Talk:Opus Dei and politics

message: I have written an introduction summarizing the content of this page and I have renewed the link in the main page -as it was wrong and did not send anywhere. --Uncertain 17:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

message: ...on the idea that Historians of Spanish twentieth century agree that Opus Dei was part of thre regime, although a minority within it. 
:In his history of Francoism, Franco, Preston writes very balancedly (1993:669): 
::"The arrival of the technocrats has been interpreted variously as a planned take-over by Opus Dei and a clever move by Franco to 'fill vacant seats in the latest round of musical chairs' [he quotes Ynfante's Santa mafia]. In fact, the arrival of the technocrats was neither sinister nor cunning but rather a piecemeal and pragmatic response to a specific set of problems. By the beggining of 1957, the regime faced political and economic bankrupcy. Franco and Carrero Blanco were looking for new blood and fresh ideas. To be acceptable, new men had to come from within the Movimiento, be catholic, accepted the idea of an eventual return to the monarchy and be, in Francoist terms, apolitical. López Rodó, Navarro Rubio and Ullastres [members of OD] were ideal. López Rodó was the nominee of Carrero Blanco. [He quotes López Rodó's Memories]. The dynamic Navarro Rubio was the Caudillo's choice. Franco had known him since 1949. He was a Procurador en Cortes for the Sindicatos and had been highly recommended by the outgoing Minister of Agriculture, Rafael Cavestany. Preston quotes Navarro Rubio's memories]. Both López Rodó and Navarro Rubio suggested Ullastres. [López Rodó's memories]. Without being a monolitic unit, López Rodó, Navarro Rubio and Ullastres worked together as a team, despite occasional frictions, to push for the administrative and economic modernization of the regime". --Uncertain 10:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some evidence... 

message: This article is a mess guys! So much repetition and then contradiction, sometimes within a single paragraph. The article needs a major clean-up! - 62.158.79.130 15:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To Jaimehy: Take a look before you leap. You have to take a look at the the messy version 62.158.79.130 was describing here when he wrote his comment April 14. That has been fixed since I made these edits. Your comments are not on the same page as his comments. Rabadur (talk) 08:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The page is neutral and historical enough. It does have two sides of the story: criticism and response. Arturo Cruz (talk) 08:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What a mess! 

message: ... seems more aimed at giving extra credibility to the theories denying Opus Dei's ultraconservatism than to paying attention to the facts proper. There is a gap between academics might say and the truth, and this gap is given by the fact that the few "non-Fascist" Opus representatives who are given credit in this article (Fontán among them) actually supported the Civil War in the first place, even if they delved into political subtleties later on while trying to pass for democrats. The gap is also given by the fact that someone with an excellent academic record and a proficient performance in his job (be it journalism in the case of Fontán, architecture in the case of Miguel Fisac or law in the case of López Rodó) is by no means representative of the vast majority of Opus members. 
It only takes a visit with a hidden camera to an Opus-run elementary school, to see what all the students have to say on feminism, homosexuality, democracy or immigration.
Synecdoche is a very ugly thing to bring into such a debate. Saying that Opus was not formed by people who despised culture, progress and at times even intelligence, only because there sporadically were intelligent or educated members among them, is as false and disingenuous, and perhaps as stupid, as saying that ALL Nazis were as intelligent and creative as Josef Goebbels.
Even a fool could understand that.
Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 13:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article... 

message: I have to agree wholeheartedly with the past critiques of this article. Each section begins with vague references to "critics" with valid connections between Opus Dei and Nazi/fascist groups and then goes on to enumerate responses from members of the group intended to debunk these connections. This is not information, it's pure bias.
140.177.245.169 (talk) 04:15, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  I don't know enough about Opus Dei to rewrite this all but I wish someone would 

message: I think Allen is overused in this article, we should pick two or three places to use him and can the rest. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allen overuse  

message: Many experts are of the opinion that this article contains Weasel Words. It also suffers from very poor formatting, for instance there are APA-like citations, some references in the bibliography occur twice, the bibliography is not generated using Template:Reflist. Not to mention the incessant political apologia. Overall this reads like a college paper written at a secondary school level by an uninterested sophomore concerned with things more important than whatever seminary class this might have been written for. How this has managed to exist since 2005, and how it has not been marked for deletion as a result of being so obviously deficient for so long boggles the mind. HighPriestDuncan (talk) 07:10, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I should add that if this topic is of any importance to anyone, it can go live in draft space until it is ready to grow up and not mislead the casual reader. HighPriestDuncan (talk) 07:11, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely - this page is not even close to ready; it should go back to draft. Harmlesshumanist (talk) 18:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page is a quality disaster