Talk:Opus Dei/Archive 2005-1

message: A cursory line-count in the section about "criticisms of Opus Dei" shows that:
- there are 33 lines in the section;
- from these, 12 (36%) are outright praise (popes' remarks);
- 4 others are denials of charges;
- finally, 5 lines state neutral things, not criticism.
So, in the "criticism" section, 16 lines (48%) are actually praise or denial, and 5 others  (15%) are "nothing", for a grand total of 21 lines (63% !!) of non-criticism!! And this is the criticism section!! (I will not comment on the global line-count, it would be overkill).
If this is NPOV, I won't like to see a biased one!
: Yeah, this article is a mess. Unfortunately there are more zealous advocates for Opus Dei than knowledgeable critics of it.—Eloquence 05:44, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
Hmmm. Balance should not be abandoned if the subject of a particular section happens to be 'criticisms'.
And I wouldn't necessarily agree that 37% criticism versus 48% defense is biased towards the defense - it usually takes more space to answer questions than it does to ask them.
Asoane 20:58, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The book was actually heralded by some Opus Dei members because it featured passages from The Way and the book was like a promotional ad for the organisation. 
Opus Dei's official response to the book was negative; they thought that Brown's portrayal was full of errors, not a promotional ad. Can anyone confirm that anyone in Opus Dei had a high opinion of the book? —No-One Jones 08:11, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism? 

message: When some concept is defended by members and many non-members, please do not simply state "members" say, because it is completely misleading. Thanks. Pfortuny 15:40, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please be objective when stating who supports an opinion

message: Why does this have to clutter the main Roman Catholic category as well as RC Lay Societies and RC Prelatures?  Can't we just take it out and leave it in the subdirectories like most other Catholic topics (eg Benedictines or St Patrick's Cathedral)?
JASpencer
:Yes we can, and I have done so. If something is part of a subcategory, it doesn't need to be in the higher-level categories as well. —No-One Jones (m) 14:45, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Look a few lines up: we had this discussion before. The entry already calls Opus Dei 'controversial' several times. It does so in the intro. It has a great big section called 'controversies', so it even appears in the index. But not as the first word of the description. Asoane 16:57, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: I think it's still there in the third paragraph, where it settled back in July. It was removed from the first paragraph on 25 November, but presumably only because someone had added it in there earlier the same day. Asoane 16:55, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Categories

message: It upsets me that The Church, or a sect of The Church would not only turn a blind eye to self mortification, a practice as demonic as the Iron Maiden or the Rack of Inquistion time, but induldge in it, promote it, INFLICT IT!!!       SICK, SICK, SICK.
:I suppose indulge, and promote can be argued, but not inflict! --Peacenik 00:34, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dementia Manifested 

message: Decoding Opus Dei
A Vatican writer discusses the Roman Catholic Church’s most controversial organization—and how it was misrepresented in ‘The Da Vinci Code’
WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Edward Pentin
Newsweek URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7288539/site/newsweek/
Updated: 5:58 p.m. ET March 24, 2005
March 24 - In Dan Brown’s best-selling thriller, “The Da Vinci Code,” Opus Dei is depicted as a dark and mysterious cult within the Roman Catholic Church, a secretive society of men and women who have sought political power to further the interests of a wealthy elite. Yet the true nature of Opus Dei, Latin for the "Work of God," is more prosaic, say those who have studied the organization.
Founded in 1928 by Spaniard Josemaria Escrivà, who was made a saint by Pope John Paul II in 2002, the 85,000-member organization has a simple aim: to provide a structure for lay Catholics so they can better live their journey of faith while fully immersed in the world.  For a few celibate members, that road includes self-mortification, wearing a strap with spikes on it.  But it is not, they say, of the exaggerated and bloody sort depicted in Brown’s book.
John Allen, the Vatican correspondent for the National Catholic Reporter, is the author of a new book on the mysterious organization due to be published by Random House later this year. Allen—who says he is not a member of Opus Dei—spoke with NEWSWEEK's Edward Pentin in Rome.
NEWSWEEK: Why is Opus Dei so controversial?
John Allen: The first is the Spanish background to this. In the 1930s and '40s [Opus Dei] experienced some enormous, extremely bitter rivalries with the Jesuits [because] some young Spanish men were deciding not to become Jesuits and signed up with Opus Dei instead.  And this was, I think, the initial source of tension, that there was this perception that Opus Dei was kind of poaching ... Some Jesuits began circulating, from my point of view, really outlandish charges against Opus Dei, things like they had secret tunnels under their centers, they were engaging themselves in bizarre rituals like crucifying themselves on crosses in Opus Dei centers. 
What other causes have made Opus Dei a magnet for controversy? 
A second force shaping all of this [is that] there's a natural tendency to identify Opus Dei [with] Pope John Paul II and vice-versa. So those people who don't like Pope John Paul II don't like Opus Dei. They see Opus Dei as the sort of "shock troops of this ultraconservative, restorationist papacy."  The third factor is [that] Opus Dei is a new thing—it's an organic body of laity and clergy, men and women sharing the same vocation which, canonically speaking, has never existed in Catholicism. And [when] something new is born in the church, there is always opposition to it. 
Has Pope John Paul II and his support for Opus Dei had a moderating influence? 
I would say the pope has, but the church has also had a moderating influence. Opus Dei's clear choice has been to survive, which means that over the years they have moderated—they're much more open today than they were 50 years ago. 
Some say that the organization is still far too secretive.  How true is this?
I'm not sure that today you can make an argument that Opus Dei is secretive in the sense that people normally mean it. One needs to distinguish between some Opus  Dei members and Opus Dei corporate policy. It is certainly true that you will find some people in Opus Dei today who practice a kind of excessive practice of what's traditionally been called discretion. 
Is that primarily a personal motivation?
It's partly a spiritual rationale—the avoidance of self-aggrandisement. That is, one should be humble. I think part of it, too, is that, historically, because a lot of people didn't like Opus Dei, there was just a sense that it would be better not to be too upfront because you're just inviting hostility. A lot of that has given way. Their offices, their headquarters are a matter of public record—the information office puts out information about budgets and membership and all that kind of stuff.  So I wouldn't say it was secretive. 
A lot of media attention was paid last year when Ruth Kelly—who has connections with Opus Dei—was appointed as Britain's new secretary of state for education. Why was she reluctant to reveal her association with the group?
Opus Dei takes the position that for supernumeraries [married members of the organization,] it's up to them whether or not they want to disclose their membership.  In the case of public figures like Ruth Kelly, what this creates is a situation when journalists go to Ruth Kelly and ask, "Are you or aren't you in Opus Dei?" [and] she says, "I don't want to answer."  So they go to Opus Dei, and Opus Dei have this position which says, "We're not going to 'out' our members," and so they're reduced to saying things like, "Well she's in touch with us."  Again, if you follow the chain of reasoning, from their point of view you can understand why they end up saying things like that.  But to the outside world that just looks like dissembling, it looks like a cover-up.
This also applies to property, doesn't it?  Why are their schools, universities, for instance, not easily identifiable to the outside world?  
Their logic for that is, again, secularity.  They don't want to be a religious community, and they don't want to run specifically religious enterprises—they want to run secular enterprises that have a Christian spirit. Therefore they don't want to be distinct from the rest of the world. That's one reason they don't wear habits.
Ruth Kelly's appointment heightened some people's concerns that Opus Dei is has a political agenda.  How true is it that the organization is very political?
There's a cardinal principle behind Opus Dei, and this goes back to Escrivà himself, that Opus Dei can never take political positions—corporately, it can never take political positions. On spiritual grounds it would compromise the notion of secularity—that political thinking is something for lay people to do, not for a church organization to do.  Therefore, on questions that don't deal with faith and morals of the Catholic Church, there's great pluralism.
So there's no "Opus Dei plan," as some speculate, to infiltrate the European Parliament in Brussels?
Based on my experience, moving around in this world, I just don't think it works like that. I just don't think there's an Opus Dei plan for European politics or anything else.  I think there's a sociological reality, that the kind of people attracted to Opus Dei tend to be extremely hard working, tend to be pretty smart and pretty talented, and tend to be conservative, theologically and politically.  Put these together and it's no surprise.
Why is work so important to them? 
The prime directive of Opus Dei is the sanctification of work … they’ll use that work as a means of redeeming the world, bringing a distinctively Christian approach to law or politics. Part of what that means in their approach to things is a real emphasis on meeting the highest standards of excellence in whatever occupation they’re in because you can’t redeem a work if, in the first place, you don’t do it well. 
A common criticism of Opus Dei is that it appears to be a cliquey and elitist organization. Is it?
There is some truth to that. Your point of departure has to be that this is a group that has been savagely attacked for decades, so there is a tendency for them to feel comfortable with one another than with outsiders. As far as the elitism goes, again I think there's no corporate policy that they want to be elitist. I went to nine countries for this book [and in] every country I would go to—every one—in addition to seeing top officials, Opus Dei would also get me to see a bus driver, barber or a mechanic because they know there is this perception of elitism and they want you to understand that there are also blue-collar people, which is true. But on the other hand I would say that, again, going back to the sociology, inside the Catholic Church, particularly for young practicing Catholics, it's a little bit like the Marines—you know, "the few, the proud."  They tend to attract very driven, idealistic, hard-working, smart people, and therefore there probably is an overrepresentation of what you would consider elites inside Opus Dei which is not their fault, I just think it's the reality of what their market is. And frankly, even the bus drivers and barbers I met, these were damn hardworking bus drivers and barbers. 
© 2004 Newsweek, Inc.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7288539/site/newsweek/
===NPOV Policy===
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_point_of_view
1. The neutral point of view policy states that articles should be written without bias, representing all views fairly.
The policy says that we should fairly represent all sides of a dispute, and not make an article state, imply, or insinuate that any one side is correct. It is crucial that Wikipedians work together to make articles unbiased. 
2. The basic concept of neutrality
At Wikipedia, we use the terms "unbiased" and "neutral point of view" in a precise way that is different from the common understanding:
Articles without bias describe debates fairly rather than advocating any side of the debate. Since all articles are edited by people, this is difficult, as people are inherently biased. 
3. The original formulation of NPOV
A general purpose encyclopedia is a collection of synthesized knowledge presented from a neutral point of view. To whatever extent possible, encyclopedic writing should steer clear of taking any particular stance other than the stance of the neutral point of view.
The neutral point of view attempts to present ideas and facts in such a fashion that both supporters and opponents can agree. Of course, 100% agreement is not possible
Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic is to write about what people believe, rather than what is so. If this strikes you as somehow subjectivist or collectivist or imperialist, then ask me about it, because I think that you are just mistaken. What people believe is a matter of objective fact, and we can present that quite easily from the neutral point of view.
--Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia founder
4. Why should Wikipedia be unbiased?
Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, which means it is a representation of human knowledge at some level of generality.
How can we solve the problem of endless "edit wars" in which one person asserts that p, whereupon the next person changes the text so that it asserts not-p? 
A solution is that we accept, for the purposes of working on Wikipedia, that "human knowledge" includes all different significant theories on all different topics
We should, both individually and collectively, make an effort to present these conflicting views fairly, without advocating any one of them, with the qualification that views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as though they are significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all.
5. What is the neutral point of view?
Unbiased writing presents conflicting views without asserting them. Unbiased writing does not present only the most popular view; it does not assert the most popular view is correct after presenting all views; it does not assert that some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one….Writing unbiasedly can be conceived very well as representing disputes, characterizing them, rather than engaging in them.One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of debates
6. Now an important qualification: 
6.a. Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a majority view. That may be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. None of this, however, is to say that minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can possibly give them on pages specifically devoted to those views. There is no size limit to Wikipedia. But even on such pages, though a view is spelled out possibly in great detail, we still make sure that the view is not represented as the truth.
6.b. From Jimbo Wales, September 2003, on the mailing list: 
·	If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; 
·	If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; 
·	If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not. 
6.c. Re important qualification: more explanation from the NPOV Tutorial:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial
Space and balance
Different views don't all deserve equal space. Articles need to be interesting to attract and keep the attention of readers. For an entry in an encyclopedia, ideas also need to be important. The amount of space they deserve depends on their importance and how many interesting things can be said about them.
One measure of a view's importance is the credibility of the experts who hold that view. What makes an expert credible? Some criteria include:
·	the reputation of the expert, the reputation of the tradition within which he or she works, the reputation of the group or institution for which the expert works 
·	whether the expert uses the common methods of the field or completely different ones 
·	whether the expert has or has not failed to respond to criticisms 
·	whether the expert has reputable supporters of his or her claims 
·	whether the expert's point of view belongs in a different article (e.g. evolution vs. creationism) 
6.d. In other words, an idea's popularity alone does not determine its importance. Few people may know that a belief is wrong, but sometimes that is because most are unaware of the evidence against it. If you are not an expert in a subject yourself, your intuition that an article is biased may not be reliable. Keep an open mind and ask others about the evidence.
7. The vital component: good research
Many POV battles would be made much easier through the practice of good research. Facts are not points of view in and of themselves. So an easy way to avoid making a statement that promotes a point of view is to find a reputable source for a fact and cite the source. This is an easy way to characterize a side of a debate without promoting a view. The trick is to find the best and most reputable source you can. Try the library for good books and journal articles, and look for the most reliable online resources. A little bit of ground work can save a lot of time in trying to justify a point later.
The only other important consideration is that while a fact is not POV in and of itself, adding facts, no matter how well cited, from only one side of a debate is a POV problem. So work for balance. Find facts that aren't from one side or the other and cite the source.
8. Fairness and sympathetic tone
If we're going to characterize disputes fairly, we should present competing views with a consistently positive, sympathetic tone. Many articles end up as partisan commentary even while presenting both points of view. Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization — for instance, refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section.
We should, instead, write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least plausible, bearing in mind the important qualification about extreme minority views.Let's present all significant, competing views sympathetically. We can write with the attitude that such-and-such is a good idea, except that, on the view of some detractors, the supporters of said view overlooked such-and-such a detail.
9. Giving "equal validity"
Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them qua encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth.
=== Accuracy policies===
1. Degrees of verifiability
There are degrees of verifiability. At the one end, there are facts that can be verified fairly quickly by most editors, requiring only resources available over the internet, or at the local library. At the other end of the scale are facts that can only be verified by subject matter experts.
If you are writing on a well-studied field, then it's possible that most of the editors will be reasonably acquainted with the topic, and you can be a bit more relaxed about verifiability. However, if you are writing about a more obscure topic, then you may find that many of the editors have never previously heard of the thing you are writing about, and you should take this into account.
2. Checking verifiability
There are several reasons you might want to verify something in an article:
·	The author has a record of contributing inaccurate or misleading information. 
·	The author has a conflict of interest. 
·	There are other errors in the article, and the entire thing needs to be checked. 
·	The article is the subject of an accuracy dispute. 
·	The subject area is one where errors are frequent. 
·	The statement is implausible on its surface. 
·	The statement is key to the entry as a whole. 
·	The statement is overly vague. 
3. Dubious sources
For an encyclopedia, sources should be unimpeachable. An encyclopedia is not primary source material. Its authors do not conduct interviews nor perform original research. Hence, anything we include should have been covered in the records, reportage, research, or studies of others. In many, if not most, cases there should be several corroborating sources available should someone wish to consult them. Sources should be unimpeachable relative to the claims made; outlandish claims beg strong sources.
Sometimes a particular statement can only be verified at a place of dubious reliability, such as a weblog ("blog") or a tabloid newspaper. If the statement is relatively unimportant, then just remove it - don't waste words on statements of limited interest and dubious truth. However, if you must keep it, then attribute it to the source in question. For example:
According to the weblog Simply Relative, the average American has 3.8 cousins and 7.4 nephews and nieces. 
Remember that it is easy for anybody to create a web site and entitle oneself to be an expert in an area, or to start an "expert group", "human right group", church or other type of association. Svereal million people have created their own blogs in the last few years. Thus, one must assess whether the source is verifiable. In the case of a source of facts: is the source a noted expert in the area? Does the source write blatant errors? Has the source followed journalistic or academic standards of ethical investigation? In the case of a source of opinion: is the source notable? Does it stand for a large group of people?
Amount of citation detail http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Cite_sources
A citation should include enough information to allow a reader to find your sources. In particular, be sure to give page numbers or section numbers of a lengthy work if only a small portion is referenced (and it's not immediately obvious where to look). Sometimes, you may want to give a more complete explanation of how you know something, or why your sources are credible. If the issue is important, please consider discussing that in the article itself. After all, other readers may need that information as well. Otherwise, you can leave a note on the article's talk page. This won't necessarily help readers, but it can help later Wikipedians trying to improve the article. Marax 03:18, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decoding Opus Dei 

message: 1. Degrees of verifiability
There are degrees of verifiability. At the one end, there are facts that can be verified fairly quickly by most editors, requiring only resources available over the internet, or at the local library. At the other end of the scale are facts that can only be verified by subject matter experts.
If you are writing on a well-studied field, then it's possible that most of the editors will be reasonably acquainted with the topic, and you can be a bit more relaxed about verifiability. However, if you are writing about a more obscure topic, then you may find that many of the editors have never previously heard of the thing you are writing about, and you should take this into account.
2. Checking verifiability
There are several reasons you might want to verify something in an article:
·	The author has a record of contributing inaccurate or misleading information. 
·	The author has a conflict of interest. 
·	There are other errors in the article, and the entire thing needs to be checked. 
·	The article is the subject of an accuracy dispute. 
·	The subject area is one where errors are frequent. 
·	The statement is implausible on its surface. 
·	The statement is key to the entry as a whole. 
·	The statement is overly vague. 
3. Dubious sources
For an encyclopedia, sources should be unimpeachable. An encyclopedia is not primary source material. Its authors do not conduct interviews nor perform original research. Hence, anything we include should have been covered in the records, reportage, research, or studies of others. In many, if not most, cases there should be several corroborating sources available should someone wish to consult them. Sources should be unimpeachable relative to the claims made; outlandish claims beg strong sources.
Sometimes a particular statement can only be verified at a place of dubious reliability, such as a weblog ("blog") or a tabloid newspaper. If the statement is relatively unimportant, then just remove it - don't waste words on statements of limited interest and dubious truth. However, if you must keep it, then attribute it to the source in question. For example:
According to the weblog Simply Relative, the average American has 3.8 cousins and 7.4 nephews and nieces. 
Remember that it is easy for anybody to create a web site and entitle oneself to be an expert in an area, or to start an "expert group", "human right group", church or other type of association. Svereal million people have created their own blogs in the last few years. Thus, one must assess whether the source is verifiable. In the case of a source of facts: is the source a noted expert in the area? Does the source write blatant errors? Has the source followed journalistic or academic standards of ethical investigation? In the case of a source of opinion: is the source notable? Does it stand for a large group of people?
Amount of citation detail http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Cite_sources
A citation should include enough information to allow a reader to find your sources. In particular, be sure to give page numbers or section numbers of a lengthy work if only a small portion is referenced (and it's not immediately obvious where to look). Sometimes, you may want to give a more complete explanation of how you know something, or why your sources are credible. If the issue is important, please consider discussing that in the article itself. After all, other readers may need that information as well. Otherwise, you can leave a note on the article's talk page. This won't necessarily help readers, but it can help later Wikipedians trying to improve the article. Marax 03:18, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy policies

message: How a far right group like Opus Dei can infiltrate New Labour is a good sign of the extent to which they have degenerated. They will be recruiting from the BNP next.
"Blessed be pain. Loved be pain. Sanctified be pain. . . Glorified be pain!" (Josemaria Escriva, founder of Opus Dei The Way, 208).
The idea of putting someone with such backward views on gay people (for example) in charge of the education of our children is disgusting.
 (this contribution by Derekmcmillan)
I thought the gay community would be against people being discriminated against because of their beliefs about sexuality. This language sounds very like what was being said about gay teachers forty years ago. DJ Clayworth 18:16, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ruth Kelly 

message: Can someone summarize why is the POV tag being left at the top of the article? In my opinion it could be removed now. --Eleassar777 17:09, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag 

message: maybe it would be a good idea to add some info about norms the members are supposed to fulfill every day? But I don't know the Work very well so I am not capable to write sth dowm...--Macronyx 22:57, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Norms