Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-05-28 Purgatory/Archive001

Questions from mediator
Please answer the following questions to help us build a foundation for resolving the dispute. Please try to keep your answers brief and avoid disparaging comments about the other participants. Vassyana 17:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * What articles are directly involved in the dispute?
 * Purgatory Jonathan Tweet 01:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No comment. Lima 07:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What other articles have been involved in, or affected by, the dispute?
 * Original Sin
 * Limbo
 * Early Christianity
 * Logos
 * Baptism of Jesus
 * Lake of FireJonathan Tweet 01:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No comment. Lima 07:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * What is the main part of the disagreement?
 * Lima is defending a pro-Catholic POV on Purgatory, burdening the text with needless material or worse, stymying efforts (previously by Alecmconroy, lately by me) to fix the page in accord with the RfC. His POV efforts make editing the page a drag, and he's not fixing it himself, so it's not getting fixed. The lead, in particular, is something of a hash thanks to the layer of POV that he has added to it. Jonathan Tweet 01:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Lima's also following me around messing with my edits. He skews information to the pro-Catholic POV, deletes material he doesn't like, cuts leads to the bone, muddies concepts, and adds clunky material whose purpose is not to explain the topic but to defend the Catholic Church. Jonathan Tweet 01:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The complainant presents as the teaching of the Catholic Church notions that are not its teaching. Lima 07:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * What points are you most willing to compromise?
 * I sure don't need to be the one to fix Purgatory. I offer to do so because I'm a good writer and I've been working on that page for a long time. Plus, Alecmconroy seems to have given up on it (and I don't blame him). If we can find a knowledgeable, interested, fair party without a POV to push, I'd be happy not to do the work. Very happy. Jonathan Tweet 01:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Lima's been enough of an obstacle that I'd like him to steer clear of the page while it's being fixed, but if there were a protocol that he could follow to contribute to the page and not be a detriment then I would be OK to involve him. If he could be involved and not be a detriment, that would be the best possible result. I'm just not optimistic that he could involve himself productively in fixing the page. Jonathan Tweet 01:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A compromise has already been presented on Purgatory: two distinct sections, one on the Church's actual teaching and another on speculation and popular imagination. The logical order would be to start by indicating what the Church that teaches the existence of this state of preparation for union with God does actually teach about it, and, only after that, move on to elaborations put forward by writers, whether theologians or not.  The complainant, whose idea of "fixing" the article is to make it present only his own slant on the Church's teaching, has insisted on putting the source-based exposition of the Church's teaching in second place.  Lima 07:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * What points would you like to see the other parties compromise?
 * I'd like Lima to leave Purgatory alone for two weeks, one for me to work on the page, and another for other editors to have some time to review it and improve it. Jonathan Tweet 05:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd like Lima to follow WP policies and guidelines on NPOV, reverting, lead content, use of quotes, and wikistalking. Lima has shown real improvement on reversion etiqutte and seems to have stopped cutting leads down, so I think that he would be willing to follow policies once they're made clear. Jonathan Tweet 01:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Withdraw his ridiculous demand that someone who disagrees with his POV should be barred from editing a Wikipedia article, so as to give him free rein. Accept that it is legitimate to present, with the support of verifiable sources, interpretations that differ from what he, on his own ipse dixit authority, declares to be the truth.  In short, let him edit the article as anyone else may.  Lima 07:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * What aspects of Wikipedia policy and guidelines do you think is most relevant to this discussion and why?
 * POV, because all Lima's faults go back to his defense of the Catholic Church. Jonathan Tweet 01:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Reversion etiquette, because he likes to revert stuff rather than asking for a cite or taking the case to a talk page. He's not as bad on reverting as he used to be; now he's more likely to add junk than to delete stuff he doesn't like. But he's still an aggressive reverter. Jonathan Tweet 01:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikistalking, because he's griefing me. Jonathan Tweet 01:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR. To avoid sourceless own-authority insertions of a personal POV. Lima 07:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Additional questions

 * What were the main concerns laid out in the RfC, in your view?
 * LostCaesar gave the page a POV overhaul in February. He resisted efforts to fix the page. He repeatedly removed the POV tag himself without first addressing my concerns. When I insisted that the page was POV, he got an RfC to vindicate himself. The RfC confirmed that the page was POV. Alecmconroy outlined how to fix the page. Jonathan Tweet 01:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * One person's demand to be let shape the article at will. Lima 04:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * What specific points about the church's teachings are in dispute?
 * The overall issue is that Lima wants to portray church teaching as essentially limited to dogma. Since the Church issues a lot more teaching than dogma, especially on purgatory, he wants to portray the vast majority of Church teaching on purgatory as the opinions of individuals. This angle protects the Church from criticism of its teaching by portraying the teaching as just some guys' opinions. For example, medieval theologians concluded that the fire of purgatory is a material fire. That's not dogma, but it's relevant to an article about purgatory and doesn't deserve to be treated as just some individuals' opinions. LC used the same angle, and Lima uses it on various pages (e.g., Original Sin). Jonathan Tweet 01:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * LC's information cherry picks concepts from the early church that can be interpreted as in harmony with purgatory and neglects the early church teaching that contradicts purgatory (and particular judgment, for that matter). This page needs clear information about early church teachings, which is a problem for Lima because purgatory (as a separate hell that the saved go to for purification) is a medieval concept. Christian teachings about the afterlife have changed a lot in 2000 years, but the pro-Catholic viewpoint is that church teachings have been essentially in accord with each other (provided they are interpreted correctly). Jonathan Tweet 01:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Lima apparently portrays the concept of invincible ignorance as contrary to the idea that the unbaptized are excluded from heaven. See the muddled second paragraph of the Purgatory page. Jonathan Tweet 01:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * From the beginning and still today, theologians teach many things that never become teachings of the Catholic Church. If medieval theologians concluded that purgatory involved material fire, that should be stated as the conclusion of medieval theologians, not as the teaching of the Church. From the Church's point of view, this was merely an opinion that had not (then) been shown to contradict the Church's teaching - and the same held for the opposite opinion.  Today - I mean precisely today - some theologians hold that unbaptized infants enjoy merely natural happiness in the afterlife (Could Limbo Be 'Abolished'?), others that they go to hell and that the medieval concept of the Limbo of the Infants is false (Unbaptized Infants Suffer Fire and Limbo is a Heretical Pelagian Fable), others that they almost certainly go to heaven (Unbaptized Infants), others that their fate is uncertain (The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized), and there are probably other variants.  Now, today, which of all these theories is the teaching of the Catholic Church?  Lima 04:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * What is the largest problem with the current article? (No comments about other editors please.)
 * The lead is a muddled hash. The history section downplays church tradition that has contradicted purgatory. The interpretations section is apparently a way to include LeGoff (to pretend the page isn't POV) but to segregate him into an "opinions" section (he's a historian, not a pundit). Throughout, the article has a pro-purgatory slant. Jonathan Tweet 01:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The lead is indeed a muddled hash. Who has insisted in putting so many things into it?  Lima 04:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * What is best about the current article?
 * Lots of real material, citations, and sources. Lots of images. Jonathan Tweet 01:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This is probably correct. Unfortunately, there is also a lot of unreal material, for which citations are not provided.  Lima 04:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions

 * 1) Reverts, barring vandalism, should be fully explained on the article talk page.
 * 2) Editors should avoid multiple reverts.
 * 3) Propose any major changes on the article talk page.
 * 4) What is held as a teaching of the Roman Catholic Church should be limited to the Catechism. In the case of historical teachings, the beliefs should be attributed to a time period and supported by multiple reliable secondary sources. added 10:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Modern writers and theologians should be used when addressing the beliefs of the early church and its relevence to the modern church, in order to avoid original research. added 10:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Due to the sheer volume of writings available on the Roman Catholic Church and general Christian history, claims should be verifiable in multiple secondary sources. added 10:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Due to the availability of sources, references should be requested for all unsourced claims that are likely to be challenged. The unsourced information should be removed after a reasonable period of several days is given for editors to locate references. added 10:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed (items 1-3). Lima 04:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, in general (items 4-7). Obviously, historical teachings should be attributed to the authors; to the Church only if the document is a document of the Church, such as the Roman Catechism or a declaration by an Ecumenical Council.  For a quotation from a writing, a source that gives the quotation with its context should, no less obviously, be enough, without requiring multiple, or indeed any, secondary sources to prove that the writer did say what is attributed to him.  Applying the rule about removing unsourced information after a reasonable period of several days (not several weeks or months) would benefit the article greatly.  Lima 12:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Given Lima's history of deletions, I'd also like deletions of substantial material to be cut and pasted to the talk page. That way other editors can see what's being excluded from the page. I'd also like to ask that the protocol be to ask for cites if a statement is challenged rather than simply deleting it. Jonathan Tweet 14:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please make clear to us what mulitple reverts means. If I write that something, Lima reverts it, and I revert it back, is that a multiple revert? Jonathan Tweet 14:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A review of the Talk page shows that the defenders of the RCC POV (LC before him and now Lima) love to stall things on the talk page. There isn't much of a community working on Purgatory, so when Limas simply opposes changes that look reasonable to me, there's just the two of us to work it out. The reason that the page is a mess is that we can't come to an agreement on content, whether while editing the page proper or on the talk page. If I propose a change on the talk page and Lima says No, where do we go from there? Jonathan Tweet 14:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The tricky detail of how to present concepts that priests have widely taught to the laity with the approval of the church from church teaching is going to be, well, tricky. If a Pope says, on the basis of over a thousand years of tradition, that unbaptized infants go to limbo, if that's not church teaching, it's also more than one guy's opinion. Jonathan Tweet 14:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Is this restriction "early church" only? Can one say, "Aquinas said that the souls of the damned go immediately to hell" and cite Aquinas? Can one say, "Hippolytus and Tertullian wrote that the souls of all the dead are kept in hades until Judgment Day" and then cite them? My understanding of OR is that one is not to interpret primary sources but that one can include "verifiable content from reliable sources without further analysis."Jonathan Tweet 14:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Does this mean that any statement that Lima doesn't like needs to have two cites? Jonathan Tweet 14:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Can we also say that editors should ask for cites rather than deleting the material out of hand? Jonathan Tweet 14:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I still wait for the main issue to be addressed, which is, how do we get the page in shape, in accordance with the RfC? If the answer is that we follow these suggestions, I predict that the page will not get into shape. Lima still has plenty of opportunity to fight me at every step. Maybe the answer is "Try it and see," and I'm willing to go along with a process as long as I'm seeing progress. But my hopes will not be high. Jonathan Tweet 14:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I am reviewing the above and rereading the answers to the questions. I will revise the set of suggestions after some thought. Vassyana 23:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Responding to #6, yes. In-line citation is not required for all disputed claims. However, it should be clearly covered in multiple reliable sources. Catholicism and purgatory have an incredible number of sources available for use. It is a very widely covered topic. There is no reason, unless a claim is dubious or particularly obscure, that multiple sources cannot reinforce reasonable claims for this topic. Vassyana 20:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Revised suggestions
I've revised the suggestions based on consideration of the above discussion and review of the Purgatory article. Thoughts? Vassyana 20:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Reverts and substantial changes, including removal of material, should be fully explained on the article talk page.
 * 2) Editors should avoid multiple reverts. A revert is restoring an article, in whole or part, to a previous version.
 * 3) Propose any major changes on the article talk page. If consensus cannot be reached, dispute resolution should be sought and/or outside opinions solicited.
 * 4) What is held to be an official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church should be limited to the Catechism. In the case of historical teachings, the beliefs should be attributed to a time period and supported by multiple reliable secondary sources.
 * 5) What is held to be a defacto teaching of the Roman Catholic Church should be supported by non-trivial coverage by multiple reliable sources. A claimed teaching of the Church that is not supported by the official teaching of the Church should be treated as an exceptional claim requiring exceptional sources.
 * 6) Modern writers and theologians should be used when addressing the beliefs of the historical church and its relevance to the modern church, in order to avoid original research. The topic is sufficiently covered that reliance on primary sources is unnecessary.
 * 7) Due to the sheer volume of writings available on the Roman Catholic Church and general Christian history, claims should be verifiable in multiple secondary sources.
 * 8) Due to the availability of sources, references should be requested for all unsourced claims that are likely to be challenged. The unsourced information should be removed after a reasonable period of several days is given for editors to locate references. References should be requested rather that deleting content, except in exceptional cases (such as a violation of WP:BLP).


 * Proposals for greater precision:
 * 4. What is held to be or to have been an official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church should be limited to the teaching given in official documents of the Church, such as catechisms.
 * 5. What is held to be or to have been a de facto teaching of the Roman Catholic Church should be supported by non-trivial coverage by multiple reliable sources that indicate that the teaching is or was not just that of individuals within the Church. (A claimed teaching of the Church that is not supported by the official teaching of the Church should be treated as an exceptional claim requiring exceptional sources.)
 * Examples related to 5: Highly influential Thomas Aquinas taught that Mary the mother of Jesus could not have been immaculately conceived (i.e. without original sin). That does not mean that the Church taught de facto what Aquinas taught.  Others were free to teach the contrary without being thereby considered unfaithful to the Church.  There was as yet no Church teaching, even de facto, on the matter.  There were beliefs of Catholics about it, but no teaching of the Church.  The very fact that Aquinas thought the matter deserved his attention shows that there were those who did believe in the Immaculate Conception, though he did not.  I also remember that, when 1960 still seemed a long way off, there was a widespread belief that in that year there would be "three days of darkness".  That was not a teaching of the Church.
 * For the rest, I support the suggestions, in at least some cases strongly. Lima 05:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * 3. I have been working the Talk page and trying to resolve the dispute over Purgatory since February, when it was given its pro-Catholic overhaul. I have undertaken DR steps (disengagement, truce, soliciting opinions, RfC, mediation, and now mediation again). Is the idea that I should keep cycling through these steps? Should I get, for example, a second RfC specifically on the lede? My hope was that mediation would either resolve the issue or move us even further down the DR path. I'm not sure how to understand the suggestion to go back to previous DR steps. Jonathan Tweet 12:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 9. May I suggest that we add "follow WP guidelines for lede content"? Jonathan Tweet 12:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Given my experience with Lima on Purgatory and on other pages, I have no reason to think that these suggestions are going to work. My issue is that the page is POV and disorganized, and that Lima prevents me from fixing it (without fixing it himself). Even if we follow these suggestions, they won't stop him from impeding progress at every step. The question is, Who undoes the POV? Not Lima, because it's his POV. Not me, because Lima stymies me at every point. So my request is that someone arrange a special compromise in which he stops stymying me at least long enough for me to get the page in shape. Maybe the answer is "try these suggestions for a week or two and then let's see." Jonathan Tweet 12:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There has been no suggestion to go back to previous DR steps, thank God. Only if consensus on major changes cannot be reached on the Talk page is it suggested that dispute resolution be sought or that outside opinions be solicited.  The latter has already been put into effect.
 * Vassyana's suggestions seem good to me. May we proceed?  Lima 16:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)