Talk:Opus Dei/Archive 2006-2

message: Although I had no part in writing the article, I would like to respond to the question on using Allen's book.  I have reviewed Allen's book for a major national newspaper in Canada.  I would argue that it is quite appropriate to rely on his work.  I think it is a helpful point of reference because the author is an acclaimed reporter well versed in Catholic issues with no ties to Opus Dei.  His research is far more thorough than any other book on the topic, and he had much greater access to information than anyone not a member of Opus Dei has had before.  The problem with so many of the sources on this topic is that they have vested interests in the dispute.  I don't think you would find any experts at least writing in English of Allen's stature who are not also engaged in a polemic on one side or the other.  Allen is unique in this respect.  So I think it is important to consider not primarily the diversity of the sources, but their relation to the dispute.
Finally as to the testimony of critics there is a section on this which cites Walsh, whose book is probably the most influential source of criticism, which many mainstream journalists seem to have used until quite recently.  Also there is a Wikipedia article on Opposition to Opus Dei which is linked and which does go into this in significant detail, I'm not sure that it is necessary to repeat this in the present article.
(Unsigned edit by Jlawest as of 20:38, 6 June 2006. --Túrelio 20:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appropriateness of using Allen? 

message: This is my first time commenting on Wikipedia. I read the article with great interest, and seems fairly reasonable. However, John Allen is quoted and referred to constantly and repeatedly in such a way that one is left wondering if we shouldn't simply be posting a summary of his book up here! Perhaps there are few other "good" sources or "experts" on this issue, but is it appropriate for a single "expert" to be referenced on virtually every single controversial point of the article. It seems that for every criticism or implied criticism of Opus Dei, Allen has an answer, and the writers of this article are very keen for us to see it. I don't know about others, but I'd rather read opinions from more diverse sources.
I find it a little strange, too, that none of the ex-members however "non-credible" are directly quoted, nor are some of the "racier" allegations of certain practices by Opus Dei members mentioned, even when they've been mentioned by the more reputable organs of the mainstream press.
Still, the frequency with which Allen is quoted and cited is the only problem I have with the article. It seems inappropriate to rely on a single journalist so heavily.
(Unsigned edit by Eurhetemec as of 21:20, 23 May 2006. --Túrelio 20:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliance on a single source - Appropriate? 

message: Let's strive to keep order in the article, i.e. portions related to a section should stay in that section. For example:
*(1) Put things in their proper place. Criticism on recruitment is for sect section, while criticism on teachings should go to the teaching section.  In this way we also keep the status of Good Article. 
*(2) Keep the proportions of space according to the credibility of experts, according to the NPOV policy: 
:To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might 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
:Also please see NOR policy, which is connected to NPOV ("The policies are complementary, jointly determining the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. They should therefore not be interpreted in isolation from each other, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three.")
::"It is an obligation of Wikipedia to its readers that the information they read here be reliable and reputable, and so we rely only on credible or reputable published sources"
::"Relying on citable sources helps clarify what points of view are represented in an article, and thus helps us comply with our NPOV policy."
:Let's keep on improving the article towards FAC. For this it is also important not to backslide.  Thanks. Lafem 03:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, Lafem. As always. Some work has to be done also with the sub-articles for FAC. Hope more people come in to help fix them up for FAC. :) Thomas S. Major 05:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just expanded on the views of George Weigel and on the works of Thomas Woods with his long list of top modern historians and experts on the influence of Catholicism on the West -- science, economics, arts, etc. Marax 05:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Good point, Lafem. Following this structure, I've combined then the two sections on "Novelty and Controversies" and "Opus Dei and Faith" into two. Marax 06:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with what you say Lafem! Walter Ching 06:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: May I suggest that the structure be statement/fact--minority pov--majority pov--neutral ending statement for those sections whose contents are disputed. Rabadur 08:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keep on improving: Need for order 

message: I am integrating once again the repeated sentences and improving further the NPOV of this section. I've tried to do this several days ago but my work kept on being erased, while others kept on putting it back (Thanks to you). I am now listing down why I think we should proceed this way.
#Aside from not repeating statements, the responses are usually best placed right after the accusation. 
#This section is the perhaps the longest section in the article. Compare this to the former featured article on the United States of America. It's a much-loved nation it is true (I am one of its fans), but also one of the most vilified and attacked in the world today-- in Europe, in moslem countries around the world, in Latin America, etc. It's "criticism section" on human rights is one of the shortest sections.  
#NPOV due proportion among representative experts. There is much lopsidedness between the experts/writers belonging to the two sides of the debate. Pro-sect writers: Brown (fiction writer), Moncada, Tapia and ODAN (exes, who do not have much credibility to be experts for a serious encyclopedia). These do not have the great qualifications of Wilson ("doyen of sociologist of religion"), Introvigne (prolific scholar), Allen (journalist who has received wide acclaim for his objectivity). Perhaps the most prominent writers of the pro-sect group are Penny Lernoux and Michael Walsh, but as Introvigne states their work has "very poor scientific quality." I just added their names in this section and placed the other writers in the footnote. I don't think I am exagerrating when I say that the due proportion should in fact be 100:0, or 99:1. The agreement here is 90:10 in general but the present proportion for this section is 75:25. What I have just done is to bring the proportion to around 80:20. 
I am not even adding to my reasons Wikipedia's Guidelines on Words to Avoid. Somebody in the future might want to argue using this. Or somebody might just be more radical and bold and trim this section to the length of the Human Rights section in the US article. Lafem 04:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sect or prime target of secularists: integrate repeated sentences; maintain NPOV due proportions between experts

message: The "Contents" is to far down the page.  --WikiCats 01:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your observation, WikiCats. I trimmed down the introduction part and lessened the size of the picture in the hope of bringing up the Contents section. I hope this move responds to your feedback. Marax 05:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Contents

message: Not sure if you did this Marax, but the intro para seems to contain a contradiction. It indicates first that Opus Dei was "created by the Roman Catholic Church" and then that it was "founded" by St. Escriva. It seems to me that we ought to distinguish b/t something created institutionally by the Pope or the College of Cardinals, and something created by an individual who was just a priest at the time. To that end, I think it's misleading to say that Opus Dei was "created" by the church. --Chaser 07:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. Thanks for your comment. I based the principles behind the wording on Pedro Rodriguez, et al,'s work Opus Dei in the Church 1994. He said there that Opus Dei is  a "self-development" of the Church, a theological or ecclesiological statement referring to the church as a whole, i.e. hierarchy and laypeople...the communion.  So the word "created" refers, broadly and theologically, to all the Catholics have done to set it up-- from Escriva (Catholic priest who "founded" it, a term confirmed by the Pope John Paul II), his followers (Catholics), the hierarchy who supported him (Catholic bishops), up to John Paul II (Pope representing the entire Church) who gave the legal "dress", the prelature. Thus, after the statement on being "created", there is another statement specifying the meaning of the general term "created": that is was "founded" by Escriva and "established" by JP II. Now, from a more canonical viewpoint, the term "created" can also refer more strictly to the "erection" of Opus Dei as personal prelature done by John Paul II. The word "creation" is more understandable in the English-speaking world. I hope this helps. Marax 07:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that "created" might have broad meaning, but to the casual visitor of the page (those simply reading the introduction) who doesn't understand how broadly that term is being used, it conveys that the church founded Opus Dei with a top-down approach. I suggest that we move "created" out of the introduction to some other part of the article where its broad use there can be conveyed to the reader. I'm open to the possibility that "created" has a broader meaning among lay Catholics than I interpret it here, but I am ignorant of its usage by Catholics generally. --Chaser 02:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes to your point, Chaser. I saw your comments just now. Some other people fixed it. I think its now alright. Marax 06:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro: "created"/"founded" 

message: I've recently done a number of edits which separate the theological/spiritual matters of Opus Dei from the social matters. The latest and hopefully the last is the separation of the complaints of the ex-members who are Catholics, from the sect issue, which proceeds from both Catholics and non-Catholics, and thus is more properly categorized under Opus Dei and society. I've also come up with a more neutral title, "Response of Society" to encompass the "stigmatization" of Opus Dei and the positive responses of the rest of society, an aspect that was sorely lacking. I hope this somehow addresses Lafem's suggestion and florindo's observation. Marax 07:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work Marax! This is turning out so well, so encyclopedic. Thanks for all your work! Walter Ching 06:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distinction of theological/spiritual and social matters 

message: I found a good summary of Escriva and Opus Dei's mission in John Paul II's 7 October 2002 Address in Praise of St. Josemaria. I placed this in the Introduction. The old rendering somehow implied that all have a vocation to stay in the world and sanctify themselves in the middle of ordinary circumstances, which is false. Marax 06:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro: John Paul II's summary of Opus Dei and Escriva's mission

message: I placed this in the footnote, a reference to Allen's statement on the misinterpretation of Opus Dei's secularity and privacy: 
* In his review of Allen's work, "Let There be Light" (Commonweal Oct-Nov 2005), Paul Baumann says that Allen's recommendations to Opus Dei (transparency, collaboration with liberals, institutional self-criticism) are still based on a liberal and Anglosaxon cultural misinterpretation of Opus Dei.
Given Baumann's cogent critique, and given the fact that these recommendations take up only 11 pages in his 387 page book (2.8% of the whole), I don't think these recommendations merit more than a footnote (much less a mention in the Introduction) in this short encyclopedic article on Opus Dei.   Lafem 07:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sensible suggestion. Took the liberty to Npovize the statement and broke it into two. Rabadur 04:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Allen's recommendations

message: All the photos on this article are now in the Wikimedia Commons. So if anyone wants to use them in an Opus Dei article of another language, just click on the Edit this page and copy the relevant image text or whatever you call it. 
You can also find the available photos here: Images on Opus Dei in Wikimedia commons
If you need help just write to me by email. You can find it in my User Talk Page: Walter Ching English. Please use the email. I rarely visit my talk page. Walter Ching 09:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Images on Opus Dei at the Wikimedia Commons

message: I just stumbled over Opus Dei: Responses to Cult Accusations. It's not linked from anywhere and it would be an obvious merge candidate except Opus Dei may be a bit on the long side already. There is no "See also" section, so I leave it to those working on the article to make use of this information. Rl 10:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, William. I made it a part of Opposition to Opus Dei. Thanks a lot William! Marax 08:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Related, orphan article

message: The Da Vinci Code comes to mind. It seems like they are portrayed in other fictional works. Seem worth a mention to anyone else? savidan(talk) (e@) 02:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  In fiction 

message: Why does this article have no discussion of the levels of membership (i.e. numenary, supernumenary, etc.)? savidan(talk) (e@) 03:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why didn't you read the article? (Sorry, couldn't resist.) See section "Vocation and membership" in . Also, there are separate entries for supernumerary, numerary and associates. Túrelio 08:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No discussion of the levels of membership? 

message: I think the article lacks the controversy between Opus dei and the Da Vinci code. the book provoked the reaction of the opus dei leaders in public for the first time. Please read time's article, "the opus dei code" it might be helpful to expand views. --Don Quijote's Sancho 04:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Van Biema of Time exaggerated quite a bit. Escriva had been granting interviews and talking quite a lot during his time, just see this link for example: Opus Dei?, Interview with Peter Forbarth (Time). R Davidson 08:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Da Vinci Code controversy 

message: :::I see your point, Aquilla. It's been discussed a number of times in the past. In a nutshell, Allen's work in fact confirmed what the editors see as the majority pov, the pov of the most credible experts, which Wikipedia says should be given more space. For this article, it also meant giving it the last say, as Allen did in all his "question marks." I agree that it would take another monumental effort of research to overturn the structure. I'd say it would demand research work surpassing Allen's 300 hours of interviews, done by someone whose reputation for objectivity at least equals that of Allen,  for it to be convincing enough to disprove Allen's conclusions. Until that comes along, this article will just have to accept its fate of always being suspected of favouring OD (which also happened to Allen). Anyway, thanks for your feedback. It's been helpful. Rabadur 02:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More space and last say for most credible experts, e.g. Allen

message: ::::The problem with this topic is this: it is about an organization that sells sanctity, so to speak. And sanctity is about being good, values, virtues. These are things that sound promotional per se. And coupled with this, the reputable experts (Allen, Introvigne, John Paul II, Ratzinger, Messori, John Paul I, many Cardinals, etc.) have spoken highly of the organization. So when one suppresses points from these experts, it might also be viewed as non-neutral or favouring the critics. It’s damn if you do, damn if you don't. That's the problem. However, let me say, I agree with the moves of Rabadur. They're a fine balancing act. Lafem 09:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sanctity per se may sound promotional; experts talked highly of OD

message: For info. I reverted an attempt by 82.69.113.120 to put the NPOV tag and warned him that his edit is akin to vandalism unless he pinpoints what he's disputing. Ndss 05:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV tag without explanation is akin to vandalism

message: ::The Italian press accused Vittorio Messori of being an apologist of Opus Dei, of doing propaganda for Opus Dei. His fault was to say in fewer words what John L. Allen, Jr. explained in a volume packed with details and facts. Allen's exhaustive and painstaking research showed that people use terms such as "propaganda", "cult", "right-wing," without careful assessments. BTW, "propaganda" is all about information which deceives the reader. In contrast this article continuously cites reputable sources.  
::This article strictly follows Wikipedia:NPOV policy: "A good way to help building a neutral point of view is to find a reputable source for the piece of information you want to add to wikipedia, and then cite that source. This is an easy way to characterize a side of a debate without excluding that the debate has other sides. The trick is to find the best and most reputable sources you can....The only other important consideration is that sources of comparable reputability might contradict. In that case the core of the NPOV policy is to let competing approaches of the same topic exist on the same page: work for balance, that is: divide space describing the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources."
::Please be fair to the people who worked on this. To call their work propaganda is simply unjust. Thomas S. Major 02:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This is based on NPOV policy; Messori like Allen was also suspected of being pro-OD

message: The truth is Johann Hari, Walsh, Lernoux, Tapia, Hutchinson do not even make the grade of being "sources of comparable reputability" compared to John Paul II, Ratzinger, Allen and Messori. But they are mentioned here. By what Introvigne and O'Connor wrote about Walsh's unscientific work, it's Walsh's text that counts as propaganda. Propaganda = misleading information. Rabadur 06:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting that you say, first of all, 'truth' rather than 'fact,' as truth philisophically has little to do with fact. Secondly, reputability (especially 'comparable' reputability) is entirely subjective, and therefore your argument is entirely subjective. Zmbe 15:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proganda = misleading information

message: I beg to disagree with Zmbe that the comparison is altogether subjective. Please check the concrete policies of Wikipedia to make the comparison objective at NPOV_tutorial#Expertise: "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
::John Allen has the reputation of having a "maddening objectivity", a highly respected Vaticanista, whose work on Opus Dei has been called "definitive" by many; John Paul II was hailed by world leaders upon his death; Benedict XVI was an accomplished theologian before becoming Pope, "brilliant" is a common description of his work (a google of ratzinger and brilliant will do the trick); the Catholic Church, the institution where these two worked for, is now seen by non-Catholic scholars as a major contributor to modern science, economics and international law; it established many of Europe's universities; Introvigne has written in 12 scientific journals; Messori is the most translated Catholic author in the world. 
* Whether the expert uses the common methods of the field or completely different ones
::This is in the field of Catholic religion (Allen, John Paul II, Ratzinger are undoubtedly experts here); and the field of sociology of religion and Introvigne is an expert, one who wrote an entire encyclopedia of religion!
* Whether the expert has or has not failed to respond to criticisms
::Introvigne responded to his critics here: Introvigne answers his critics; Escriva responded to his critics here: Conversations; Allen responded to questions here: Q and A
* Whether the expert has reputable supporters of his or her claims"
::All of them support each other, together with many cardinals, bishops, civil leaders, academicians, etc. (See Opus Dei and Catholic Church leaders, Opus Dei and civil leaders, and Opus Dei: Bibliography).  This is the most important of all objective arguments on their credibility. Lafem 07:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Policy on credibility: The most credible experts support each other's claims

message: Hi Turlington. I saw your move to erase the ending statement at Opus Dei. I agree with you that the statement sounded awkward. I've been doing some work yesterday to ensure that each section which is controverted ends with a neutral statement. I checked out the former neutral ending statement of early January 2006 (see ) and I've been thinking of a new one. What do you think of: Due to Opus Dei's controversial nature, any approach to it, whether it is taken from a stand that it is God's revolutionary Work, a conservative political force, or something else, will have to contend with many opposing issues. What do you think? Rabadur 06:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ending statement for Opus Dei

message: I have added the lost link to the Opus Dei and politics Wikipedia page with the standard caption: 
For a more detailed discussion, please see Opus Dei and politics.
Sometimes it disappears, accidentally, I guess .
Nice to see you again, guys!     
--Uncertain 15:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was in one of the footnotes to the section on Relation to politics. Now that you added this, I removed the said footnote. Ndss 06:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Opus Dei and politics

message: Sorry, but the article's tone sounds like critics expressing their ideas while playing doubles' advocate at the same time. Even if you disagree, it is definitely not truly NPOV, despite efforts to make it so. --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 03:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kindly read the FAQ I prepared. If the ratio you see is 1:6 that is even a concession because the appropriate ratio is 1:10, given that Messori, Allen, Introvigne, Wilson, who are not popes, but who agree with the popes, are much more credible than Moncada and Tapia. Thomas S. Major 02:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 03:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies, I was rushing. I just placed the right commas. Thomas S. Major 03:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tone

message: I don't think it can be called "much debated" when its critics continue to praise him and Damian Thompson agrees with him on several counts. Please see John_L._Allen%2C_Jr.#Reviews_of_his_work_on_Opus_Dei. Ndss 06:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Allen's book cannot be called "much debated"

message: Time Magazine used "respected". His critics used derivatives of this term. Baumann: has earned a reputation for balanced, informed reporting; Thompson: Damian Thompsom, who, after saying that his "column is a byword for objectivity; McDermott: respected Rome correspondent. Peter Duffy of America Magazine: respected Vatican correspondent. Ndss 10:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Allen can be called "respected"

message: I'll say upfront, I have no great views one way or the other about Opus Dei-- I'm just a random reader who watched a documentary on it one fine Sunday afternoon and came to Wikipedia to learn more.  This is one example where Wikipedia seems to have difficulty:  topics that inspire passion.  
As it currently stands, the article suffers from a lot of technical problems. The flow is hard to discern.  If I want to hear about some particular sub-issue, it's almost impossible to know where to look.  Large amounts of quotations give the writing a schiziophrenic feel-- Allen in particular is referenced far too much.  It takes a lot of effort to figure out what is a direct quotation, what is a paraphrase of a quotation, and what totally unrelated to quotation.  The section headings are troublesome-- in general, subjects should have ONE place to be discussed, rather than being interspersed throughout the text.  The society's role in The Da Vinci Code should have a subsection all to it's on-- for better or for worse, it's how most people first hear about Opus Dei.  The controversy and criticism should all be in one section, rather than being scattered throughout the article.  I don't know what to expect to find in sections like "Call and demands: theological basis", "Mission, strategy, and characteristics", "Analysis of the message and actual practice", "Faith, novelty".    
Even harder to fix is the persistent Pro-Opus Dei point of view throughout the entire article.  My first opinion upon coming here was very skeptical to the allegations that Opus Dei is a "cult", and I'm still skeptical.  But allow me to say, lightheartedly, that this article does remind me just a little of the kind that would be written by cultists--  by which I just mean, it's overwhelming positive. It's very obvious that that the majority of the contributers to this article feel that Opus Dei is pretty much the best thing in the world.  Way too much of the article is filled up with adoring quotes from popes, bishops, authors, members, and others.  They all use different phraseology, but essentially, they repeat the same message, "Opus Dei is great", over and over and over.  It's fine to include a few of those, or even make a whole section for "Supporters of OD", but to intersperse so many into the body of every section of the article violates neutrality.  
The most minor issue that I have is that the article comes from a very christian point of view, and seems geared towards a very christian audience.  There are a lot of techinical catholic and religious terms that are going to be unfamilar to a lay audience.  To some extent this is going to be unavoidable-- but all the same, the article should TRY to avoid it.  For example-- at one point, readers are advised to see another sub-article "For other testimonies"-- an odd phraseology for an encyclopedia article.  Terms like "the faithful", "the worldly", and the rest are similarly out of place.  A lot of technical catholic terms are used that I don't know the precise meanings of.  The article includes many biblical citations in order to prove specific points-- to a non-christian audience, these are of little use.  
If this article is ever going to end up on the good article list or the featured article list, a lot of work is needed.  My suggestions:
1.  Start out by trying VERY hard to actually generate a Neutral article.  Make up your mind to TRY your hardest to make an article that does not assume any opinion.  Realize that if the reader comes away from the article agreeing with the point of view you hold, then you have failed.  Strive to make an article that genuinely won't persuade one way or the other.  Tone down opinions you agree with, using the same furvor you would use for opinions you disagree with.  Put Wikipedia first, and put your own views second.  (These things are, admittely, very hard to do.  But if you don't try, your edits will just hurt the article in the long run).
2.  Farm out a lot of the religious views to sub-pages.  Try to make the main page as much "just the facts" as you can.  A _brief_ _summary_ of the specific religious tenets of Opus Dei have their place, but the operative words there are "brief" and "summary".  
3.  Kill the quotation-mania.  Instead, use the main article as a place to discuss the things everyone can agree on: the history, the types of membership, the timeline, the legal status, the existence of the controversy.      
4.  Give the controversy its due.  Have one good section on it.  Do not demonize the critics, do not psychoanalyze them, do not speculate about their motives, and do not claim that their existence proves Opus Dei's sanctity through the "sign of contradiction".  Just say there are critics, here's how they feel.  Balance this criticism through a section called "Support for Opus Dei", not through a section about "Criticisms of the Critics".
5.  Try to be "encyclopedic".  Sound like an encyclopedia.  Use Society of Jesus as a model, for example.  
Lastly, I'm putting up the POV tag, I'd suggest leaving it up until serious changes are made, or else people are probably going to just keep putting it up again and again.  
Hope this stuff helps.  Seems like a really interesting organization, and one deserving of a good strong neutral, easy-to-read article.  
--Alecmconroy 22:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Problematic and Highly POV-- one random reader's opinion

message: Thanks to everyone who have spent time critiquing this article. I specially like alecmconroy's Putting Wikipedia first comment. 
For that it is important to read first the basic guidelines of Wikipedia on controversial topics: 
*Guidelines for controversial articles. Key guidelines: (1) Describe the controversy, but at the same time maintain non-equal validity. (2) "The more at variance from commonly accepted notions an assertion is, the more rigorously it should be documented."
*Article structures which imply a view. Recommends not having a separate criticism section: "editors should attempt to write in a manner that folds debates into the narrative"
Please also read the FAQ above, where the long discussions on NPOV are summarized and linked to. After having read this, and you still have comments not discussed there, I'd accept the NPOV tag. Thank you for your patience. I worked hard to keep the pro-OD and the anti-OD contributors to follow Wikipedia. 
Also, please keep in mind that there are passions on both side of this question. Many studies have been done on this topic, you can also see the history of this article, and you can also see Religious Homepage and the Fr. Martin article, and the work of Allen. All agree that in materials gathered about OD, the strong pro-OD stand and the strong anti-OD stand co-exist. So it is inevitable that this article makes OD look good and look bad at the same time, but given the lopsidedness of the balance in expertise, OD seems to look better. Mind you, I've studied how this article developed. There were edit wars, there were attempts to place only non-controversial points, but they don't work. The two sides will keep on bringing in points, but the way to keep the balance as the Wikipedia NPOV policy states is to divide space, and stick by the Wikipedia policy first. I can assure everyone that this Wikipedia first policy brought about the longest period of peace for this article.  Thomas S. Major 01:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please also look at Roman Catholic Church as regards phraseology. And Islam and United States as regards the brochure look. The last two are controversial, but they hardly contain criticism. This articles has a lot. Thomas S. Major 02:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just took away some lines where OD is made to look good: Benedict on the Catholic faith, John Paul I, and spokesman Carrogio. Thomas S. Major 03:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's good, Tom. I also like Alec's "Controversy over Opus Dei" section, that's a neutral and factual title. I also did some cutting on my own. I deleted the "Having wings" line. This might sound highly pro-Opus Dei. BTW, this article was in the Good article list from January to May, that's 4 months, and it is basically the same, except that the criticism are more pronounced now and harsher, and the "sect" section was broken up into two, quotes from civil leaders were added.  Cabanes 05:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Putting Wikipedia first 

message: The current structure of the article makes neutrality an impossibility. Not just difficult, but unobtainable. What we have here is a speach on the part of a defence lawyer addressing points that have been raised by an absent prosecution.
If the structure were reversed it would be no more acceptable.
The article needs to take the position of a third and neutral party that introduces to the table a point for consideration and then presents the opposing view points on the issue; making a point of alternating their presentation.
Opus Dei is controvercial within the Roman Catholic Church... why?... Why do some Catholics have concerns about Opus Dei? What are their concerns? Why did I read an article on Opus Dei only to be left asking this question at the end?
What about former members? What's the controversy there?
Why from another encyclopaedia did I read that 10 out of 19 cabinet members of the Spanish government up until 1975 belong to Opus Dei.... what other aspects of politics have they been involved in?
This article does not belong in an encyclopaedia any more that an article that read... Mr. X says Opus Dei are bad. Mr. Y says Opus Dei kill puppies. Mr. Z said the world is a worse place for having Opus Dei in it.
This is a brochure piece. Moreso, I can see you're getting a lot of feedback telling you that this article isn't even close to being neutral.
When an issue is very controvertial, with a large number of conflicting and polarised views all you can do is present the different views. This article does not do that.
-- Carnagh
:Hi Carnagh! Welcome to Wikipedia! :-) It's great to hear your comments. You might want to learn more about our policies at Wikipedia:NPOV and Wikipedia:NOR, Wikipedia:Verifiability, three core policies of our encyclopedia. You might also want to read the Q&A at the top of this page. 
:The book of Messori studied how a black legend developed around Opus Dei's role in Franco's government. In part you can see it explained in the section on Opus's relation to politics. Kindly check as well Opus Dei and politics. You can find there what the latest, and most reputable studies have concluded. Neutrality in Wikipedia provides more space to citation of the most reputable sources, while allowing proportionate space for the minority opinions. You can find the different views presented in each section.  Hope this helps! Walter Ching 07:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality not possible with current structure... 

message: Hey fellows! I found this in NPOV Tutorial. "Often an author presents one POV because it's the only one that he or she knows well. The remedy is to add to the article — not to subtract from it." If this article's critics believe there should be more anti-OD texts, why not try this? I just added one, while taking care not to go beyond 30-40% of space in disputed territory. I don't think the pro-OD would mind. They still have 60-70%! Anonimus 08:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Solution: Add your POV

message: I removed an entry initiating a discussion. Please remember what Wikipedia is not: not a discussion forum, not a personal essay, not a place for personal opinions. 
I copied parts of Wikiquette for everyone. Have fun reading it! Walter Ching 03:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Principles of Wikiquette

message: Hi Alec! I am in favor of all the images in the article, those uploaded by Walter and of course, those I uploaded. The Q and A addition is fine, Walter! It's not mine, you know. It's more of our summary of discussions. 
Yes, those images help explain the text and they show OD's international character. That's the character of Opus Dei that's beyond dispute: an international prelature. 
They show the different regions of the world: Slovenian Pot (East Europe), Hacsa image and Philippine painting (Asia), Participants Escriva Congress (Africa), Condoray women (Latin America), Perrottet (Australia), Fontan (Spain, where it is strongest), youthclub and Zweifel (Western Europe), Arnold Hall (US). 
In this age of visuals, images convey much information. The image of Arnold Hall show how things are set up in OD, for example. Those images do support the views of majority of experts and, as has been repeated ad nauseam here, those sources of greater reputability. Of course, the anti-OD will not like them. But until they get some highly credible sources, they can't overturn the proportions. And until there is a social scientist more important than Introvigne who studied OD and the anti-cult movement, his insights will have to stay in the Intro. Let's all put Wikipedia first. :) Thomas S. Major 23:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: *How should the article balance space between supporters and critics?  Should the article devote less space to supporters of Opus Dei and to rebuttals of criticism, devoting more space to critics of the Opus Dei?  Should it keep the current proportions of support -vs- criticism?  Or should it devote more space to supporters and less space to critics?
::I have given my comments on this some time ago. I abide by what we discussed then, a discussion summarized by Thomas at the Q&A. To borrow from Pvazz's expression, many supporters of Opus Dei are luminaries, e.g. Allen, Messori, Introvigne, John Paul II, Cardinal Ratzinger. The first two are famous investigative journalists; Introvigne is a most prolific sociologist with an encyclopedic turn of mind; the last two know Opus Dei well, by the reports they receive as members of the Catholic hierarchy, and through their personal experiences. All these deserve more space than Estruch, Fr. James Martin, and several ex-members whose voices are contradicted by thousand of others. I firmly believe Wikipedians should work towards peace, a by-product of abiding by Wikipedia's clear-cut policies on neutrality.  I firmly believe we should respect these policies. Marax 03:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Balance between supporters and critics

message: *Should all commentary opinions (from supporters and critics) be placed in their own sections, or should they be interspersed throughout the article ("folded into the narrative")? 
::I believe the Wikipedia article on Wikipedia is a good model. It is now a featured article. Marax 03:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Marax-- what about the Wikipedia article do you consider to be a model?  I read the article and note that it has a whole separate section for "Evaluations of Wikipedia" specifically for support and criticism, and in my view the rest of the article is fairly free of value-judgements about Wikipedia.  But that may not be what you take from the Wikipedia article, so I thought I'd double-check. --Alecmconroy 00:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism and praise in separate sections or interspersed?

message: *Should the overall tone of the article be changed so as to be less theological and more historical?  
::As I explained at the FAC, the present level of scholarship on this topic usually go into theology to understand this Catholic reality called Opus Dei. I think Wikipedia as a serious encyclopedia should do not less. Aside from being a theologian, I am also a historian, and I believe the two have to be balanced in good proportion, i.e. both should be present in the article, with more weight given to religious analysis of a primarily religious phenomenon.   Marax 03:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I should clarify that I personally regard the problem as one very specifically to "tone" not "subject matter".  I definitely believe that theology must be covered when talking about a theological subject matter-- but it's possible to speak "historically/encyclopedically" about theology, rather than theologically about theology.  For example, look at History of theology-- it's all about theology, but it's impossible to determine what religion the author(s) and intendend audience are.  Contrast that with Opus Dei, where it seems very much like it was written from someone speaking from a Christian point of view.--Alecmconroy 00:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey Alec! History of theology is a non-Catholic, non-Christian subject matter. Opus Dei is a Catholic subject matter. It is under Catholic spirituality, Catholic doctrine, Catholic prelatures, Catholic history, Catholic Church, etc. Yes, yes, the point of view should be varied in proportion to their expertise and reputability. There's space for other povs anyway: Johann Hari,  for the anti-Christian pov; Kung, Martin, Catholics for Free Choice and ex-members for the Catholic, anti-OD pov; Urquhart, Hutchison for the Christian pov. But how do these compare with the luminaries? Ndss 04:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Theological or historical tone?

message: *Should most of the images be removed from the article?  
::Thomas's reasoning is logical enough. Another insight: Opus Dei's status is personal prelature which covers persons and not territories.  Images of persons involved in Opus Dei, most of them lay, are powerful media for providing what Wikipedia calls "reliable" information on this type of prelature. Marax 03:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are more effective, less propagandistic ways to express Opus Dei's global character.  Marax, your argument that a personal prelature must have numerous domesticated images of its members borders on casuistry.  I accept that an image, maybe two images of the members themselves should be included.  But to argue, as you do, that eight images of random members, all of whom are photographed benignly, ideologically 'normal' and smiling for the cameras, cannot be justified by the line 'Opus Dei is a global people movement and we live in a visual age'.  You should chose one, maybe two favourites and delete the rest. Pvazz 06:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: *Should the introduction contain multiple specific details about the controversies?
::Perhaps the list of accusations are a tad long-winded. In any case, the opponents and supporters of Opus Dei agree that Opus Dei is controversial. Thus, readers expect to find in Wikipedia an encyclopedic analysis of these controversies. If you are referring to both Allen and Messori's analyses, then by all means these should stay in the introduction. I don't know if they should be named, but their conclusions will certainly be excellent information. Marax 03:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro: Details on controversies

message: (1) Jargon: As a lay person, I found the prolific use of Christian jargon, phraseology, and context made much of the article impenetrable to me.  
think it was written for, and by, someone who has been trained in Christian doctrine, which doesn't include me.  I'd like someone to explain to me in common language what Opus Dei is, and what the controversies surrounding it are. It doesn't need to be a book, just an overview.  
:If you look at liturgy, Roman Catholic Church, Algorithm, you'll find technical terms everywhere. This is an encyclopedia where deeper knowledge is displayed.  
::Of course there are technical terms in many articles. My point is about excessiveness and audience. My impression of an encyclopedia is that it is meant to be an educational tool more than a place to display. I could be wrong about this, though. (Snideness begets snideness).
:::IMHO, the wikisolution to jargon is to wikilink the first use of each term to an article explaining the term.  TheronJ 22:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jargon

message: (2) Quotations: The excessive use of quotations apparently is an attempt to add strength to the assertions in the article, but actually has the opposite effect. Some quotes from established experts can do that, but in this case there are so many that it feels like the author is using them as clubs to fend off an expected onslaught of criticism. I don't know enough about OD to know what is controversial and what is not, but when I read the article I became wary.  I believe if the article were truly neutral, there wouldn't be an expectation by the author of an attack, because if it were truly neutral, there would be little to attack. It also reads like a bible commentary, not an encyclopedia article.
:It depends on what encyclopedia your used to. This is Wikipedia. Set up by a guy named Jimbo Wales. It's a controversial topic, you know. The more controversial, the more referenced. That's Wikipedia wisdom. 
:: As with many things in life, it is a matter of degree. I have read many articles in Wikipedia, even controversial ones, that don't read that way, so it seems to me incorrect to say this is Wikipedia.  (BTW, I've met Jim. Nice guy. I heard he started an online encyclopedia.)
:::Yeah, but this place is vandalized more than many others. If it were not for those quoted statements, half of the article won't be around by now. Still, I agree that some kind of tempering needs to be done. Rabadur 07:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Quotations

message: How about a second list of experts and scholars on this topic, Pvazz and Alec? And their claim to fame and "reputability" in the field of Catholic organizations, Catholic spituality, Catholic prelatures? 
You can try your hand at analysis using Wikipedia parameters a la Lafem at Talk:Opus_Dei#Policy_on_credibility:_The_most_credible_experts_support_each_other.27s_claims
*Anonimus 02:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Such a good suggestion, Anonimus!! How about it, Pvazz and Alec! It's your turn. Let's see how credible your sources are! Your right Anonimus! Lafem has been waiting since.... Ndss 08:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More practical next step

message: In reference 59, I don't know where the "Samuel Edgerton" reference was supposed to link, but I happened to notice it duplicates the succeeding Guenther Risse link instead. Art LaPella 03:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: External link removed. --Túrelio 09:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrong reference