POV-problematic. In modern usage, 'convert' is a neutral term signifying a change without implying whether that change is a positive one. In contrast, three of the substitutions ('Abandons Catholicism', 'rejects the faith of his youth', 'seceded from the Catholic Faith') are lopsided, in that they focus only on the negative part of the act - "he left the Catholic Church" - without touching on the one he joined; they're not hugely objectionable in themselves, but they certainly don't bring us closer to NPOV. The fourth, 'Falling Away', was severely POV; that language clearly implies a negative judgement on the act. --Calair 04:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

You have two problems. One is you are focusing on my motive for the change, and not the change itself. The change itself would not displease anyone, while "conversion" does, by definition. Saying "abandoned Catholicism" as a heading would not displease anyone, and if you think otherwise you should give a positive reason, not a gratiutous denial. You are not helping here, when you could be suggesting other things besides "conversion". Secondly, you are confused about meanings of words. You mistakenly think that if a word gains a modern meaning, that this means it ONLY has that modern usage and no longer has the former meaning. This is false. Study a dictionary and you will see that words often have MANY meanings simultaneously. This is just such a case where a word actually has two meanings that are at variance, and because of this, it would not please many people who predominantly hold to the more traditional meaning. You cannot ignore this and act as though only the new, modern meaning exists. Since you would like something that is not so negative, I will settle for "Becomes a Protestant (or Presbyterian)". ->Diligens 23:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Saying "abandoned Catholicism" as a heading would not displease anyone

It would displease me, for reasons that I've discussed above.

You mistakenly think that if a word gains a modern meaning, that this means it ONLY has that modern usage and no longer has the former meaning.

Please do not presume to speak for what I think. I am well aware that words are capable of holding multiple meanings simultaneously. However, in the case of 'convert' the older meaning has become virtually obsolete; while a small number of people still use it in the older sense, that sense is unfamiliar to most people. If it was still in frequent use, I'd be willing to accept it as a NPOV problem. But that sense has fallen into disuse to the point where, when I studied a dictionary, it was not even acknowledged.

By way of comparison - '[Religious Society of Friends|Quaker]' was originally a derogatory term, but that connotation is now unfamiliar to most people, and the word is now used in Wikipedia without apology, since it is far less of a mouthful than 'Religious Society of Friends'. Similarly, while 'pagan' was originally pejorative (and is still used that way now and then), many articles on both old and new forms of 'paganism' now use it to describe those forms - see e.g. Wicca. Queer is another example of a formerly-judgemental term, still used judgementally by a minority, that is nevertheless now used in articles such as Queer theory and Queer studies.

But perhaps the biggest single argument for 'convert' as a NPOV term is that it is used extensively at Religious conversion, describing shifts of faith in many different directions, and AFAICT no objections have been raised there. If you believe that it is still a loaded term and should be avoided in Wikipedia, Talk:Religious conversion is probably the best place to sort it out, rather than starting with specific instances on this page (which is, let's be honest, something of a backwater).

As for suggesting alternatives to 'convert' - I would be delighted to sidestep this argument that way, and as soon as I come up with any that are as NPOV and as concise as 'convert', I will do so. So far, though, no luck. "Becomes a Presbyterian" is OK as a one-off, but too long-winded to use everywhere that 'convert' appeared in this article. --Calair 01:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I will offer a compromise, though: first usage of 'convert' in this article to link to Religious conversion, and a usage note to be added at that page along these lines: "While the term 'convert' is now generally used to describe any transition from one faith to another, in older usage it carries an implication that the transition is from a false faith to a true one. In this article and elsewhere in Wikipedia, the term is used in the former sense and does not imply favour for one faith over another." --Calair 23:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

That sounds educational enough to me. But one last point on the usage and its prevalence. In your own experiences you may think the older usage is virtually gone, but The Catholic Encyclopedia on-line at newadvent.org/cathen is quite popular according to Alexa. And if you visit its article precisely on CONVERSION you read in it from the start, "a turning or returning to God and to the true religion". But your compromise seems like a good one since it brings the real distinction to the attention of readers. (I will get back shortly on the Chick thing) ->Diligens 03:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've added that note at Religious conversion and made some edits on that topic. Also several others (hopefully unobjectionable) which I hope will improve readability; I thought the fact that Chiniquy was a former Catholic priest himself was worthy of mention in the intro paragraph and so put the 'conversion' link there. Let me know whether it looks OK to you? --Calair 23:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)