Talk:Purgatory in world religions

New Page

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)

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)

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)

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)

Where can we discuss the Purgatory article?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Clarity and Readability

If we're to have subarticles for specific doctrines, it seems fair to insist this main article be clear and readable to a lay audience. So, we can tweak the language up to a point, but only to the point that it becomes incomprehensible. --Alecmconroy (talk) 17:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Tweaking the language to the point of inaccuracy is wrong. What on earth did you mean by the tweak of "so full of mortal sins"? This is just another kind of jargon. A worse kind, since the kind you dislike can, with a bit of study, be understood. But this is really meaningless. As for clarity, what is clear about having the Roman Catholic concept explained in two different ways? Lima (talk) 17:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not perfect, there will be many many places to improve my writing to make it clearer-- but so help me, we are somehow, someway having an explanation of Purgatory in wikipedia that a non-catholic lay person from Dubai can understand. If the best answer analogy we can come up with is "Christian sometimes envision that there's a white-haired bearded person in the clouds but you have to burn your sins off before you can be with him"--- if that's the best we can come up with, that's what it would have to be.

I think we can do a lot better than that, and get much much much closer to an accurate description, but if we have to face a choice between "complete dogmatic agreement with the Catechism According to Lima" and "something a human being who doesn't know about purgatory can actually understand", we're gonna have to go with the latter version.

Put another way-- I'm trying my best! Shouting at me that I'm not doing a good enough job does not solve the problem, and insisting that the only description of Purgatory be one so laced with jargon that it is inexplicable doesn't solve the problem either. I'm trying my best to find a simple way to explain this to people-- if my SIMPLE explanation doesn't meet your strigent doctrinal requirements, you can help to do my job better by giving me feedback, but please understand, i'm not TRYING to distort your beliefs, but the text is useless if it isn't comprehensible to outsiders, so sometimes you may just have to live with the fact that there are subtle theological differences between the simple overview and the full dogmatic definitions. --Alecmconroy (talk) 17:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

In science writing, we have to live with this all the time. The theory of gravity, the theory of motion, electromagneticism, cosmology, biology, math, astronomy etc. We all teach these by first teaching a "simple overview" and then teaching the details. The simple overview HAS to gloss over certain details if anyone is going to understand it. If I want to teach someone about the solar system, I describe the Sun, Planets, and Moons as spheres-- but ya know, actually, actually they're not spheres, that a lie-- but they're pretty close to being spheres, so we just gloss over that detail until someone has learned the basics, and then we show them where they can go to learn all the dirty details.

So is it here. The old Purgatory page is incomprehensible. You might as well put up a sign that says "If you're here to learn about purgatoy and you don't already know anything about christianity and catholicism, you need to go somewhere else, we can't help you". I'm going to fix that.

I'll do my best to fix it while still being as true as possible the RC doctrines, but if I fail, it's YOUR job to help me get it better while still being simple. It is not MY fault for even trying to write an understandable article in the first place. End of sermon.--Alecmconroy (talk) 17:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course, I don't think you are out to distort the teaching of the Catholic Church (I refer not to my beliefs, but to citable sources on what is the teaching of the Catholic Church). But there were in fact some distortions in what you introduced, some of which I quickly identified.

It was because of your rapid series of changes to the article that I felt obliged to rush in with a strongly worded protest. Could we please take it more gradually? The change of article is itself a huge change, done without proper consultation. Being bold is one thing, but being bold when the action is almost certain to raise opposition (as was clear in this case) is quite another thing and not a good one. This was immediately followed by what I felt was another big change, the presentation of the Roman Catholic teaching on purgatory twice, once under the heading "Overview of the Purgatory concept" (but "according to Roman Catholicism", as is explicitly stated) and then giving "Roman Catholic view". This seems to be either duplication or contradiction. I would have to digest both these novelties before getting down to giving serious consideration to the details. But the best way I could find to cry halt, and gain us time to reflect, was by objecting to the details.

Too bad that this is very late in the day for me. Lima (talk) 18:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Move

Apologies if my move has ruffled feathers but I did signal it in advance and received no objection of substance so I acted boldly. If consensus says it should be reversed, then so be it but I urge you all to consider how much better and easier it will be if there is a specific catholic article and a main article which is non-(or multi-)denominational. Also if it is reversed care should be taken not to lose history, talk and useful intermediate edits. I certainly don't feel I own the article and I suggest that others take the same npv attitude. Good luck. Abtract (talk) 18:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

There does not need to be concensus for it to be "reversed", there only needs to be dispute - there needed to be concensus for your move, not for the return of the status quo. For a little background, the older purgatory article did have a section on Eastern Orthodox, and others. However, you moved these to the atricle on "purgatory and world religions" because there was general agreement on talk that the purgatory article should be only on the catholic doctrine. I was not a major proponent of this, but I was not opposed either. If I recall, Leadwind was the main proponent. I do not object to a diversity of views. What I object to is, besides the way this went about (which, for the sake of it, I'm droping atm), that typing "purgatory" brings up something other than an article about the catholic doctrine. "Purgatory" is not ambiguous. It is a doctrine of the catholic church. Ritterschaft (talk) 19:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, I agree we need to restore the pages with their histories. I don't know how to do that (I don't know how this move was accomplished in the first place), but I am restoring the article as best I can. I think you will find I am very reasonable, but this turn of events has evoked a great deal of angst on my part and I will not stand for such changes, not done in the way they were. Ritterschaft (talk) 19:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

To be fair-- he did ask like three times for discussion, so don't come down on him too hard. If you feel angsty, feel angst at yourself for not having made your feeling clear earlier, when he asked, ya know? --Alecmconroy (talk) 19:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

We were in the middle of discussing, and voting, on a new intro. Presumably, that is not the time to toss in such a radical proposal. I do recall a theoretical discussion about what the subject of the article should be, a subject on which his opinions found much disagreement. I would assume that the result of such a discussion would not be a radical move of the article. Ritterschaft (talk) 19:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

To be fair again - Abtract asked three times. He got two noes: Ritterschaft said it was like having an article on "Europe on Planet Earth"; I said: "Adding 'in Catholic teaching' is tautological." He got no aye. The only opinions express were two against, only one in favour. Very poor ground for "being bold".

Abtract never even clearly put his idea forward as a proposal for action. My comment on it was on what I thought was a vague idea, not a proposal. It must have seemed even less serious to Ritterschaft than to me, since he forgot having made his negative comment on it. And the lack of response by others may indicate that they too did not interpret Abtract's idea as a serious proposal. Lima (talk) 20:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I tried to move the page back. I really don't know what's happened now. Hopefully, the person who made this mess can help inform us all how to better fix it. Ritterschaft (talk) 21:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the software doesn't work that way. You're gonna need an admin to do this for you, if indeed the AFD decides that's what's to be done. --Alecmconroy (talk) 22:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

new page?

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)

• note this discussion [1] Abtract (talk) 12:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete this page?

This page is simply an inferior version of Purgatory. Lima (talk) 08:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

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)