Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-23 Purgatory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
State: Closed

Requested By: Jonathan Tweet 02:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Mediated By: MessedRocker



Contents

[edit] Request Information

[edit] Who are the involved parties?

Lostcaesar and Jonathan Tweet.

[edit] What's going on?

Lostcaesar has pushed his pro-Catholic POV on the page, he has repeatedly deleted and subverted material unfriendly to his POV, and he just broke the "truce" to which we both agreed.

In February, he overhauled the article, making it highly POV. He deleted and subverted my edits that were contrary to that POV. He bullied me into leaving the page alone. He promotes a version of the NOR policy by which primary sources on their own are not just suspect but forbidden. We got an RfC, which helped, but LC's disruptive behavior continues. It's lots better, but he just violated the two-week "truce" that we agreed to only 2 days ago. I tried repeatedly to play nice, but he has refused.

Well, it is difficult to respond to the above comments briefly, so I will ask patience as I explain the overall context of difficulties and thereby address specific issues.
I have been working on the Purgatory article a good bit attempting to correct and clarify many inaccuracies that had crept in, and to expand various sections. In this process I have had difficulties, though none I felt to be insurmountable, with a fellow editor Jonathan Tweet. He has generally characterized my edits as “advocating a pro-Catholic Point of View”, and has seen some of my editing of his contributions as hostile, even claiming that I have “bullied” him into (temporarily) “leaving the page alone”. Let me address these points carefully.
His accusations of PoV are difficult to address simply because he has not precisely detailed what he means by this. At no point did I add any information arguing for the veracity of the doctrine; rather, I simply gave information on it — its articulation and history. Likewise, I made extensive contributions to the section on the Reformation and Protestantism, including expanding the section on Martin Luther from a book of mine, D. MacCulloch’s The Reformation. I likewise removed an unsourced statement about Calvin that accused him of having a woman lashed for praying at her son’s grave. Similarly, in an attempt to improve the material on Greek Orthodoxy, I went to my university library and read Daniel Clendenin’s Eastern Orthodox Theology, John Meyondorff’s Byzantine Theology, and consulted The Blackwell Dictionary of Eastern Christianity, adding information from these. Of course, I also added information from Catholic sources, but this is a Catholic doctrine.
This brings up the important matter of sources. Unfortunately, my co-editor and accuser has a very poor notion of research, and his edits are regularly original research or personal PoV musing proclaimed as fact. I most certainly did remove information that was of this nature when it was wholly wrong. But I also did a good deal to preserve or incorporate it as much as I could. For example, JT added a section about some early Church Fathers and their statements about the afterlife, which he said “do not correspond clearly to purgatory” (no source for this statement). He wrote that Tertullian believed that “every soul” was “held in Hades until the day of the Lord” (source for this: direct cite of the primary source of Tertullian). He said the same for Hippolytus (source for this: direct cite of the primary source of Hippolyus). He then wrote that “this description parallels Luke’s description of Lazarus and the rich man in hades… (no source for this). Lastly, he wrote that “Origen depicts the righteous dead not as suffering punishment but as in a school for souls” (source for this: direct cite of the primary source of Origen). This may be viewed here. Not satisfied with this level of research, I investigated. I found, in A. J. Visser’s article ‘A Bird’s Eye View of Ancient Christian Eschatology’ in the academic journal Numen, that Tertullian believed that martyrs immediately went to Heaven, contrary to what JT wrote. I found also, in two other sources, that Origen believed that some souls immediately entered heaven and that others experienced a purifying penal and spiritual fire. I had to spend a good deal of time in the library looking through journals to correct these mistakes, and it is JT’s consistent inability to understand the need for proper research that has proved an intractable problem. Another example, he casually wrote that Eastern Orthodox belief was “essentially conscious soul sleep”. He gave no source for this internally contradictory and wholly inaccurate statement (see here).
One final example will suffice. JT, on the Purgatory talk page, listed a series of biblical quotes, then writing, “So do these verses indicate that the authors believed in or even had a concept of purgatory? No” — and then proceeded to state “what the article should say” about them, never bothering to consult a secondary source. He listed these quotes on talk exactly because he wanted the editors to debate them and determine whether they supported purgatory or not, then add that to the article. This is simply inappropriate, as I tried to explain, since it is wholly original research and, besides, is argumentative and attempts to present one view as “the truth”.
This really exemplifies the problem. I have consistently added information from reputable sources, often journeying to the library and sifting through texts and journal articles to make sure the article gets the facts right. At one point, another editor stated that he would like to incorporate the view of Jacques Le Goff’s La naissance du purgatoire. Not only did I obtain this 500 page book, but I also investigated two academic reviews in two difference journals, incorporating all three views. In contrast, JT has never added any information from a source other than a website (granting one use of an online book, though I had found the text and cited it first), and far more often than not his work will have no source or only a primary source (available online).
Amazingly enough, JT sees my work as a negative. He accused my additions, from so many sourced and academic sources, as “harder to follow” since “one can’t double-check [them] online”, asking others to engage in “googling up references” since they are “superior” to “physical book[s]”. Now, I certainly have no problem with reputable online sources, but it should be obvious as to how difficult it is to work with an editor who has this attitude. He has not yet shown that the sources that I have worked hard to consult and include are mistaken, something I would be wholly open to if properly sourced.
So what of the matter of bullying? First it should be noted that whatever bullying is supposed to have happened must not have been to bad, since JT returned to editing the page (only later placing this request). But a much more detail set of observation can be made here. On JT's talk page, I wrote that "I would like to take the chance to thank you again for your interest and time concerning the [purgatory] article", calling him "a fine editor". I told him, "I appreciate your thoughts and contributions, which are always helpful. It is in part thanks to you that the article is so much better now. I also appreciate your demeanor and patience, you tact and reasonableness. And, of course, I look forward to working with you in the future." Later, I wrote that he was "smart, inquisitive, reasonable, and amiable". Obviously, there have been difficulties and exchanges, but I firmly hold there is no record of bullying whatsoever.
The matter of PoV is certainly worth returning to. Though JT has consistently presented me as pushing a PoV, and thus himself as implicitly fighting for neutrality, a record of his correspondence shows the opposite. The above comments about biblical passages is just one example. Another example is what followed after I had requested comments on the article. Several editors thankfully gave advice, and, as the record shows, I worked diligently to incorporate their advice. However, following this JT placed a comment on the talk page of one of the commentators, Alecmconroy, stating incorrectly that I had not implemented his suggested changes. More importantly, JT did not place any comments on the talk pages of editors whose comments had been more favorable to the presentation of the article, e.g. Vassyana or especially InfernoXV. My point is, from this it could be inferred that JT did not welcome views that differed from his own.
It is worth pointing out that JT’s own private webpage has a lengthy article on Purgatory (available here) where he sates that “Medieval Catholic Priests invented Purgatory” as a means of “controlling people”, to “increase the power of priests”, to “satisfy… vengeful wishes”, and so on. Not surprisingly, he gives the same opinion about Lazarus and the Rich Man that he has inserted into the purgatory article.
In conclusion, I think the record shows the following. Though my edits are not perfect and the though the article needs to be improved, I have consistently worked to add sourced information and by this greatly contributed to the article. JT’s accusation of PoV are best understood in the context of him wishing to push his own PoV, as expressed on his webpage, as the truth (and no doubt he thinks it is the truth), yet he has proven unable to provide sources for his edits. My response to him has been one of overwhelming patience and a true and genuine series of attempts to maintain a spirit of collegiality. However, I am simply unable to allow errors, unsourced musings, and the like to remain on the page. JT’s comments here are wholly unfounded, as the record shows.
Lostcaesar 19:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What would you like to change about that?

I would like someone to tell him that he's being unreasonable and get him to play nice.

[edit] Mediator response

As rule of thumb, in a mediation case I always want to see all sides of the story. I've sent a message off to Lostcaesar asking him to comment on this request for mediation. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 07:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting, both of you. As it would appear the both of you have been accused of biased editing. I wish to look over the article myself and see if there are biases in the article. In the meantime, I ask that the both of you refrain from editing the article. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 20:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Following a cursory glance of the article, there doesn't seem to be a problem other than that in the earlier parts of the article, there seems to be a large use of quotations. While quotations are certainly a legitimate method of saying what other people have said, I am concerned that they are potentially being used to weasel out of neutrality. If you believe there is biased editing otherwise, could you point out specific parts to me? (Also, try avoid very long essays, because people tend to not thoroughly read long essays.) —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 00:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Am I supposed to refrain from discussing on the talk page, too? For that matter, what happens now? Jonathan Tweet 04:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Talk page discussion is fine. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 10:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Administrative notes

[edit] Discussion

My issues with the article are not what's in it but what's been cut from it. That might make mediating harder, especially because LC cut a lot. If you want to get an idea of what I mean by LC defending his POV and bullying me off the page, you're going to have to look at the history, starting around February 20. LC overhauls the page (making it POV, pre RfC), I repeatedly add balancing material but each time LC deletes it or subverts it. We get an RfC, and LC follows some of the direction we're given, but not all. I give up, because getting some space is an early step in conflict resolution. When I start editing again, he manhandles my edits. I ask for a truce, he accepts but breaks it. Here we are.
If it's content (not behavior) you're asking about, here's an example of a POV deletion. In Catholicism, purgatory is repeatedly linked to fire, but LC removed reference to fire from the lead. Why? Frankly, the idea of being burned in fire for your sins comes off a little old-fashioned these days. The talk page points out other specific issues where LC has defended his POV by cutting information out of the article or preventing me from adding it (or both). Here's another example: LC removed references to the Bible from the history section. Why? I think it's because the more a reader knows about what the Bible says about the afterlife the less sense purgatory (or at least the elaborate Latin tradition) makes. Does someone defending purgatory want the reader to get a clear idea of early Christian afterlife beliefs? I don't think so. Here's another POV deletion: there's scant reference to purgatory as a separate place (an inferno separate from gehenna and limbo) until the Middle Ages. Does the article help the reader understand this basic fact? No. LC is the one who made the page POV, and he's the one who removed the tag. He'd removed the tag prematurely before, and he did it again. This is a very nicely put together POV article. Jonathan Tweet 01:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry for the long essay, but it seemed necessary given the flurry of issues. I will be more laconic here. I incorporated lots of material concerning purging fire into the article, adding some myself. I can’t recall if it was in the lead, but it probably wasn’t since its not part of the doctrine per se and the lead must be to the point. Biblical quotes cannot be interjected without secondary citation, and, frankly, we are an encyclopedia, not an apologetics site (pro or con). Lastly, I’m the one who added the view that purgatory was not described as a place until certain medieval theologians explored this possibility. Anyway, there is no evidence of PoV pushing here, no matter how one sees the subject. What does strike me as PoV is when one imports the opinion, unsourced, which happens to be from his own personal webpage dedicated to ranting against Purgatory, that the account of Lazarus and the Rich man debunks purgatory, and so forth. Lostcaesar 03:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
LC says, "there is no evidence of PoV pushing." LC, I'm curiuos to know your explanation for Alec finding your page to be POV. If the person who overhauled the page isn't responsible for it being POV, who is? Jonathan Tweet 04:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
LC, still curious about your explanation for why the page was judged to be POV after you overhauled it. Jonathan Tweet 13:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Specific Diffs

If it's not too much to ask, could you link to specific diffs of situations where there is POV pushing or any other kind of misgrievance? —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 05:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Specific diffs. Would you like the overall picture, the POV overhaul that LC gave the page starting in February? Or a clear case of POV pushing? Or a case of bullying? Or the biggest failing of the page? Or the first step in the overhaul?
For now, here's the first step. [1] LC deletes reference to Perpetua. Her story fits the Eastern image of the afterlife, not the Latin image, so she's gone. The whole section on church fathers contradicting purgatory is gone. One is left with the impression that if the church fathers said anything about the afterlife, it was in line with purgatory. Bible verses are removed. These were the texts of the Bible verses cited as supposedly supporting purgatory. I put them in the footnotes because that made them easier for the reader to read, and I absolutely want the reader to read for themselves what these Bible verses say. (Hint: They don't say much about purgatory.) When I put those verses there long ago, LC told me that it wasn't kosher and that some editor might remove them on those grounds. And who does that editor turn out to be? The guy who doesn't want the reader to read these verses in context and decide on their own whether they refer to purgatory.
I bet if I looked I could find another case or two of POV in this diff, or we can go on to another one. Remember, at this point LC is just getting started. Jonathan Tweet 05:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I am not exactly fond of citing the Bible unless you are citing exactly what the Bible says. For example, it would be appropriate to cite the Bible for a statement saying that the Bible says "Thou shalt not commit adultery." Saying something like "Peter was unsure about the idea of a purgatory" and then citing the Bible would not be appropriate as it would be original research — unless there is a exact part of the Bible where it says Peter was unsure about the idea of a purgatory. (I don't recall such a clause.) As for the removal of information on Purgatory as seen by the Eastern Rites, unless that can be justified I don't see it as legitimate (and could harm the neutrality of the article). —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 05:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I was citing the Bible and saying only exactly what the Bible says, verbatim. I added no commentary. I only made it easier for the reader to read the texts that the pro-purgatory material was already referring to. I like to let the text speak for itself. What would you like me to do next? The next diff?
[2]The next diff is mostly LC deleting the contrary-church-father material again after I'd restored it. This is the pattern. I add material, he deletes it. He also adds another datum from popular Jesuit scholars (is that right, LC?).
What next? Jonathan Tweet 06:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
It doesn’t seem like I can win. If I remove biblical quotes that are offered to support purgatory, its because I supposedly wish to conceal the truth that they really don’t. And if I remove quotes against purgatory? A more consistent and rational explanation would be that I removed them on two grounds: (1) because citing biblical quotes to support a pro or con position without secondary citation is secondary research, and (2) because it is non-standard format to include lengthy quotes of biblical verses in footnotes. There is, after all, a bibleverse template that redirects the reader via an external link to the full quote — and I added many of these templates. This is the reason I gave in talk, one should note. And besides, JT's argument hangs on the fact that the quotes don't actually support purgatory, and who is he to determine this? The evidence shows that my edits are wholly unrelated to PoV, and the very fact that JT insists on seeing every edit as a PoV issue (and he has not really identified the PoV he is accusing me of in detail) makes editing the article very difficult. The problem with the Perpetual and Felicity quote is that JT added it, without using a secondary source, and added his own personal commentary about how the prayers for the dead were for an unbaptized person (I think he argued that had some relevance, don’t properly recall), even though the text never said anything about the dead person being prayed for being unbaptized. It is, in fact, another example of JT pushing a PoV via original research without bothering to cite secondary sources. Lostcaesar 11:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Messedrocker, please let me know how to move forward. Should LC and I go back and forth about this diff, do I show you the next one, do I document the bullying, or do we skip to an overall look at the overhauled page? Or what? I'll say that I waited months before taking this issue to mediation, so there's quite a bit of material to review. Jonathan Tweet 13:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I would like to see overall what has changed about the article, and why it is bad. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 15:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
As would I. JT wrote, "My issues with the article are not what's in it but what's been cut from it." Well, I would ask him to name something that was cut that was not OR (either a personal musing or a personal reflection on a primary source), and if something is then forthcomming I would ask it be shown that the source is up to par. Lostcaesar 15:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article changes

Here's what has changed overall with the article and why it is bad. [3] This is the difference between the article in February and today. This diff misses deletions that LC undertook before his overhaul. It also misses deletions of his that I restored. But if you would simply scan the history for purgatory, you'll see that LC has dominated the page since Feb 20. For now, let's focus on this diff. Sorry that this is long, but LC has been busy.

Well, this is certainly a flurry of points. Let me say two things first. I was under the impression that the problem JT had with the article was, as he put it, concerned “not what’s in it but what’s been cut from it”. It would seem, however, from these points that such a statement is inaccurate. Whatever the case, I would like to simply observe that a number of complaints ought not be taken to be of great weight in and of themselves, and that their substance, not number, is in issue. With that in mind, I take up these points. Lostcaesar 20:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Lead section, punishment: The reference to purgatory as punishment has been eliminated. That's right, how does LC summarize purgatory? By not associating it with punishment. Should we keep going? That deletion is enough to show that LC is not playing fair. If he wants a cite for the intolerable pain of the fires of pugatory, there are plenty of Catholic sources. LC's stock answer is to say that fire is part of the Latin tradition and not dogma. (I don't have a source for official dogmatic statements on purgatory, so I haven't double-checked him.) The "not dogma" angle is a ploy allowing LC to eliminate fundamental elements of the church teaching on purgatory (most church teaching is not dogma). Purgatory is extraordinary if not unique in emphasizing the suffering of the elect in the afterlife. The Greek tradition and the Protestant tradition emphasize light and rest or eternal bliss, respectively. In this new lead, the salient feature of purgatory, that characteristic that gives it its special nature, is eliminated.

JT repeatedly asked for the lead to briefly summarize the dogma. In response, I added a direct quote from the Catholic Catechism, the current authority on the dogma. I don’t see how this is objectionable. Before this, the article contained information about punishment that I had added; but, in the course of our dialogue, it became necessary to clarify the teaching with a direct quote from the Catechism. JT is right in saying that there is a difference between the dogma and theological expressions particular to traditions, and our work together has refined the lead's articulation of this fact. Whatever the case, there is no evidence of a PoV pushing on my part. That said, if JT has sourced and reliable information he would like to add, I have no objection. Lostcaesar 20:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Lead section, Latin v Greek: LC changed the article from comparing Catholic-v-Orthodox beliefs to comparing Greek-v-Latin beliefs. Other things being equal, this could be fine, maybe superior. In LC's hands, it's a tool of obfuscation. A minority of Greek-tradition Christians are in communion with the Pope; they don't talk about "purgatory," but they agree not to debate the issue. By categorizing Eastern Catholics with Eastern Orthodox, he's created a structure in which the divide between Catholicism and Orthodoxy is blurred. The plain fact that most Eastern Christians regard purgatory as a weird invention of the Latins gets smoothed over. He says he never divided the Eastern Catholics from the Roman Catholic Church, but this diff shows otherwise.

I never divided the Eastern Catholics from the Roman Catholics. I divided the Eastern Catholics from the Latin Catholics, a difference that JT has not yet been able to understand (JT thinks, wrongly, that Roman Catholic and Latin Catholic are exclusive synonyms — All Latins are Roman Catholic but not all Roman Catholics are Laints). The change was complimented in the talk page by InfernoXV. I am glad that JT no longer sees the change as, in principle, problematic, saying "this could be fine, maybe superior." I would like to see evidence that the change was aimed at obfuscation and that I blurred the divide between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. It sounds more like a baseless accusation than a supported fact. Lostcaesar 20:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Lead section, history: The term purgatory was dogmatically assigned to a place where souls were punished. This place was understood to be an "inferno" (underworld). Catholics retoractively use the term purgatory for purfiication after death, but there's no reference to a special "place" for this purification to happen until the Middle Ages. The lead makes no mention of this key development in the teaching of purgatory. LC will likely respond that the medieval teachings about purgatory aren't dogma. His goal is to reduce, restrict, and limit information.

We need sources for these claims before we can discuss their relevance to the article. No source and its just JT's opinion. Lostcaesar 20:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Lead section, historical outlook: No mention of historians' opinion that purgatory was invented in the 2nd, 3rd, or even 12th century, or that it derives from Hellenistic philosophy.

Or that it is rooted on Jewish belief, or that it was taught by Jesus Christ, or the Apostles — given your accusations of PoV pushing, one would expect to see that in the article, no? The lead does not discuss historical opinions about the origin and development of the doctrine. It could, of course, and I wouldn’t stand against doing this in the right way. After all, I added the “interpretations” section which was dedicated to discussing this very issue at length — not the act of a PoV pusher, no? The point is, one cannot take the state of the lead and say that I made it PoV because I did not promote one view to the exclusion of others, and I did not stand against a sourced and accurate representation of the topic. Indeed, I even added material contra to the PoV I am supposed to be pushing, just not in the lead (because the lead did not mention the topic). This is just smoke, nothing more. Lostcaesar 20:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Lead section, controversy: LC would have the reader understand that the details of purgatory have been a matter of debate. In fact, they've been a matter of contentious dispute for centuries. Purgatory is one of a handful of Catholic doctrines that generates significant resistance from Eastern Christians (the 90% of them that don't submit to the Pope of Rome) and from Protestants. Let's not understate the case. Let's show the reader why this topic is interesting, and one of those reasons is the conflict it generates.

So I'm (Catholic) Pov pushing because I added to the lead statements saying that purgatory has been a matter of debate and contention, especially with protestants? That does not make sense to me. It seems I can do nothing right. If I give information on Catholicism I'm a zelot, and if I give opposition views I'm not doing enough. The simply truth is that JT wants to see his personal opinion given maximal weight, even though he does not have the sources to support it. Sorry, but that's not what we are. We are an encyclopedia — you have your own wenpage to publish your views. Lostcaesar 20:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Lead section, nonChristian purgatories: Like Catholicism, Islam says that some will be burned by fire before entering paradise. Like Catholicism, medieval Judaism said that people were purified in fire after death before achieving heaven. LC deleted these references. He wants the concept of purgatory to be exactly vague enough to encompass Eastern and Protestant beliefs about purification and exactly specific enough to be unrelated to similar concepts in sister faiths (Zoroastrianism, Islam, and Judaism).

I moved these sections to talk because they had no sources. I added requests on the Judaism and Islam portals for editors to help (hardly a PoV thing to do, no?). No one came. Never have sources been forthcomming, and we have no reason to think the material accurate. Again, its not a matter of PoV, as the record shows, but of accuracy. Lostcaesar 20:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

History, Bible: References to the Bible are eliminated because a good look at the Bible leads one to question purgatory. The Bible refers to sheol (= hades), gehenna, the lake of fire, the bosom of Abraham, paradise, heaven, tartarus, and New Jerusalem as places people go after they die or after judgment day. It never mentions or describes a place corresponding to purgatory. Catholic teaching even links purgatory directly to specific Bible verses, so even a Catholic should have something to say here, but LC knows that once this can of worms is open, there's trouble.

So you say, "a good look at the Bible leads one to question purgatory" — that sounds like you expressing your own PoV as fact, and wanting the article to do so as well (its also ignorant of the fact that the Catholic position is not a "bible alone" position, hence this, even if true, has no impact on Catholic teaching). You think my PoV is that I am pro-Catholic but I secretly am aware that the biblical case for purgatory is a fraud and thus am devilishly hiding this from an online encyclopedia? Why again? This is absurd conspiracy theorist stuff. Look, if you want a section on Biblical interpretations, then, like I have been saying, you need sources. Its that simple. I’m not keeping a PoV out that is sourced and relevant. I may be accused of keeping unsourced original research, i.e. JT’s own personal PoV, from the article, but that’s quite different, no? Lostcaesar 20:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

History, Perpetua: In line with Eastern beliefs, this account is deleted.

Because its OR, is it not? Did you not give your own personal interpretation of a primary source and present it as fact? Did you not? Yes, that is exactly what you did. Please, put this all over your own webpage. But we are an encyclopedia. We need a scholar, not you, to say it. Lostcaesar 20:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

History, Church fathers: References cherry-picked to tally with purgatory (or at least not contradict it too bad). The section details references to purification and prayer for the dead because these are two elements of purgatory found in the early church. It eschews a clear statement of what the fathers believed about life after death because those facts are inconvenient. It eliminates references to church fathers who contradict purgatory (e.g., the souls of the dead are reserved in hades until judgment day).

Again, show secondary sources, else we're just talking about your opinions. Lostcaesar 20:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Greek Tradition: This used to be the Orthodox outlook, and the section started with the EOC's clear opposition to purgatory. LC changed it to the Greek tradition, so the 10% Eastern Catholic minority get parallel treatment to the 90% majority EOC. The difference between mainstream Latin and Greek traditions is blurred by the inclusion of a minority, Catholic veiwpoint in the Greek section.

And what is different between the ECC and the GO theology? The section treats them seperatly, of course, but groups them in the same section because, as far as our sources tell us, the only difference is that EC see their interpretation (which is the same as the GO) as compatible with the Catholic doctrine (and the Latin's agree), whilst the Orthodox do not. Lostcaesar 20:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Protestant Reformation: Hard to follow on this diff, I'll pass over it without comment. If LC managed to re-summarize Protestant beliefs without being POV, my hat's off to him.

Mormon theology: Cut. They believe in prayer for the dead and in theosis. The section could have been shorter, but it doesn't need to be excluded.

I already addressed this in "Lead section, nonChristian purgatories"; I moved this section to talk because it had no sources. Lostcaesar 20:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Judaism, Islam, Zoroastrians: Cut. For the historian of religion who considers doctrines to be human inventions, Zoro, Muslim, and Jewish ideas similar to purgatory help us understand purgatory in context. LC doesn't want purgatory to be understood in historical context.

I already addressed this in "Lead section, nonChristian purgatories". I will cut and paste: I moved these sections to talk because they had no sources. I added requests on the Judaism and Islam portals for editors to help (hardly a PoV thing to do, no?). No one came. Never have sources been forthcomming, and we have no reason to think the material accurate. Again, its not a matter of PoV, as the record shows, but of accuracy. Lostcaesar 20:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Secular view: Of course this gets the ax. In our RfC, which twice described the page as POV, we were told to incorporate this material into the body of the work rather than segregating the critical-historical outlook. LC hasn't done so but removed the POV tag anyway (three times).

Actually, we now have a much superior and sourced bit of information that includes the only reliable sources anyone ever mentioned, including a book by Le Goff which I incorporated into the article (not a very PoV thing to do, huh?), and the opinions of two reviews of the work that were equally secular (though not very favourable to it, as it turns out). I moved this section to talk because it had only one source, that was a website of a community college, if I recall correctly, and some remarks on another webpage that never mentioned purgatory and had nothing to do with the doctrine at all (it was a page by James Tabor about Bibilcal Jewish beliefs concerning Hell, or something like that). Again, I am about sources, not Pov. Lostcaesar 20:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Interpretations: New addition, apparently an ad hoc section allowing LC to include Le Goff (and avoid blatant POV) while making Le Goff's views less prominent (a more nuanced POV). LC's research into this topic included finding negative reviews of Le Goff's book. Did he find positive reviews? Did he look for them?

I looked, did you? Did you do any work on this by looking up sources? I go to a library, read a book, look through journals, read reviews, include the information — all at your request — and you blast me for PoV, without ever lifting a finger to do research of your own. Its an embarassment to wikipedia that this is even a problem. The interpretations section came about in an attempt to satisfy your many requests (the information I had originally included, prominently, in a histoy section at the top of the article page, which JT objected to). Lostcaesar 20:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's my request. Please put a POV tag back on the page. LC took the tag off himself without getting anyone else's buyoff first. I've held back to see if anyone else out there would step up and tag it.

Let me also remind you that my complaint is twofold, that LC made the page POV, and that he bullied me off of it. This diff only addresses the first complaint. Jonathan Tweet 17:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks, LC. Messedrocker, what would you like us to do next? Jonathan Tweet 21:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Summary

If I am correct, it appears that Lostcaesar is accused of pushing a pro-Purgatory bias and covering up any signs of negativity of Purgatory, howver it mostly is because the statements Tweet has been adding were unsourced, original research, and based on personal opinion/interpretation. Am I correct? —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 22:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes I believe this to be a fair acessment of this difficulty. Lostcaesar 22:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's the two sides of the story: I say LC is defending a POV; he says he's just improving the article by taking out OR, etc. LC has defended himself against my accusations. On this page, I haven't defended myself against his. Is that the next step? Jonathan Tweet 01:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome to. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 01:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd be happy to repsond to LC, but first could I ask for a clarification? LC, are you saying that you never made the page POV at all, or only that you made it POV inadvertently? Or what? Jonathan Tweet 03:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think we would gain from much more banter. I feel the points have been made and the record stands for itself. I think the accusation that I have set out to push a PoV agenda is dead wrong. As for issues fo balance and presentation, I am open to improvements and other opinions, and I'm not saying the article is perfect, but we have never been able to get to this point because all additions have been OR etc. Lastly, I think most of your obejctions could be solved by education concerning just what purgatory is and just what is and is not believed, doctrinally and so forth, which is why sources are so important. Lastly, I am nervous because of the track record you have of importing opinions from your own webpage, which is at times down right venemous to Catholicism (your own opinion your welcome to, of course), presented as fact on an encyclopedia, which strikes one of self-publishing. I other words, I'm not saying the article is perfect, but I am saying you are wrong to accuse me of being a PoV pusher, and I think you need to refresh your approach to editing the article from a more encyclopedic and less personal approach. Lostcaesar 09:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Messedrocker, here's a problem that arises repeatedly, LC's refusal to answer straight questions with straight answers. The RfC that LC got told us twice that his version of the article was POV, and now that it still has trouble spots. He says he's never pushed POV on the article, but he's never explained why his article keeps getting judged to be POV. Jonathan Tweet 12:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The reason for all this banter is very simple; this is an exercise in communication. Through communicating, we can see where each person stands. I hope in a short period of time to come up with exactly how we can deal with this situation. In the meantime, I ask that you continue refraining from editing the article. But I don't want that to be the permanent solution. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 14:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My two cents

Sorry I don't have more time to help out more on the dispute. Here are the things I'd say about the status of the dispute and how to solve it. First off-- recognize a HUGE amount of work has been done, and also recognize that if someone were consciously, blatantly, intentionally trying to create a biased article, the article wouldn't look nearly as good as it does. Hard work's been done, I give applause all round.

In terms of bias and NPOV-- I detect a few "trouble spots", but they're much subtler than they were before.

1. EOC and RCC do have a genuine, real, deep dispute over Purgatory. This isn't something that comes out in the current article. Reading it, it's a little too easy to come away with the misunderstanding that EOC "totally believe in purgatory, they just has a different name for it". Solve this by devoting a good paragraph to explaining what EOC's objection to Purgatory is. (leaving in, of course, the good material we already have which talks about the similiarity of their views to Purgatory).

2. Protestants and RCC do have a real, deep, vocal dispute over Purgatory. This is never directly presented in the article-- just sorta alluded to at various points. As of right now, we never explain why modern protestants think Purgatory is wrong-- and we need a really good, strong, honest presentation of their religious views on Purgatory.

3. The refutation of Le Goff might be a tad heavyhanded--- but it might not be. It's clear to me that the author does think Le Goff is dead wrong-- that might be because of authorial bias, but it could very easily be that that's merely because the scholarly consensus is totally against Le Goff. The current version of the history section entirely consistent with my understanding of the subject, but it's out of my area of expertise. If you think it's not NPOV, ya need to find some really good sources explaining why that is-- it's not enough to suggest bad motives, you need to actually get specific, dig up lots of references, and show how the section could be improved.

4. A fourth "trouble spot" is it's still too complex for the average reader. They don't know what Latin Rite is, they don't know what ECC is. They probably don't even know that RCC soteriology is linked to the absolution of sins--- most non-RCC people around the world probably just assume that "good people go to heaven, bad people go to hell" or other such folk-theologies. I have a hard time with simplfying tooo-- it seems so wrong to have such a deep understanding of something, only to have to "dumb it down" in the intros. But it is necessary. Similarly-- absolutely essential to separated ECC and EOC-- people won't understand the two are separate groups if you lump them together. Nor are they going to know what ECC is unless you have a paragraph telling them.

I made some edits to address issues 1 and 4, which hopefully would get people started. I see that those edits have been wholesale reverted, rather than partially reverted in the spots deemed to be troublesome. Obviously, I hope that's something that won't stand unless I'm really out of my mind in my edits-- immensely frustrating to take time out of your day to help people out of a jam, only to have it insta-reverted. --Alecmconroy 06:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Solution

Let's all think of possible solutions. I am thinking that Jonathan Tweet and Lostcaesar both read up on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:No original research, and then aim to collaborate together to make the article more comprehensive. However, seeing as he has been accused of pushing a pro-Purgatory bias, I want to see Lostcaesar work specifically on the anti-Purgatory aspects of the article. Likewise, I want to see Tweet work on the pro-Purgatory aspects. Use only reliable sources and do not synthesize information. Be weary about citing from the Bible. If you're unsure about how appropriate your edits are, run them by me and I will look at them. If the two of you get in a disagreement, talk it out on the talk page with other editors. Would you two be pleased with that? —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 10:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

As I said when I launched the mediation process, I want LC to play nice. In your scenario, LC is playing nice, so that would be a marvelous (perhaps unbelievable) result. I've tried repeatedly to establish some sort of mutually beneficial peace, never to much effect. But LC has now apparently retired. This isn't the first time he's stepped away. In January (after some contentious struggles on purgatory and elsewhere), he announced he was taking an indefinite break from editing religious pages. A month later, he came back and went to work on purgatory. Now he's gone again. Who knows when he'll be back?
As I have not yet even defended myself against LC's accusations, I hope you would keep an open mind about my editing. I've already read NOR as part of this dispute, and a key issue is that LC's version of NOR doesn't match mine. That's something I was hoping to settle finally on this page. I've already added various pro-purgatory edits to the page. The main reason my edits have been so negative to purgatory is that the page has been so unbalanced and pro-purgatory. If the page were a Protestant-evangelical rant against purgatory, I'd have mostly added pro-purgatory material. I think my side wins in a fair discussion, so I want the discussion to be fair. I trust competent readers to sniff out malarkey, so I'm comfortable with all sides being presented clearly and forcefully. Like LC was complimentary to me, I was complimentary to him. Indeed, I took the first step in trying to establish a friendly working relationship with him.
Our truce lasts until the end of this week, and I'm happy to sit around and see if he comes back. I'd be surprised if he isn't at least monitoring the scene. Jonathan Tweet 13:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Time to close?

Lostcaesar seems to have disappeared, and there's quite some progress being made. Jonathan Tweet, if you promise to collaborate with the editors on the article and you ask questions when necessary (instead of revert warring), would it be okay if I closed this case? —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 00:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I promise to collaborate with the editors on the article and ask questions instead of revert warring. My whole issue was with LC's treatment of the page and of me, so it's really a moot point now. There's another editor who's sort of picking up where LC left off (reverting Alecmconroy's edits, for example), but I'll hope for the best. Go ahead and close the case. Jonathan Tweet 01:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)