Talk:Purgatory/Archive 3

message: #Lima's draft. Lima's draft is far too short, oversimplifies the concept and relies on a quotation from a single source. It also fails to provide a reasonable overview of the article.
#Jonathon Tweet's draft. This is filled with inaccurate and/or POV statements. I will illustrate some examples. The claim there is no direct support for the doctrine in the Bible is distinctly POV. The second paragraph closes with a strongly POV assertion. The closing sentence of this lede draft is strongly assertive, but seems dubious and a bit POV. It fails (by implication) to acknowledge that universal opportunity (of which purgation is one form) is a common question of Christian theology.
#GoldenMeadows' draft. This is more or less an apologetic recitation of the Catholic POV and completely fails WP:LEDE.
Of course, this is just my own subjective review of the three drafts. You're always welcome to salt with my opinions. However, I feel all three are woefully inadequate. Something that would combine Jonathon's overview with Lima's neutral tone would probably be ideal. Vassyana 01:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: V says my draft "fails (by implication) to acknowledge that universal opportunity (of which purgation is one form) is a common question of Christian theology." If universal opportunity is the chance for the unbaptized to choose to accept Christ after death, it's not related to purgatory. Purgatory doesn't offer salvation to people who, in Protestant schemes, would be damned. It offers punishment to people who, in Protestant schemes, would just be cleared. It is true that the issue of post-baptism sin was a tricky one right from the start, and that's an angle that I think this page has never covered before. Jonathan Tweet 11:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment on drafts

message: Vassyana's is, I think, just the sort of contribution that moves a discussion forward, pointing out seeming faults in draft texts that the proposers can then try to remedy.  I do not necessarily agree with Vassyana's criticism of Draft I.  But it would not be constructive to dispute it.  I prefer to move the discussion forward by modifying my draft as follows:
According to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, Purgatory is the "final purification of the elect": "All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven."<present reference note 1>
In popular imagination, Purgatory is a distinct place in which the souls of the dead who are not bad enough to be condemned to Hell, nor good enough to go directly to Heaven, are tormented by fire as punishment for their minor sins.
While early Christians admitted an after-death change in spiritual status as a possibility,<reference to multiple sites that in this regard quote Acts of Paul and Thecla, and Martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicity> and even Greek Christians wrote of a purification by fire after death and of the ability of the living to gain pardon for the dead,<reference to multiple sites that refer in this regard to Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysostom and perhaps others - though again I do not see why direct quotations from these writers would not be better> speculation about the nature of this purification advanced mainly in the West. The idea that those being purified were in a distinct place among the dead was strengthened by the substantival use, from at latest the eleventh century, of the Latin word purgatorium for the place or state of that purification. In early centuries, as witnessed for instance in chapter VII of Tertullian's Treatise on the Soul, the soul was thought of as in some way material and the fire associated with the process of purification was similarly thought of as material. Even when, with the spread of Aristotelian philosophy in the West, this notion of the soul was rejected, the fire continued to be imagined as material.
At the 1439 Council of Florence, the nature of what the Western Christians called Purgatory was one of the topics in dispute with the representatives of the Eastern Orthodox Church, who, however, like all the ancient Christian Churches, accepted the practice of praying for the dead in the belief that they are thereby assisted.<present reference note 5>
In the following century, Protestant theologians developed a view of salvation that excluded all change of spiritual state after death. They accordingly denied that prayer for the dead was of any avail, although in general they did not accept Martin Luther's notion of soul sleep, whereby the dead have no consciousness until reawakened in the resurrection of the dead, thus excluding particular judgment. One reason for their rejection of the doctrine of Purgatory was its connection with indulgences.
The Eastern Orthodox Church continues to hold that "such souls as have departed with faith, but without having had time to bring forth fruits worthy of repentance ... may be aided towards the attainment of a blessed resurrection by prayers offered in their behalf, especially such as are offered in union with the oblation of the bloodless sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ, and by works of mercy done in faith for their memory".<reference to The Longer Catechism of The Orthodox, Catholic, Eastern Church, question 376> and the Catholic Church holds that "because of the communion of saints, the faithful who are still pilgrims on earth are able to help the souls in purgatory by offering prayers in suffrage for them, especially the Eucharistic sacrifice. They also help them by almsgiving, indulgences, and works of penance."<reference to Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 210-211>
Purgatory and the possibility of making atonement for the dead is also part of Rabbinic Jewish teaching, dating back at least to the time of the Maccabees, some two centuries before Christianity grew out of Judaism.<Jewish Encyclopedia article referred to by GoldenMeadows>
I could try to polish this draft better, but I prefer to present it as it is to the consideration of other editors.  I look forward to reading their reactions. Lima 04:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for this comment.  I have responded by adding a further paragraph to Draft IV.  Lima 09:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have just remembered the reference that GoldenMeadows earlier gave to Jewish belief in purgatory, and have added yet another short paragraph.  Lima 09:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  I think this version is a big improvement on the current articles leader - its authoritative and gives a good overview.  GoldenMeadows 09:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lima, this draft is long, and the phrasing is stilted. "early Christians admitted an after-death change in spiritual status as a possibility" "The idea that those being purified were in a distinct place among the dead was strengthened by the substantival use, from at latest the eleventh century, of the Latin word purgatorium for the place or state of that purification." "the nature of what the Western Christians called Purgatory" I think your wording is stilted because you're straining to put historical data in the best possible light. You've also included a long description of soul concepts in order to defend the medieval idea of material fire in purgatory from criticism. Instead of getting straight the point and being clear, you are forcing the data into shape. Your only reference to Protestant criticism leans heavily on soul sleep, which Calvin rejected (while also rejecting purgatory) and which mainstream Lutherans have also largely rejected. Jonathan Tweet 13:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: To respond to the remark about Protestant criticism, I have retouched what is said about the Reformers.  I am unsure what if anything I should do in response to the remark about the length of my draft, which was previously said to be too short, and I cannot hope to reach the standard of literary excellence proposed to me.  Nor can I do anything about the attribution to me of motives of which I am unaware.  Lima 18:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Draft IV

message: Why does this article talk about all manner of theological topics, from infant baptism / salvation, to heaven and hell, mortal and venial sin, indulgences, eschatology...?  I think the page needs a purgation of its own.  129.11.76.215 14:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be good if the person who made this remark - and others too - would together discuss the question (above under "lead") Lima 04:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confused 

message: May we please get on with discussion of the three drafts that have been proposed for the introduction? I would recommend Goldenmeadows not to respond to the question above, and to concentrate instead on the business in hand.
I have given my views on Drafts II and III.  It will be more productive if Goldenmeadows will instead respond to my criticism of his draft and say what he thinks is defective or plain wrong in the other two.  Then perhaps we can make progress.  Lima 14:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please concentrate on work 

message: The original discussion concerning the POV tag has been archived. Readers deserve to know why a page is tagged. The POV tag was first applied after a retired editor gave the page an overhaul in February, resulting in a violation of NPOV (per the RfC). The page has not been fixed, and attempts to fix it have led to a dispute that's currently in mediation. Jonathan Tweet 15:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather than putting back here a presumably long and difficult-to-follow discussion between you and the person or persons you were formerly in dispute with but who have since given up trying to put their case, I think it would be much better if you were to place here an explanation, preferably a short one, of why you think the article as a whole is POV (I too think it is POV, but almost certainly for reasons quite different from yours) and in what way you think it requires "fixing" (I too think it needs fixing, but almost certainly in a way quite different from the way you think it should be fixed).  Lima 18:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I moved the text back before I noticed Lima's post, any objections to Lima's proposal?  GoldenMeadows 20:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  As is perhaps obvious from I wrote here, I was not following this article last March, when the discussion that has now been restored to the active Talk page took place.  Now that I have read it, I am more than content to have it, and the POV tag, kept alive.  Lima 07:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV tag

message: To keep this neutral would it be possible to include something to the effect that there is a strong factual position for all of this being superstition and not existing at all ? By all means document the history and the influence of these beliefs since those things are factual and very significant in recent history. Arguing the finer points of something that doesnt exist seems a pointless use of resources. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. There is no such place as heaven hell or purgatory and no such being as god. Since wikipedia is supposed to be factual I would at least like this fact to be presented to those who come here to be educated and learn.
cdxp 14 June 2007
:"Since wikipedia is supposed to be factual I would at least like this fact to be presented to those who come here to be educated and learn." Please propose a sentence or paragraph for us to add. If you're right, we're reasonable people and we'll add it. Jonathan Tweet 01:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  But perhaps your opinions are better directed towards an article that deals with the existence or non-existence of Gods rather than this article which deals with a particular belief. You might also want to see how this issue , i.e so called "facts" only learning, has been treated in a fictional setting?      GoldenMeadows 09:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Technically, IMHO the article is factual, because it is fact that many people believe this.  The article is not meant to be an assertion concerning the actual existence of purgatory, merely to give a faithful representation of what it is. Guldenat 19:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fantasy

message: How about having separate sections for the Catholic understanding (this would probably be the largest due to the extent of theological development), Protestant understanding, Universalist understanding, questions of supertition, etc?
:Strangely, there's fierce opposition to including a complete Catholic understanding, as much of the teaching about purgatory isn't doctrine and is thus subject to criticism. Jonathan Tweet 13:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: Lima, would you please weigh in and give your opinion of the article in its current state? Would you agree with whoever took off the POV tag that it's now in line with WP policy? Jonathan Tweet 03:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  recent overhaul 

message: This article has been pro-Catholic POV since LostCaesar overhauled it in Feburary. The mediation that LC dropped out of labelled the page POV. The RfC that LC requested labelled the page POV. The new mediator labelled LostCaesar's new lead (the current one) as POV. For those of you new to this game, here's how the pro-Catholic POV works on this page.
* Suppress reference to "punishment." A salient feature of P is that it's punishment. The lead elides this fact because it doesn't play well to a modern audience.
* Purgatory as a condition. The term purgatory originally referred to a place, specifically a hell (inferno, underworld). The idea of immaterial souls being kept underground doesn't play well, so editors talk about the term referring to a condition or a process. Dogmatically, purgatory is a place, being given that defintion in 1254. These days, it's understood as a place in the spiritual sense, but it's a place.
* Suppress details. The Council of Trent recommended that Catholics not discuss P freely because it's liable to be criticized or misunderstood. Editors defend the pro-Catholic POV by deleting details that they don't like. Details that can't be suppressed, such as the single most comprehensive scholarly book on Purgatory saying that it's a medieval invention, get downplayed (e.g., stuck in the back of the article).
* Doctrine. The idea that purgatory is a doctrine is false. Purgatory is a place or condition of afterlife punishment and purification. There are doctrines about it, but it's not a doctrine. Also, there are nondoctrinal teachings. Also folk beliefs. The attempt to define P as a doctrine, or to denigrate all teaching about purgatory that isn't doctrine, is an attempt to defend the broader P tradition from criticism.
* History. P as formulated in the middle ages just doesn't exist in the early church or early medieval church. Early Christians believed that the dead awaited judgment day in hades, and that the saved were happy there, not punished. Editors struggle to find elements of early Christian belief that synch up with purgatory rather than simply summarizing early Christian afterlife beliefs.
* Bible. The section on what the Bible says about P has been deleted because the Bible can only be taken to refer to purgatory if interpreted in the manner of centuries-later Catholic teaching.
I like Catholicism for its erudition, charity, and support of human rights, but the months-long defense of pro-Catholic POV on this article forces me to promote the viewpoints that come across as anti-Catholic. If this page were dominated by raving Protestants who wanted to portray P as invented wholesale in the 1100s, then I'd be defending P against them. 
LC's POV lead has been sitting there for weeks. If no one else fixes it, I will. 
I also have a standing offer to use the Encyclopedia Britannica article on P as the basis for a comprehensive lead, which would be the basis for structuring the article as a whole, but I'm not going to do the work if it's just going to be stonewalled. Do I have any support for that project? Jonathan Tweet 13:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems like the pov you want added is your own, eccentric pov. Purgatory is not one of your D&D worlds, and this article is about purgatory, not a caricature of it. 86.141.36.162 17:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could I suggest that you ensure your comment are civil?--Addhoc 19:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag 

message: In addition to Jewish and Catholic apologetic views on this topic, I am going to add this: http://www.carm.org/catholic/purgatory.htm regarding Protestant apologetic views on Purgatory. I found no proof of spamming on this website with its hyperlinks. Any opinion? - 219.73.11.127 07:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No you won't. Stop spamming that website into articles. IrishGuy talk 19:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: One last time, adding links to the same website in numerous articles is spamming. Stop. IrishGuy talk 07:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  external link 

message: I can't imagine why anyone would object to the addition of concise information from a reputable, current, nonsectarian source. Object away. Jonathan Tweet 23:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  oxford dictionary of the christian church (ODCC) 

message: The old one attracted insults regarding my profession and my funny last name. The new one is anonymous. It's no secret who I am. Leadwind 02:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Every time I see the new name, I wonder: Lead, the metal?  or the article introduction?  or something else?  No need to respond.  Lima 16:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Lead" is the metal, the front part of an article, and a vanguard. "Wind" is both "gust" and "twist around." Human knowledge is ambiguous. Leadwind 20:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New user name 

message: Just my two cent, but it seems like, in so far as we describe the MODERN concept, we shouldn't use the term place, because it seems to have been outdated.  I know that once upon a time, people seriously believed that heaven was "above" us in the sky somehow, and hell "below us" in the earth somehow.  Even those this imagery and these metaphors still persist, I think you'd be very hard-pressed to find someone who still believes heaven, hell, or purgatory are places.   
Granted, the language still used that way-- "Go to heaven, go to hell" sounds as if it talks about a physical transport to a specific location-- not a flow-chart like transfer to a specific state, process, or plane of existence.
Now, historically speaking all bets are off, because prior to astrophysics and geology, people definitely did think they were physical places.   --Alecmconroy 13:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, in functional terms, we're going to have to mention place, because it has often been viewed as a place.  But we shouldn't insist in including place when summarizing modern belief, because place seems to no longer be part of modern formal theology. --Alecmconroy 13:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be happy to make explicit that Catholics no longer regard purgatory as a place as they once did, or that its punishments involve material flames. Leadwind 13:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Place"

message: I think we absolutely have to have CCC in lead, as it is the "most authoritative" description of what modern Roman Catholics believe.  I don't see its inclusion as a POV per se-- , I mean, if Purgatory is a Latin-rite RC term, the CCC is a valuable point of view.
I do worry that we jump straight into the CCC just a tad too early--  the CCC has very "insider" language that's quite hard to parse if you're not familiar with RC or atleast christianity.  I'd like to see us have a paragraph or a section where someone who knows almost nothing about christianity could pretty quickly get the gist of it, without they more technical language that we employ.   But that's not really a POV concern, it's just a stylistic issue. --Alecmconroy 13:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that we use too much jargon. Quoting the CCC is all well and good, but we need something clear for the uninitiated reader. Same goes for the body, where the meat of the article (what purgatory is) is basically quotes from the CCC. Leadwind 22:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: CCC in lead

message: Okay, having looked over the whole article, I think one of the reason we're having such a tough time is that the main article body is just too dense.  Instead, we keep drifting toward writing a little "mini-article" as the lead.  Additionally, we spend a HUGE amount of time caught up on this issue of what exactly Eastern views of Purgatory are.  And now, I see we've even added a bit about Chinese view of purgatory in the intro-- which is interesting and somethign that merits coverage, but probably not in the intro.
So, let's invoke Wikipedia:Summary style, and cleave off some of these extended discussions of ECC, EO, Protestant, Dharmic, and Daoist into a new article: Purgatory and World Religions.  Then we can add compare-and-contrasts of other religions to our hearts content.  For example-- what does Islam say about the subject??
And then, we summarize in the main article.  Because when the reader comes to an article on Purgatory, they will expect to see something that's mainly about roman catholicism, with a brief mention of other religions views very quickly summarized.  --Alecmconroy 19:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Brilliant idea about the other page. I don't need to see "China" in the lead, but I like placing purgatory in the context of world religions. Leadwind 03:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead edit disputes and a generally long lead

message: After mentioning that Purgatory is a Roman Catholic belief, well, doesn't that in itself imply that non-Catholic denominations don't believe in Purgatory?  Non-RC objections can be safely left to the main article, because anyone reading the lead will presumably have the wit to understand that Purgatory is a Catholic-specific belief, and that accordingly it's not accepted by Protestants or Eastern Orthodox or, for that matter, Hindus or Wiccans.  Ehrbar 09:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're way ahead of me.   A sentence or perhaps two in the intro seems appropriate, but we've gone well beyond that, because we've been trying to summarize extremely dense and thorough material in the intro.  Switching to summary style will let us discuss in subarticles, summarize in the main article body, and summarize the main article in the into. --Alecmconroy 10:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead needs to be cut approximately in half. The material on other denominations also had to be cut. The problem in the past has always been that short, clear statements to the effect that other churches regard purgatory as a serious error have always been expanded, muddled, conditioned, and made vague so that they don't discredit the RCC. We should mention other denominations not because they don't believe in P but because they actively regard it as a serious doctrinal error. Other churches might allow their clergymen to marry, but they don't regard RCC celibacy for priests to be the contentious topic that P is. It's salient that P is rejected in no uncertain terms over an over again by non-Catholic Christians. The lead should be able to stand alone as a summary of the whole topic (wee wp:lead, so we at least need something in the lead about other Christians regaring P as seriously false. How about: "Eastern Orthodox and Protestant churches generally reject purgatory as an unbiblical, medieval innovation." Short, to the point, relevant. Leadwind 14:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why mention other denominations in the lead?

message: Okay, I've just done some partial reverting of Lima, and I wanted to explain it.  He had gone over my edits and made a number of very valuable corrections.  (I got the number of partiuclar churches wrong for example!  big oops!)  In the process though, he did reintroduce some of the problems that are endemic to this article, so the bear further discussion.    
* We've gotta watch that unexplained technical jargon.  The changes reintroduced "particular church", "forms of piety", "ordination", "deaconate",  "Byzantine tradition"-- all of which are going to go straight over the heads of most of our readers.   
* I included a one line example about how priests in LC are celibate, priests in some ECCs are not.   This was expanded substantially, but remember, this isn't a comparative religion article.  We can go into the precise differences in which classes of clergy are in which state in the Clerical Celibacy article.  Don't get too hung up on specific of the marriage in ECC--- it was just a "for example" of a salient different that most people will instantly recognize.  
* "One of the differences between LC and ECC concerns views about Purgatory" was changed to "There is no difference between the Latin Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches about the doctrine of Purgatory."  I think the former statement is more appropriate than the latter.  The existence of differences is the only reason to have an ECC subsection section-- otherwise we'd just have one RCC section.  Don't worry-- the point that the LC and ECC are still accept dogmas is still made several times in the section.     
* ECC and LC see their view on purgatory as "differing in no essential matter" is all well and good, but the whole thesis of the section is that differences exist, but they are not important differences.  "Differing in no essential matter" is trying to get at that, I know, but it comes across as saying "There really aren't any real differences"-- which isn't a realistic summary.  
In general, again not at ALL imply any bad faith, it does seem like we're spending a lot of effort to hammer home that Purgatory-like concepts exist outside of the LC.   This is a valuable point to make, and the article will undoubtedly cover this--  but I worry that this one minor point has started to take over the whole article, so that the crux of the article is less about Purgatory, but more about how widespread Purgatory-like concepts are.  Let's watch out for this, and farm as much of this material to the Purgatory and world religions article, leaving behind only very brief summaries, so that the focus can return explaining RC doctrine, rather than EO, ECC, and Protestant views.  --Alecmconroy 07:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Similarly, I removed an extended discussion about RC and EO beliefs that had been inserted into the Protestantism section-- this is exactly the kind of thing that led to having such an incomprehensible article-- point, counterpoint, countercounterpoint, ad infinitum.   Summarize here, have the full discussion as the subarticle.  --Alecmconroy 08:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While unnecessary jargon should be avoided, in an article about a theological topic, some theological jargon is to be expected.  This is not Simple English Wikipedia.  Those technical words exist for a reason, and if a user is unaware of their meaning then he can look them up (its just a click away). Ritterschaft 08:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Leaving all Purgatory-like matters for another article, Alecmconroy's idea, seems good to me.  As does Ritterschaft's comment about terms that are just a wikiclick away, provided, of course, as Alecmconroy doubtless has in mind, that there is not a dense cloud of them at any one point.  Lima 09:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is WP policy to explain jargon. If we use jargon, we should explain it, not just reliy on a wikilink to explain it. The emphasis on how purgatory-like ideas are found in other Christian denominations and in Judaism (and not in pagan traditions) is an example of pro-RCC POV. Leadwind 13:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that jargon should be explained as is fitting.  I don't understand the "pro-RCC pov" sentiment, however.  As far as I know, purification in the afterlife is found in every religion except the Christian denominations (i.e. the Protestants), and I don't see why a Catholic would have any interest in avoiding such a statement.  I would bet cavemen prayed for their dead.  Is there a source that confirms this opinion about the RCC POV? Ritterschaft 14:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think, and I'm just guessing here, is that it's the RCC pov that Purgatory is basically a concept held by almost all christian religions, just differing in detail.  Whereas, an EO perspective, for example, is that Purgatory is NOT a widely help belief, it is a specific invention by the RC that dates to the middle ages.  But that just my basic "vibe" i get from reading over the page-- i certainly wouldn't wanna put that into an article unless sourced. --Alecmconroy 18:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The reason it's POV is that it's what Catholics say and not what EOs say, and not what nonsectarian references say. Leadwind 20:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I want to describe purgatory a "place or condition" because that's what good, nonsectarian encyclopedias say. We aren't better at writing articles about P than they are. These sources also point out areas where the EO specifically disagree with P. This isn't an "EO afterlife" section, this is a "EO's view of P" section. We should include the same sorts of material that EBO and ODCC do. Leadwind 21:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Simplify, Simplify

message: Well, my RfC has already paid off. The words "place" and "punishment" are in the first paragraph of the lead, something that LostCaesar and Lima resisted. Two mediations and a previous RfC were not able to manage this feat. We still don't use these terms in the very first sentence, like standard references do. I can't think of any reason that we're different other than POV. Leadwind 14:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I too am happy and grateful, and, in the hope that we may agree on everything as on this, I refrain from making comments on presenting Purgatory as a literal location, on the phrase "temporal punishment", and on notions of POV. (I think it would be better too if restraint were exercised in making edits while others are active in reworking the article; otherwise I might be forced to follow suit.)  Lima 16:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for refraining from reverting the stuff you don't like. But please, don't refrain from commenting. Comment! This is the talk page. Tell us what you think. You're as much a part of this as anyone. What do you think of defining P as a place of punishment? We know you disagree, so tell us why. I like it because it makes us like a good, nonsectarian encyclopedia. Leadwind 20:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  thanks for the help 

message: Similarly, the history section is definitely large enough to merit its own subarticle:  History of Purgatory --Alecmconroy 12:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now we need to hack the history section down to about one paragraph per era: ancient, early mid, high mid, and modern. This task will be difficult because the more concise and clear the information is, the more threatening it is to the pro-P POV. This move also makes our article significantly different from a regular encyclopedia article. A regular encyclopedia article is mostly about purgatory's history. Here we have a legit reason to differ from EBO or ODCC: we have a sub article and they don't. Let's be careful that this distinction isn't used to exclude NPOV information from this page. In fact, this change could make us more like a standard encyc article because they hit only the high points, and so can we. For example, no one else talks about John Henry Newman, and now, neither shall we. Leadwind 14:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm happy to do the hacking. Concise writing is something I learned at a young age. Ritterscchaft? Lima? Yak!? Alec's giving us the opportunity to trim this bulky article down to something lean. Should I move forward? Leadwind 14:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The history section needs to be cut way back now that we've spun it off as it's own page. I'll jump on it at some point unless someone beats me to it. Leadwind 13:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I would not like the history section to be cut, and I don't think it merits its own article. So much activity has been occuring that its difficult to keep up, and give my opinion promptly, but I disagree with moving this material off the page.  I have not been given a reason as to why this would be a good thing. Ritterschaft 13:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We either need to cut the history section or delete Alec's subartcle. We can't have both. Leadwind 11:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The subarticle is unnecessary. Ritterschaft 15:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: History subarticle

message: A selection of books labeled as "sources" was recently removed by Leadwind, on the stated basis that the article has so changed that they are not sources anymore.  I restored them as "further reading" simply because I thought the presentation of the texts could be preserved in this way.  But I don't think their removal was baseless.  Leadwind's idea seems worth discussing.  I could go either way. Ritterschaft 07:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Almost none of these things are about purgatory. If we're serious about helping the reader find more stuff on Purgatory, let's take the further reading material from the back of the EBO article and put it here. Leadwind 11:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would pay to check these out per WP:EL, one by one if necessary, because each source has its own merits (or lack thereof perhaps).  No objections, and it also looks like Lw has started.  Good.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further Reading 

message: I cut the metacontent comment at the head of the article. If this isn't going to simply be an article about purgatory (which would need no meta comment), then let's agree on talk what it's going to be. Predictably, I think our article should resemble a good, nonsectarian encyclopedia article and should include the sorts of topics that other such articles include. Such an article needs no meta comment. Leadwind 11:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Regardless of what's included or how its organized (split off History article or not, split off discussing comparative theology or not, split off discussing secular references or not, if at all, etc.), such a comment doesn't read well, and its function can be subsumed by well constructed redirects, among other things.  Under any scenario which uses it, a better alternative can be found that does not use it.   Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  metacontent 

message: I feel certain Alecmconroy would have given consideration to the following, if he had noticed it: "Here insert Alecmconroy's chart, corrected so that it no longer speaks of "Earth" (the planet) - as if heaven and hell were other planets! - but refers to "earthly life" or some such phrase. There also seems to be no need to use capitals for so many words, some of them entirely in capitals."  Lima 09:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flowchart 

message: To clarify-- when I warn against jargon--  actually jargon is fine.  What we can't use is 'unexplained jargon.  The problem is Jargon which is not first explained, in simple terms, in the text.  Using jargon is okay, when necessary, but we have to explain, and it takes quite a lot of words to actually explain jargon.  (indeed, the first half of the article is basically an attempt to explain what the jargon word "purgatory" means).  
I know there's a prevalent view, not just on this article but on wikipedia in general, that it's okay to use unexplained jargon if you hyperlink to it-- because the user can just go to the article and learn what the jargon means.  This sounds good, but in practice, it usually means that to comprehend a single article, a reader would have to read quite a large amount of material.
There's nothing "wrong" or at all "badfaithy" about hyperlinking jargon, it's just not good writing and we can do better.  The goal to shoot for is for us to be able to print this article out onto paper, hand it to a somebody who's never set foot in a christian culture, and have them be able to understand it.  A hard goal, but we're getting there. --Alecmconroy 21:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By now everyone knows that I see POV everywhere, so it will surprise no one when I say that jargon on this page is a POV issue. My recurrent thesis is that the clearer and more scholarly we are, the less plausible P seems (because it's not real). LC and others have defended P by eliminating information (including RS cited material), segregating unwelcome information, framing unwelcome information in particular ways, or using impenetrable jargon. I want to explain jargon because I want the naive reader to walk away with a clear understanding of P. Luckily, wanting the reader to understand the topic is something that even a POV defender has a hard time disagreeing with, so let's all agree to explain jargon. And, yes, my contention that P is false is POV. I recognize that and am willing to discipline myself with RS in order to prevent my POV from slanting the article. I would hope that those whose POV is that P is real would do the same. Leadwind 14:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think any editor should aim to prove that the purgatory that the Catholic Church teaches is either real or false: they should just state opinions about it objectively.  As for the straw-man purgatories that Lw thinks are false, I too think they are false.  They should not be confused with the purgatory that the Catholic Church teaches.  Lima 17:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Jargon

message: "Write a very basic discussion of purgatory before launching straight in dogma." Done. The distinction between mortal and venial sins is tricky, and the distinction between the guilt of mortal sin and the punishment due for mortal sin is really hard for the newbie to grasp. Do we need to tease these distinctions apart better? In general, let's keep moving forward. Another point we've agreed on is to summarize more and include big block quotes less. Leadwind 14:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: basic discussion

message: In English, "blind" can be an adjective or a noun. Same with Latin in general. "The purgatorial" means "the purgatorial (thing)." Theologians in the West used the term "purgatorium" all the time as an adjective. There were purgatorial pains, purgatorial fires, and purgatorial places. In the 12th cent., the noun that the adjective modified dropped away and the adjective assumed noun status. Where people used to say that you burned in purgatorial fire, now you burned in "Purgatory." The noun form came into place not to name an abstract process (let's call that "pre-Judgment purification"), but to name the place where the souls of the saved were purified. This is a POV issue when editors try to link purgatory to a process (which is abstract enough to be comaptible with modern thought.), and deny that it was ever taught to be a place (incompatible with modern thought). Leadwind 02:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I get the general linguisitic idea, although the details are still somewhat cloudy.  I only ask because I thought the relevant text was poorly worded (whatever its point was), and wanted to be better informed to improve it.  I am not at the point where I feel competent enough to do it, but others may try.  About this POV thing, consider allowing for the possibility of a "both/and" solution rather than only an "either/or" one.  A lot of the contention you see will evaporate when you allow for this.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 04:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In my last edit I took out the distinction between purgatorius, a, um (adj.) and purgatorium, ii (n.).  The difference between a substantival adjective and a noun is effectively nil.  I don't think the reader needs a complete etymology.  Ritterschaft 19:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  linguistic issue: purgatory from purgatorial 

message: I've been called confrontational. I have three things to say in my defense. First, I'm an English major born and bred, and I learned on my daddy's knee to say things very directly. Second, one tactic that some editors have used to defend a POV is to confound the issue with half-truths, tangents, counterpoints, etc. until the main idea is lost. Very simple, clear statements are my friend (I think) because I'm right (I think). Third, I'll try to be less confrontational. Now that the page is moving, maybe I should lighten up, slow down, and take it easy on the other editor. Let's please just keep sticking our collective nose in ODCC, EBO, and anything else really solid we can find. Leadwind 03:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "confrontational" 

message: Is there a WP policy about captions? I'd like to see them refer to the text so that our poor, overwhelmed reader to use them as touchstones and highlights of the material. People tend to stop at pretty pictures and look at them. They are our chance to help the reader skim the page. Ritterschaft and others apparently prefer that the captions explain the picture rather than refer to purgatory. Leadwind 16:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was not trying to make a general statement about all captions.  I restored the text about the painting of Gregory because I prefer it - it tells me about the subject of the picture (Gregory and the dove), draws me in, and is altogether quaint and interesting.  I just happen to like it. Ritterschaft 19:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Certain editors have had the practice of eliminating information about P from the page, apparently in defense of their POV. So when in doubt I like to add or retain information about P. Since your caption isn't about P, I'd like to use one that is about P, or at least add the P information back in. Leadwind 14:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  captions 

message: I don’t like these things about the High Middle Ages section.  We digress into bits about what the essential points of the doctrine are, and what sort of notions of purification existed in antiquity.  I’m not sure why.  We mention Hugh of Saltrey’s Tractatus de Purgatorio S. Patricii, but only to say that its part of larger purgatorial literature.  If no information is given about the text, then there is nothing to put in context.  We also talk about Gertrude the Great, but c. 1475 is pushing the limits of the word “medieval”, and the “Latin-American legend of the Anima sola” surely blows well by that limit.  Maybe this material (at least some of it) would be better placed in the literature section?  I don't know, but the whole thing is confusing. Ritterschaft 19:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there are inconsistencies with particular chronological content being in a wrong section timewise, clearly fixing that would be desirable.  I did notice some confluence of theological development and of literary use when I was doing massive copyediting, and wouldn't mind partitioning them apart, although that may be intrinsically difficult, since each infuences the other, and it may require a large reorg.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 05:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: High Middle Ages

message: I understand that certain information is not allowed on this page. Let's at least document the forbidden information here so that other editors, should they be wiser than we, can decide whether to put it back in.
Image of the anima sola, once the initial and only image, is said to be not edifiying or appropriate. It's a pretty picture, with a better view of "fire" than our current one, but it's not allowed.
The EBO says that the Bible presents a coherent view of P only when seen through the perspective of medieval theology. Citation cut and not replaced.
EBO says that P arises from the worldwide practice of caring for the needs of the dead, as do similar practices in China. Citation cut and not replaced.
The ODCC says that early Christians didn't worry much about an intermediate state because they were awaiting an imminent end of the world. Citation cut and not replaced.
I'd like to think that any real, reliable information would be allowed, but I'd rather move forward with Alec's task list than fight. Can we move forward with Alec's list? Leadwind 14:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  forbidden information 

message: Please excuse my dullness.  Where is "Alec's list"?  Lima 14:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Leadwind 03:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alec's list 

message: Is the neutrality still disputed, or can the box be removed? Ritterschaft 14:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given no objections over the past several days, I take it that is a yes. Ritterschaft 09:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Our primary definition of purgatory doesn't match that found in standard references. The article gives undue weight to quotes and items that are in line with purgatory while giving short shrift to evidence that makes purgatory look more like a medieval innovation. Reliable material that's unflattering to the pro-Purgatory POV has been removed. The page is a lot better, and I want us to keep moving forward, but it's still a full step or two from NPOV. Leadwind 03:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: The material on the Eastern Catholic Churches is tough. The topic is confusing. It's not covered in ODCC or EBO. Someone changed it to mostly a block quote and (per Alec's list) we're tying to cut back on the block quotes. We can't agree on how to present this information. Let's cut it. Leadwind 03:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ECC