Talk:Purgatory in world religions

message: I think granting the RC position its own article to fully expound on its doctrine is a very wise idea.   We must remember that such an article doesn't let us exclude the RC doctrine from this page-- NPOV requires we do present it.  However, the RC Doctrine subpage lets us be more concise in our descriptions and allows us to use summary style to present the RC doctrine, confident that the RC page will be able to do the "heavy lifting" of full doctrinal explanations for those readers seeking that info. --Alecmconroy (talk) 16:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am opposed to this move which was made without proper discussion and with nothing close to a concensus.  I have not been given reasons for the move, nor was I even aware of a desire to make such a move, the conversation having begun only recently.  I would like status quo to be restored until we can discuss the matter.  I was under the impression that we were discussing the intro to the article when, all of the sudden, this happened.  Outrageous.  Ritterschaft (talk) 17:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, could someone tell me how I can look at the history of the old articles: Purgatory, and Purgatory in world religions.  I am unclear how to access this information now.  Ritterschaft (talk) 17:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It's a POV-fork and clearly against policy. I've listed the page for deletion. If you don't agree, you can argue against on the AfD page. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Page

message: Alec's changes need comment.  
In particular, he talks about the "Purgatory concept" as if it were distinct from the Roman Catholic concept of purgatory, but then proceeds to describe it as Roman Catholic teaching: "Roman Catholicism, however, accepts the possibility of a third option"; "Roman Catholics make a distinction between two different types of sin"; "According to Roman Catholicism, the pardon and purification of sin can occur during life" etc.  This is a presentation of Roman Catholic teaching, some point of which are inexact.  By thus presenting Roman Catholic teaching as he sees it, Alec is unfortunately turning the new Purgatory article into another POV battleground.
Is it not a manifest duplication to present first a so-called general overview based on Roman Catholic teaching, and then again another section on Roman Catholic teaching?
And why is he impoverishing so much the exposition of Eastern Orthodox views on the afterlife, turning Eastern Orthodox into mere sectarians who define their beliefs only negatively, by saying it is not that of some other group?  The Eastern Orthodox Church is much more than that.   Lima (talk) 16:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lima, I'm not TRYING to misrepresent RC doctrine, I'm trying to explain it simply.  If you don't feel I'm doing a good enough job, go to Purgatory, Roman Catholic teaching or a user subpage like User:Lima/Purgatory, Roman Catholic teaching and let's see YOU write an introduction to the concept that is comprehensible to an average lay reader, without using ANY unexplained jargon whatsoever.  Don't explain it using unexplained jargon like:  "state of grace", "venial sin", "mortal sin", "beatific vision", "full communion", "communion of saints", etc. 
SECONDEschoir (talk) 04:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not TRYING to misrepresent your religion, but I'm the only one working to explain it to anyone outside your religion.  If I step on toes because my explanations are word for word  in line with dogma, then let's switch roles.  You go off to your subpage, and  you figure out how to explain in so an 8th grade muslim students can understand it, and I'll decided if you did a good enough job.  --Alecmconroy (talk) 17:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's right, we are all trying to explain it in an accessible way for both Catholic and non-Catholic readers. Please give us some credit for this Lima. We all agree that it is mainly a concept in Catholicism and that the article should reflect that. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, this idea that I am in some way opposed to what Judith says about accessible (though of course not inaccurate) language.  I apologize for whatever gave rise to the idea.  Lima (talk) 12:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where can we discuss the [[Purgatory]] article? 

message: If the new page means we can move block quotes of CCC, Compendium, and Councils to another page and leave them out of this one, it's a fine idea. This page becomes "purgatory (as the experts describe it in general)" and the other becomes "purgatory in the exact wording that editors don't trust the experts to summarize." In fact, I'd be willing to let the other page be exactly as Lima and Ritterschaft want it to be, and I wouldn't touch it. Leadwind (talk) 01:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  new page? 

message: This page is simply an inferior version of Purgatory.  Lima (talk) 08:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I redirected it to Purgatory since there is no editing activity for a while. Any different content may be pulled from history and merged with the main article, but it looks to covered. -Bikinibomb (talk) 09:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete this page?