Talk:Purgatory/Archive 2

message: There are various unsourced sections that should be reviewed.  The Mormon section has as its only sources scriptural passages referenced to affirm what appears to be a quick essay which makes claims about Mormon beliefs but without bothering to appeal to any source on Mormon doctrine.  Moreover, the section does not talk about purgatory or related comments.  Rather, it is an explanation (which isn't entirely understandable) about the Mormon view of the afterlife, or spirit world.  This article is not about heaven, hell, limbo, or the like.  The section does not mention purgation or prayers for the dead.  The section on Jewish Eschatology, despite its name, does manage to at least mention purgation, but again it cites only scriptural (or other such) passages in support and there is little reason to see it as representative of Jewish views (and which Jewish view at that?).  The same can be said about he Islamic and Zoroastrian sections.  No sources, no clear relevance to the topic at hand, no basis for thinking they are representative of actual beliefs of the communities, etc.  Now, I put in a request on both the Judaism and Islamic portals for help, with no response.  As it stands, I think these sections are holding the article back from good status.  They are hold-overs from a time when the entire article was simply an unsourced personal commentary.  And they don't even seem to address the matters at hand directly.  The entire idea that religions and doctrines can be compared in this way is OR without some secondary support.  As it stands, I think the section should be removed.  Lostcaesar 20:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the unsourced sections 

message: I find this section problematic.  Afterall, since the Orthdox do not believe in the same idea of purgatory as Cathloics or even like the use of the word purgatory since it describes a belief that developed in the west separate from their own...well this section makes it sound like it does.  I understand that it is trying to reference the notion that both the Catholic and Orthodox believe in spritual cleansing after death, but the use of the word purgatory in the section makes it sound like the both believe in the same ideas.  I say the section needs a rewrite or that references to spritual cleansing be moved to their respective faiths in order to avoid confusion- especially considering the bulk of it is referencing a Catholic prayer.
:In general, this article tries to blur the distinctions between RC and other Christian beliefs (early Christian, EOC, Protestant) in order to make purgatory more plausible. This section is an example of that slant. This page should be about purgatory, not about purification after death. Jonathan Tweet 15:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We could move the section to this talk page and work on it.  Or, we could cut it.  Most of the information is in other sections.  Lostcaesar 16:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Catholic and Orthodox Sprirituality

message: Two said the article needed a "secular views" section, but offered no sources, nor guide as to what that would be, and at any rate that was before the substantial changes to the article, especially the expansion of the histoty section, which I gather is what they were expecting.  What should it say?  People who do not believe in life after death (or at least that we have any knowledge of it) do not believe in purgatory?  Sounds rather obvious.  Do other encyclopedia's say as much?  I expect not.  What exactly is the "secular view" and whom do we invest to speak for it?  If this article advocated purgatory it might be different, but it does not, rather it simply gives information on it.  Lostcaesar 17:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alec, thank you for the comments and suggested sources.  I might point out that the article does cite Le Goff, and some who reviewed his work.  As you know, sources are important to me, and I know from my experience with you on other pages that they are equally important for you and the additions you make.  If there is debate, and exactly what that debate is, we would have to derrive it from sources.  If you notice, the history section does have many, but if this seems insufficent or drawn from only one view, that may be revised.  In my understanding it is a fair sample, but I offer my opinion as one of many.  Lostcaesar 21:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey!  Small world.  Sorry I didn't recognize you-- I'm horrible with names.   Yes, sources are a must, and people absolutely have to seek them out.   The Le Goff book looks promising-- I'd suggest Johnathan, you, or anyone trying to get this article towards FA status pick up a copy and add its perspective the article. --Alecmconroy 18:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can try and work it in better.  Its 500 pages so it would take a while if one has not read it.  Plus, I've read a couple reviews of it and can work that in more.  Of course, please read the book if you wish, and reviews, for yourself.  (Ps, there is an English translation avaliable).  Lostcaesar 19:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See new txt, I have added a detailed sketch of his view and that of others, now representing, as best I can, comments from notable catholic and prot. scholars, as well as the agnostic Le Goff and two fellow historians who reviewed his work.  I believe the article is throughly npov now, beyond doubt.  Lostcaesar 23:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pushing towards NPOV

message: I took a break from editing purgatory because a particular editor was defending a POV version of this article by deleting my edits. It wasn't worth my time to keep working on it. I have tried to get this editor to assure me that they will treat my work with the same deference that I show theirs, but to no avail. I have little choice but to forget about purgatory or to forge ahead. I'm going to forge ahead. On the issue of conduct, a key issue I have is that WP directs editors to improve unsatisfactory edits rather than deleting them. Help:revert. Jonathan Tweet 00:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've taken a quick stab at improving the article. The writing is quick rather than meticulous. I'd be happy to take feedback on the work so far before continuing. Jonathan Tweet 01:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  editing purgatory again 

message: Why is there a section in "Interpretations," other than to take an opinion that is unfriendly to purgatory (Le Goff's) and stick it in a corner when one can pummel it with criticism? Why isn't Le Goff's commentary incorporated into the medieval section? The RfC gave us the direction of incorporating historical analysis into the work itself rather than segregating it. Jonathan Tweet 13:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Le Goff was in the medieval section, and you complained, so he was given more of a place in a dedicated interpretations section, at the top of the page, which you promptly moved to the bottom and then accused it of being "stuck in a corner".  Lostcaesar 01:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unsurprisingly, my recollection differs. But it sounds as though we both agree that Le Goff goes in the medieval section. Jonathan Tweet 15:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  interpretations 

message: This section is POV, and was worse before I got to it.
There's scant mention of the Bible. Is the Bible relevant to understanding the beliefs of antique Christians? I think so. And it's not as though no one's thought of anything to say. Instead, information about the Bible in this section has been repeatedly deleted as beside the point. Why? Because purgatory isn't in the Bible.
The section portrays the ancient doctrine of purgation as in line with purgatory. Fair enough, but we know that the EOC thinks their own doctrines match those of the church fathers, and that they contradict the Latins on this very point in particular. Where is the EOC viewpoint, explaining how the church fathers described all souls going to the same place, where the wicked suffer and the righteous rest in light until the resurrection? 
Authors are cherry-picked and wordsmithed to achieve a close fit to Catholic doctrine. The text, for example, helpfully points out that Origen said souls go to paradise without having to await the resurrection (contradicting Hippolytus and Tertullian). Does the author also point out that Origen didn't believe in the resurrection? No. Cherry-picking is better than nothing, but when I cherry-picked some contrary fathers, those references were deleted. Hippolytus has a clear description of the afterlife between death and resurrection. Referred to here? Not any more. Sentences are crafted not to state the basic case basically but to protect purgatory. It refers to a vague "realm of the dead." Why is this realm neither described nor named? Because a bunch of church fathers saying that souls are kept in hades makes purgatory look bad.
In contradiction to purgatory, early references to purgation involve one's fate on judgment day, not one's condition while awaiting judgment day. No reference is made of the church fathers' emphasis on judgment day rather than on current torments of the dead.
References have become harder to follow. Direct links to the church fathers' own words have, to some extent, been replaced with references to a secondary work that one can't double-check online. A minor point, but I'm on a rant.
Referenced work that I had added to this section was deleted single-handedly, in defense of a pro-purgatory POV. 
If someone agrees with me and feels like tagging the section, I'd appreciate it. I've already tagged this page twice, maybe three times. Jonathan Tweet 02:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, yes, and this section treats prayer for the dead (massively documented) as virtually equivalent to purgatory (hotly contested). EOC has prayer for the dead but not purgatory, so they must be different. Jonathan Tweet 03:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: JT, the point of secondary sources is to avoid OR.  Your above comments are your own opinions based on your own research.  There were no "cherry-pickings", just citing secondary (rather than primary) sources.  These are not "impossible to check", only impossible for someone who cannot be bothered to do proper research (an internet scan of a selection from Tertullian is not sufficent research). Lostcaesar 01:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By cherry-picking, I mean citing things from a source that agree with purgatory while not citing things from the same source that disagree. For example, Harnack finds the concept of purgatory widespread. He also defines it as differences of afterlife reward and identifies it as Hellenistic. But only the fact that he finds the concept widespread is found here. That's cherry-picking. Also, deleting sources that just contradict purgatory (e.g., Hippolytus). In any event, I think that reasonable editors would agree that this section would be improved by a summary of early Christian beliefs about the afterlife. And you have left my other POV accusations (above)unanswered. Jonathan Tweet 15:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  antiquity 

message: If you're reading this and you could spare a hand, I'd appreciate it. There's a lot of ground to cover already, and there are still sections that I haven't touched. You can help by Googling up references. The external links are also informative, and a lot of my unsourced information comes from them. You can also return to the page from before it was given its pro-purgatory overhaul. There's a fair bit of good, referenced material there that got deleted. If you like it, rescue it. Here's what the article looked like on February 20. I would appreciate the help. Jonathan Tweet 05:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "You can help by Googling up references" - I think probably the greatest challenge I will face, if I accomplish my goal to be a professor, is trying to convince students in this age that "googling" is not proper research.  Sure, a website is ok, but research means sitting in a library reading a book or a journal.  Its interesting that you have gone so far elsewhere as to accuse the sources from journals and books as faulty research! Why?  Because you said they "could not be checked" - because they cannot be googled?!?! - amazing. Lostcaesar 11:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If editors want to use the Internet to find information, that's better than not finding information. Jonathan Tweet 15:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: In fact, I'll go one better. A reference that any editor can check on their own by clicking a link is superior to one that requires access to a particular, physical book. This page has been marred by cherry-picked and slanted references. Links that readers can verify independently are more likely to be accurate (or at least to include their own remedy). References that readers can't verify independently are more likely to be incomplete, taken out of context, or slanted. For a page noted for its POV and creative interpretation of references, Googling for a verifiable reference has this advantage over consulting a physical book. Jonathan Tweet 17:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A little help? 

message: Jonathan Tweet has begged indulgence for the sloppiness of his edits on the grounds that he has learned not to invest too much time in his edits for fear that they will get deleted anyway.  
Without having looked at his edits, I wish to make a general comment: no indulgence should be given to native speakers of English for sloppy edits.  I have had to spend a lot of time correcting the English of non-native speakers and I generally grant them indulgence because I know that English is not their native language.  However, it is a laborious task.
Native English speakers should be expected to write reasonably well.  I don't mind improving diction but sloppiness on the part of a native English speaker is unacceptable and degrades the quality of Wikipedia unnecessarily.
Jonathan, if you are afraid that your edit will be deleted, then post it here first and let's discuss it.
Sorry for the lecture but you pushed one of my "hot buttons".
--Richard 16:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed the two that LC pointed out. If there are others, I'm happy to fix them myself. I knew I was being hasty, but I didn't realize I was being incomprehensible. Jonathan Tweet 17:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A general comment about quality of edits 

message: Lostcaesar, how about we lay down our arms on purgatory for two weeks? We have been fighting over this page since I started on WP. Let's take a break. Let's stick to the talk page. If we can convince other editors to make edits that we want to see made, super. If we can't, we live with it. But we keep our contentious hands off the page for two weeks.
If I'm right, others will step into the vacuum, and the page won't be about our ongoing conflict any more. And wouldn't that be a better page? One that represents various voices instead of our constant arguing?
This heated struggle is an unpleasant distraction. We go back and forth, and it's a waste of time. You delete the holy card. I add it back in. You delete it. I add it back in. You bracket it so it's invisible. (Thanks for not deleting it. That means a lot to me.) I unbracket it. That's not how WP is supposed to work. 
You've taught me a lot since our paths first crossed. Thanks to you, I've got a much better understanding of early Christian afterlife beliefs and Catholic doctrine. (Remember when I thought the early Christians believed in soul sleep?) I'd rather think of you as the reasonable guy who isn't afraid to say that the gospels portray Jesus as damning the unrepentant than as the zealous defender of purgatory. I don't want to keep damaging our ability to work together on other pages by generating ill will here.
Currently, the article contains material of yours that I think violates POV, and it contains material of mine that you think violates NOR. Let's call that even. I contributed significantly to the article that existed in January. You've basically maintained control of the page since Feb 21 or so. Let's call that even, too. 
Maybe in 2 weeks we'll see that it's up to us to make sure that this page is good and right, and we'll have to go toe-to-toe again. Let's find out. Jonathan Tweet 17:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest that each of you list here the material that is currently in the article and that you consider to be POV or OR.  In addition, list any points that you think should be made that are not currently in the article.  Let us hash it out here and avoid disruptive edit warring. --Richard 17:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We could really use a fresh start, and I'd love for others to contribute.  So I'll agree.  Btw, JT, I have to give my hats off to you for being a good sport through it all.  Cheers, Lostcaesar 22:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I added a fact tag to a statement that was wrong added by an anon user (and not you).  It should have just been deleted.  Anyway, I didn't think mistaken opinions added by anon users counted, since this was a new addition made after we decided to leave the article as is.  In other words, I didn't edit anything we agreed to leave alone, I edited a new sentence added on top of what we agreed to leave.  I guess we just saw the above differently. Lostcaesar 12:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LC, you said, "I didn't edit anything we agreed to leave alone" Please re-read my proposal. Or maybe just this part: "we keep our contentious hands off the page for two weeks." Let me know if you still agree to it, that we should leave the page alone. Jonathan Tweet 13:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So you can log on as an anon ip and change the article, thereby avoiding the agreement, then complain when I tag the addition?  I won't change the old text.  I'd rather not edit anything, but I don't like seeing a loophole abused.  Whatever the case, it was just a tag, so relax.  Lostcaesar 14:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After all the patience I've shown you, and all the attempts I've made to cooperate with you, you accuse me of scheming. Whatever happened to "assume good faith"? Jonathan Tweet 21:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  how about a truce? 

message: Richard has asked that we list all our issues here. That's going to take some time. I plan to do it in pieces so I can focus on each piece. Before I start listing concerns, I'd like to help editors understand where I'm coming from and what my concerns are going to have in common. Here's my framework for understanding this bitter struggle.
I've noticed a pattern in the edits of people defending their POV: they like to delete.
Someone promoting a POV (as I promote the historical-critical method and its results) wants to increase the amount of information easily accessible to the reader. 
We think, "If we can just lay out the facts, we're happy to let the reader decide." So we add.
In February, for example, this page got a POV overhaul from which it has not fully recovered. 
My response was not to revert it as POV.
If it had been an unknown editor, I would have. 
Instead, I tried to add balancing information so the article would be more complete.
While someone promoting a POV wants to add, someone defending a POV wants to restrict.
There are apparently lots of facts that they do not want a reader to happen across.
They want to restrict information.
They like deleting.
They give lots of reasons for deleting things (POV, OR, poor writing), but they apply these standards aggressively on text that they do not want the reader ever to read. 
Sometimes, they want to delete but can't.
The 95 theses have been nailed to the wall, and there's an unwelcome fact that must be acknowledged.
Some Googling jerk layman has found a reference that really can't be denied.
The bad defenders of POV delete anyway.
The good ones go to Plan B.
Plan B is obfuscation.
Write in nuances.
Bury information in a bucketload of other information.
Use vague terms instead of simple names.
Treat two different things as one thing.
Exaggerate dissent to give the appearance of uncertainty.
If you can't eliminate an unwelcome fact, you can make it hard to find.
If that fact must be allowed, it is allowed on the defender's terms.
The material I have added has repeatedly been deleted and obfuscated by a single editor.
My concerns will reflect my attempt to get the reader more and clearer information. Jonathan Tweet 15:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  addition versus deletion 

message: Can someone add this to external links? It's already referenced, but it should be easy to find.
* THE FINAL PURIFICATION, OR PURGATORY in the Catholic Catechism
Jonathan Tweet 15:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catholic Catechism 

message: "Purgatory fubar," thanks for your edit on the nature of purgatory. Here's a reference for the modern concept that souls aren't in places, in case someone wants to provide it. (I can't.) . Jonathan Tweet 19:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  spiritual state or place? 

message: Oreo Priest created a wikilink to Hades. Unfortunately, that page is primarily devoted to the Greek deity and his realm. Would someone please change the link to Hades. That's more like what a reader is going to be looking for. I'd do it myself, but the truce and all. Jonathan Tweet 13:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hades 

message: Can someone point us to the official, dogmatic statements about purgatory? I found this page , but I'm having trouble finding verbatim dogmatic statements about purgatory. I'd like to see the original statements myself rather than reading what someone else says about them. The difference between dogma and church teaching is a little hazy to us outsiders. Jonathan Tweet 17:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  universal dogma and Latin tradition 

message: For a detailed account of how his page is still POV after LC's overhaul (starting Feb 20), see the mediation page. Jonathan Tweet 17:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Per this Mediation Cabal case, I've tagged the article as totally disputed. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 17:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV overhaul 

message: I'd add this external link myself if not for the 2-week truce. 1911 encyclopedia. Somebody else care to add it? Jonathan Tweet 15:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  external link 

message: I think the "popular imagination" phrase is a little misleading--  it suggests that the concept of a purgatory as a "place" of "fire" was just the Catholic equivalent of an Urban Legend-- something that a many completely clueless people believed, but which nobody of merit would actually accept.   
But the truth is, many respectable leaders of the church often "imagined" it as such-- in the past, and even today.  Right now, one can easily find expositions and sermons by priests today which seriously describe purgatory as being associated with painful, punishing, sensory-experience fire.   Historically, some of the most authoritative catholic theologians described purgatory as "seering fire" and as "more painful than any pain felt in this world".  So, it was a teaching.  it was taught that way by authorities within the church, and to a lesser extent, it's still taught that way by some leaders of the church.  It's not an imagination, it is something that is actually taught.  Aside from all the verifiable cites found in the article, I know for a fact that a "painful, hellish purgatory" was taught, because I personally was taught it when I was a wee one. 
At the same time, "painful, hellish purgatory" doesn't seem to be a dogma, as far as I can tell.  Dogma seems to have intentionally avoided the questions about the precise nature of purgatory.  
Modernly, the teachings are moving towards a softer, more loving purgatory.  More and more, people are teaching that the fire is more "cleansing" than "searing".  The pain of purgatory is being taught more and more as just a "pain of not being with God" rather than an external imposed intentionally punishing pain.
Now-- is all that a fair description of things?  If so-- let's see how we can improve the article by a) brining the "simple intro" more in line with both views about the nature of purgatory and b) explicitly talking about the historical shift in the nature of purgatory (verified with cites, of course. ) --Alecmconroy 19:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your summary seesm right. Let's improve the article. Jonathan Tweet 14:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dogma vs teaching vs 'popular conception'

message: To Jonathan Tweet: Do you think Alecmconroy has really used wisely the "extra space and leeway" that you wished to give him?  Lima 04:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While his edits haven't been perfect, they've moved the page forward, which I'm happy to see. The WP process isn't about every step being perfect. It's about moving the page in the right direction. Jonathan Tweet 13:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Extra space and leeway

message: The Mediation Cabal case may be over, but that doesn't mean the issue is. I insist that all editors of this article work together and find a solution for making this article sparkle. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 01:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: MedCab case over

message: Substituted at 21:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment