Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Opus Dei

message: Right, well those few questions certainly sparked a good response. The above answers are very encouraging and it seems that there has been movement in the right direction with the article. Let me now take the points raised above:
*Images: for me the images add a lot to the article, and I don't see them as too much of a problem. There may be a few too many pictures though, but I mean I hardly think this is the major issue to discuss. I personally think 25 images on a article of that length is a bit too many, and so we may want to discuss about removing some pictures. I should point out though that to me having images of smiling families etc. is fine, but the question I would ask is what do certain photos contribute to the article, for example, the Toni Zweifel image seems to me to be unnecessary. It doesn't seem to highlight or illustrate anything at all (I don't think that a picture is needed to show a numerary!).
* The issue of NPOV: right well this seems to be the "bone of contention". This is most often the reason for mediation disuptes, disagreements over what reliable sources are, and what NPOV really is. Now looking at the article and the healthy and constructive debate you've had above let me give you a few things to consider. I wouldn't get too focused on debating individuals and how prominent they are etc., the issue really does have to be about presenting both sides of the issue, and trying not to do so by simply having a pro-article and then a small criticism section at the end. I see you have a good list of links at the bottom of the page, which is good, but I think there is still room to perhaps add more criticism throughout the article as a whole. The aim of any article is to present a balance, and whilst of course prominent sources etc. will get more focus there must still be a balance in the article. The question then is: how to do so? I understand that this is the main issue that has caused friction on the page, and that the argument seems to be that as there are a number of pro-OD sources that the article needs to be highly pro-OD. (Fair enough, that is a slight simplification, but highlights the main issue.) Let me quot from WP:NPOV "The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted. All significant published points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions." Let us discuss then what you would like to see added to the article in relation to this issue, or perhpas changed in the article. NPOV is there to ensure balance in articles, and it seems above that this message seems to have been lost somewhere.
Right so it seems that we need to focus on how best to achieve a better NPOV in the article, and also look at perhaps reducing the number of images. --Wisden17 10:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some further thoughts 

message: I see some problems with intermixing the criticisms through out the piece
•	first tidiness as some have said there is some criticism in the article but its hard to find if your using wikipedia to fact check you will be mostly out of luck with this article
•	second It will be really hard to keep it honest look at this example. I think control is one of the most important criticisms about opus dei 
: "The vast majority of members I met seemed healthy, well-adjusted, intelligent, running their own lives, and posing no threat to themselves or to others. I never had the impression that anyone was being subjected to this regime((what regime?)) by coercion or 'mind control.' For the most part, members seem to experience this structure as liberating rather than confining, helping them become the kind of person they wish to be." He also reported on Opus Dei's policy of "delicate respect" for each person's freedom that Escrivá practised and preached
this is the crux the only response is an allen quot and the quot doesent really tell much other then his opnions maybe the opus dei policy but we have no clue what that is beyoned “delicate respect “.Ansolin 03:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you so much for your feedback, Ansolin. I've done some edits to address this. :) Thomas 04:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Intermixing

message: Obviously the article is a little long, and perhaps could do with a greater use of sub-pages, however I don' think we really need to discuss that here, unless people think this is a major issue (personally I think you should look to use more subpages, as if, as could be possible in the not too distant future, you would like to get this article up to FA standard, you would need to do so). Take a look at Wikipedia:Article size--Wisden17 14:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey guys!! Take a look! Tom's cut the article to 85kb! Ndss 10:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes but considering many consider 32Kb to a maximum length still a fair way to go! --Wisden17 19:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Wisden17 and Alec that we have to cut the article. I would just argue that it might be necessary to have an article longer than 32kb, given (1) interest on this topic, (2) the controversial nature of some issues, which would need more space to explain, (3) and the present status of many Good Articles and Feature Articles. Thomas 01:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Length

message: I've stated my views on the images a few times above. From looking just now at the images on the OD page, it looks a lot better. I personally think the images look fine now, and the Zweifel image seems to fit much better. --Wisden17 14:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, agreed! Ndss 09:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. :) Thomas 01:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: Thomas-- about the John Stuart Mill sentence.   I'm not at the point where I'm going to start a sentence-by-sentence level discussion of this artice.  Until there's agreement on the "bigger" issues like balance, this remains "ya'lls" article.  I deleted the John Stuart Mill & Planned Parenthood sentence because I assumed you were putting it in just to be concillatory, and I was saying you don't be so concillatory that you put in non-sequitor criticism that involved old philosophers and supreme court cases.  If you want it in there, though, that's a different story, for now, this article is more "an exemplar of your writing philosophy" right now, not mine.  
But--  since I brought it up:  you probably could re-word the sentence that says "Opus Dei, according to its critics, serves as the Vatican's instrument to oppose the liberal and secular thought expressed in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey 1992, “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life." ".  The sentence has lots of problems, but no need to get into all of them now.  But, we don't really have to describe this as "according to the critics".  I mean, wouldn't supporters be just as adament about Opus Dei's opposition to Planned Parenthood as the critics?  We shouldn't even characterize this as a criticism per se-- it's every bit as much as COMPLIMENT as it is a CRITICISM, ya know-- just depends on who you ask.   Anyway, I don't really care what the sentence says-- do it however you want, we've got bigger fish to fry right now.  I just think the sentence is overly harsh, OVERLY critical of OD-- if you want it there, be my guest for the time being-- just don't feel like you need to add it on my account.     
I'm content to not make the Opus Dei artice the bearer of these issues at all.  As my buddy Introvigne says, many of the criticisms of Opus Dei are not really criticisms of Opus Dei at all, they are criticism of Catholicism.  Things like the role of women, the stance on birth control, the stance on abortion.  I don't think anyone's even alleging that Opus Dei's stance on these issues are any different than Catholicism's stance.  As such, I'm totally content to exclude all these sorts of criticisms from the article and merely summarize them all in a 1-2 sentence segment that just acknowledges that Opus Dei _is_ Catholic, that Catholicism has certain stances, and some people object to them.  These debates are better left to articles like Controversial Catholic teachings.  
My point is that just because I think the current article is too Pro-OD, that doesn't mean I think we have to cover anything and eveything that anyone could ever not like about Opus Dei.  Let's just hit the top 10 reasons and be done with it.  In terms of sheer words of criticism, I actually want LESS actual words of criticism in the article than you and NDSS do.  I just want the words we do have to be a little more fairly presented.
--Alecmconroy 23:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: John Stuart Mill & Planned Parenthood, potential compromise

message: So, what would you think about this:  
Suppose we added in the section Criticism of Opus Dei as it is into the article.  Every line in that criticism section is Verifiable. Every line is backed up by citations.  Every line explicitly attributes the criticisms as just as the "opinion of critics", and nowhere does it assert the validity of any of those criticisms.  The section as a whole is actually remarkably short, and it would certainly amount to fewer words of criticism than are in the article currently.      
In turn, I'd be happy to stipulate to the removal of all other criticisms anywhere in the article (aside from maybe a few single lines that say "Some people object to this, see Criticism section").  I wouldn't ask for any random criticisms in the history, theology, or similar sections.  Unless you want them there for some reason, I'd be willing to cut the long-winded quotes that criticize OD that are dispersed throughout the article, and thereby shorten the article.     
If we let just that one short section speak for all the criticism, then I'd feel content that at least the criticism IS being directly and fairly presented, and we certainly wouldn't need to ever worry about adding MORE criticism to the article again.  We could say: "I don't know what the Support should look like, but at least the critcism is done, and however long the Support has to be, at least we don't have to add a single word of criticism to the article".  I could say-- "Well, at least the critics have their fifteen minutes of fame in the article-- they got just a few moments to have their say without being interrupted, and after that, they've said their piece, and they can sit down now."
We'd still have to debate about how long the Pro-OD material before/after the criticism section would be.  It certainly could be at LEAST as long as the criticism section, and I could deal with being pretty flexible about it expanding beyond that.  If I could have just those 20 meager sentences of discussing the criticism, then that half of the controversy coverage would be over and done with, and we could put that to rest.  I know we don't know what the ratio of "Criticism" to "Support & Rebuttal" should look like yet, but at least we could fix the numerator in that fraction, which should simplify things subtantially.
Whatcha think, Thomas?    
--Alecmconroy 22:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Potential Compromise First Step