Talk:Opus Dei/Archive 2006-5

message: In May of 2006, I watched a History Channel special on Opus Dei and decided to look up the Wikipedia article on the subject. When I first came to this article six months ago, I knew almost nothing about Opus Dei and had absolutely no strong feeling about it.  (I still don't have any strong feelings about it).  I did however notice that I felt the page had numerous NPOV problems.  I noticed that many other people have had similar views about the page, but yet the problems persisted.  For several months, I and other outside editors actively discussed the issue with the authors of this page, but failed to convince the pro-Opus Dei editors that a problem existed.  Later, I engaged in mediation in at attempt to convince them, but this also failed to resolve our disputes.   Since that time, I have showed a number of outside editors the Opus Dei page and asked their opinion on it-- all have detected severe NPOV problems and suggested ways I could resolve the issue.  None have informed me I was in error in finding a problem.  And now, just recently, I notice a similar problem has developed at the article on Escriva, with uninvolved editors finding major NPOV problems, only to have their improvements reverted by the same group of dedicated editors.  For me, this is the final proof that my feelings on the article are correct, and I am now sufficiently confident that consensus will support my views that I am confident enough to act on this issue.  
For the record, I myself do not believe the criticisms of Opus Dei.  I do not believe that it is a "cult", and what is a cult but an unpopular religious group anyway?  But Opus Dei is  undisputedly the most controversial religious entity in all of the catholic church.  So when I first saw the article on Opus Dei, I asked myself: "how is it that the wikipedia article on 'The Most Controversial Force in the Catholic Church' doesnt' have even one single section dedicated to the controversy?"
After all these months and thousands of words spent in discussion, I am now ready to officially declare that I believe a number of editors are not acting in good faith.  By which I just mean:  people are putting their "Duty to God" above their "Duty to Wikipedia" and they are actively seeking to promote their own religious beliefs on Wikipedia.  I will not name names, but there are at least six different editors with 3000 edits between them, all with a distinctinly pro-Opus Dei editing tendency.  Indeed,  I believe I am correct in saying that none have made even a single edit that wasn't related to Opus Dei.  They actively remove criticism of Opus Dei, regularly insert praise, and have generally sought to promote Opus Dei and its members-- creating at least 22 different Wikipedia articles on Opus Dei.  This is extremely suspicious, and despiting being a huge believing in WP:Assume Good Faith, I do not think I would be too "off base" in suggesting these editors are single purpose accounts who are actively seeking to promote Opus Dei on Wikipedia.   
Therefore, I am going to work hard to take the steps necessary to defend the encyclopedia and to bring this article up to feature article quality, taking whatever actions are necessary to ensure that we get the very best article possible.  If I am wrong, and the true consensus of the good-faith editors is that my edits do not improve the article, I will welcome that conclusion, as it will require the least amount of work on my part, and I have no ax to grind against OD whatsoever.  I, however, am now fully convinced that I am correct in my conclusions, and if I fail to work hard towards improving the article, I am merely putting off a problem, making some other person in the future have to clean up the mess i'm unwilling to fix.  I apologize for the strife I expect these actions will create, I am confident the encyclopedia will be better for it. 
As such, I'm going to put up the new version for people to look at.  I will automatically add the NPOV tag to it so people can know a dispute is ongoing about whether my rewrite is an improvment.  I will create Request for Comment so that uninvolved editors may work to improve the article.  Since our last RFC in May got exactly 1 new opinion, I will work to solicit more by personally contacting some editors who have in the past been involved in this article, as well as other editors whose opinions I would value on this issue.  I will keep restoring this version, as long as policy permits, if it is removed by accounts that appear to have been created only to edit Opus Dei-related articles, and if such deletions are persistent, I will seek administrator intervention against those tendentious editors who appear to be in violation of Wikipedia is not a soapbox.  Lastly, I should reiterate-- my interest here is in Wikipedia, not Opus Dei, and at no time will I act contrary to a firm consensus of good-faith editors who do not appear to be single purpose accounts created just to promote Opus Dei.  --Alecmconroy 07:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As a practising Roman Catholic, one time Numerary Likely, and future priest of the Roman Catholic Church I would like to add my voice to serious concerns expressed here over the level of POV being used in this article and in the biography of Escriva. The Church contains 1,000,000,000+ members - of which the astoundingly vast proportion are not Opus Dei members nor never will be. Wikipedia is an open source encyclopedia, and as such it operates via consensus backed by academic source. I have countless attempts at introducing balance into this article simply slapped down. Now, we have two options. Either Alec's adaptations are treated honestly and with a modicum of fairplay or we can ask an admin to slap a lock on the article as a whole and be done with it. Opus Dei has much to offer, but if the millions of users who contribute to the site see nothing but heavyhandedness it reflects very badly who those who purport to defend the prelature and its aims. Thanks, Iamlondon 14:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, but how must we avoid an article to become Alecmconroy article? Alec is not the director of this article. The best would be to have a descriptive part followed by an interpretative part (about disputed issues). Louisar 22:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A Major Rewrite

message: *Verifiablity.  Numerous staments in the old article were unverifiable.  Some portions were essentially extended original essays on "What Opus Dei Means To Me".   Opinions were often presented as facts.  Religious opinions and personal observations were often presented as facts rather that opinions.  
*Citations.  Despite the extensive energy that was dedicated to it, the old article was mostly uncited.  This is because much of the old article was uncitable, even in principle.  For example, what citation could one produce in order to verify the sentence:   "Each person is free —in control of his actions— and thus responsible for his spiritual and social life. Jesus redeemed us with the free choice of love" 
*Balance. The old article was greatly unbalanced towards the pro-OD point of view.  One editor, speaking sincerely, said he felt that the article should be at least 90% pro-OD, and indeed, about 90% of the article he created praised Opus Dei, with the remainder of the space used to introduce and dismiss the criticisms.  
*Controversy.  Despite the indisputed fact that Opus Dei is "the most controversial force in all of catholicism", the old article did not have even a single section devoted to the controversy or criticism of Opus Dei.  Such material had been repeatedly introduced by numerous outside editors, only to be deleted repeatedly by members of OD. 
*Tone.  The old article lacked encyclopedic tone.  Instead, numerous outside editors had referred to it as a "brochure for Opus Dei".  
*Brevity.  The old article was over 60kb-- more than double the recommended limit.  This was due largely to the extensive use of direct quotations which praised Opus Dei and its members.  There simply was no need for such length-- the rewritten article covers all the same basic information, while being under the recommended 30kb article length.
*Organization.  The old article was extremely poorly organized.  Section headings often had little connection to their  contents, and it was unclear where in the article one would find what information.
--Alecmconroy 07:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems with the old version of the article

message: Taxico mentioned that it's sometimes hard to tell what has been changed so I thought I'd highlight some of the differences, so that commentors can see the difference.  Let me show how I rewrote the Theology Section, which I think it representative of the whole problem of the article 
*Here are links to the Old section, the New Section (a not very helpful diff)
The old Theology section, oddly entitled "Lay Spirituality" essentially an original essay on Opus Dei.  The section is not encyclopedic, it is written in persuasive writing that attempts to justify, not convey, Opus Dei's theology.  Consider just a few representative sentences which were found in the old theology section:
*Since the Bible stated that man was created "to work" (Gen 2:15) and that Jesus "did all things well" (Mk 7:37), Escrivá encouraged Christians to work excellently out of love. By doing so, their work is a service to society and a fitting offering to God.
*All of creation is sanctified by the God-made-flesh: movies, boardrooms, gardens, sports are meeting points with the Father God who is near.
*Each person is free —in control of his actions— and thus responsible for his spiritual and social life. Jesus redeemed us with the free choice of love: As man, he obeyed his Father's will throughout his life of work, "unto death, even death on a cross" (Phil 2:8). Each one then directs himself with autonomy in earthly affairs towards eternal union with or separation from God, the two ultimate ends of life.
*By practicing these teachings, a Christian has no double life; he has a unity of life. 
These are not statements found in an encyclopedia.  They are unverifiable.  They are essentially "original research" which presents the personal spiritual opinions of some editors as facts.  
The old theology section used 8 different subject headings-- but these headings are completely arbitratry, chosen essentially because "That's what being a member of Opus Dei means to me".  We could pick 8 completely different heading and justify them just as well.  The organization and choice of topics was unverifiable-- I could ask 20 different people what Opus Dei "means" and get 20 different responses. 
In contrast, the new section is brief, encyclopedic, verifiable, well-cited, and NPOV.  It presents only those elements of Opus Dei theology which are attested in all reliable sources.  It does not try to justify (nor criticize) the validity of Opus Dei's theology, it merely summarizes it.  It does not try to persuade the reader, nor does it use flowerly "sermon-style" language.  The rewrite of the theology section improves it.
And, I think a close reading will show, the other sections of the article have all been improved as well.  I firmly believe outside editors, with no agenda pro- or con- OD, will agree with me.  --Alecmconroy 10:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: An example comparision between New and Old

message: * The new version looks a lot better. Most of the statements are properly sourced, and that's just great. But it's really hard to follow what exactly you have changed; this is why you should try to expand rewrites of this kind over at least 10 different well-explained edits. Otherwise the nature of the rewrite is not really transparent. Taxico 07:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Upon further inspection, Alecmconroy's edit seems to have been very well-intentioned. It has also improved the article's overall status (in terms of citation, concision, and avoiding original research). So I support the new version. Taxico 04:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments by outside editors

message: Worse in some aspects, better in other. The old version was better written, easier to read, more informative - perhaps because it was longer. From the information point of view, I understand the vandalism impression of some about the new one. But perhaps it was too long and should heve been divided.
A clear mistake was added in the new one about the jurisdiction of OD (see below). There was no clear mistake in the old one.
Bibliography and links are very poor and should be restored, at least in part.
The new version is better from a reference point a view.
The new version is going too far in the cutting. True, the "spiritual teachings" section and the "practices" section of the old version were too long and contained irrelevant details and quotes (also NPOV problems, but not that enormous). 1-2 pages should have been cut there .  But now there is an enormous hole about spirituality: the new version goes from doctrine-structure-membership directly to mortification! This is bizarre, as mortification is a secondary point of spirituality. Some aspects of the old version must be restored, esp. about spiritual direction (the main point in OD: it is really unbelieveble that spiritual direction be skipped; it is a school of spirituality, first) , and also confession. Spirituality first, ascetism second, as a consequence. There's a big logical gap in the new version. It may be corrected, 4-5 sentences would be enough.
I find normal that an article about OD looks a little bit like an informative booklet from OD. An article about catholicism must look a little bit like The Catholic catechism. What they say about what they are is the first source. The new version must be improved with good elements of the old one that were deleted. True, a lot of good stuff of the old one have been kept in the new one.  
Since it is absolutely necesssary to add something about spiritual direction and spiritual practices (plan of life, prayers), the core of OD -and I know this even if i was never a member -, if there is a space problem, the Davinci stuff must be sacrificed, as it is not at all essentialLouisar 18:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by [[User:Louisar|Louisar]]

message: We discussed the new version ad nauseam in mediation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Opus_Dei
Don't you get it guy? Mr. Ideologue http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Opus_Dei#Actions_and_ideology 
is on a rampage!! Ndss 14:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In his 247 edits since December of 2005, Ndss has never made even a single edit that did not relate to Opus Dei.  He is, it would seem, merely a dedicated member who has come to Wikipedia exclusively to promote Opus Dei. --Alecmconroy 14:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pure vandalism!!

message: Please check these out. They contain very important information: results of two mediations, comments of Good article guys. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Opus_Dei/FAQ
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Opus_Dei
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alecmconroy&oldid=55128870
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_articles/Disputes/Archive_5#Opus_Dei
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pradeshkava (talk • contribs) 
:Why exactly are these important to this discussion?  All they seem to do is essentially show the former version had merit (which I've yet to see anyone deny).  They do very little to illuminate the new version.  The question on the table is: does it have more merit?  Or not? Baccyak4H (talk) 21:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since Prad mentions the GA dispute, people might also want to note that the GA reviewer who promoted this article before has also expressed the opinion that the rewrite was an improvement. --Alecmconroy 21:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Very Important information

message: I'd like to thank everyone who commented today for all their help!  I sincerely appreciate it.  Thanks also to all the original editors who worked so hard to create the pre-rewrite page:  ultimately, you did all the hard work of actually writing the article, I just did some final pre-FAC polishing of Tone and Verifiability. 
I expect there's still some objections left to be aired and discussed, but given the overwhelmingly positive response the RFC received, I think it's not unrealistic to slowly begin looking at FAC. IF the rewrite becomes stable, I think there's an excellent chance of us all getting a Wikipedia Featured Article on Opus Dei-- which would be wonderful for everybody.  
To that end:  is there a better picture of Pope John Paul II?  Currently we're using this one, but its from 1997-- I'd rather have one of him circa 1982, when he made Opus Dei a personal prelature.  Something like this, only something we can use, copyright-wise. 
Similarly, if anyone wants to help tackle bringing the cites into proper format, you are MOST welcome to do so-- there are still PLENTLY left. :)
Again, thanks everyone. --Alecmconroy 22:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Thanks and further minor improvements

message: Discussion in response to Talk:Opus_Dei#Problems_with_the_old_version_of_the_article
::(regarding Citations) Wikipedia:Verifiability means: "1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources. 2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor. 3. The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." All the material in the spiritual teaching section of the former article are cited, taken from Holiness in the World and the writings of Escriva. They are not original materials. They are verifiable, because they are citations from a reliable source, a book written by luminary theologians, e.g. Ratzinger, William May, Fernando Ocariz. Lafem 09:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (regarding balance) See Thomas's Mediation Resolution:Non-equal validity below. Lafem 09:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (regarding controvesy) Possibly the longest section in the old article was Reception History and Controversy. Lafem 09:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: (regarding Tone) This is only your opinion, Mr. Conroy. A Lutheran Pastor at GA didn't think so. Lafem 09:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: (regarding Brevity) The numerous criticism demanded appropriate length from experts to elucidate. Lafem 09:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: (regarding organization) This is only your opinion, Mr. Conroy. A Lutheran Pastor at GA didn't think so. Lafem 09:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My only main comment is to point you to this discussion.  CTSWyneken, the GA reviewer, was one of the people I consulted before deciding to go forward with the rewrite--  he was shown the rewrite and found it was not only a Good Article, but in fact, a better article that the old one.  --Alecmconroy 09:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion of Old-vs-New

message: First off, Dominick and others-- thanks so much for going through and looking at all the sources.  If we're going to get to FAC, more eyeballs are always a good thing.  I'll get right on trying to find better sources for the ones that were marked dubious.  
For sentences that were completely and utterly non-controversial facts, I was content to cite pretty much anything.  So for example I cited an oped piece to justify Opus Dei has a "focus on the lives of average Catholics".  Basically, I just threw it up so that people could see it wasn't original research.  I think that's probably good enough, but if we want to find an even better source that to says the same thing, it will only make the article better, and I'll work on finding even better cites right now.  :) 
If you could, I would ask that you not remove the cites outright unless it's so unrelated that it looks like a mistake or something.  A 'suboptimal' cite is better than nothin'-- it shows it's not OR, for example.  But if you add the "citation needed" tag, I or others can go through and try to find an even better one. :)  
Also, important is when you change a "named" citation-- it means that somewhere else in the article, that same cite is used elsewhere, so if you just delete it outright, the other places it's cited will turn into broken cites.  Instead, if you want to remove the first instance of a named citation, cut and paste it to where i'ts used the second time in an article-- then everything will work. --Alecmconroy 00:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Found it.  The full citation was in a May 2005 old version of this article. --Alecmconroy 02:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: On Sources

message: Does anyone know in what work Portillo calls the hitler allegations a "patent falsehood" & "slanderous campaign"?  It's an awesome quote-- I took it from Opus Dei and politics, but that article only cites it as "(del Portillo 1996, p. 22-25)"-- a full listing isn't in the bibliography.  Obviously, I could go look through his writings and make a guess, but it's be better to know for sure. --Alecmconroy 02:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Found it.  The full citation was in a May 2005 old version of this article. --Alecmconroy 02:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What's "Portillo 1996"?

message: Does anyone know what journal or whatever Wilson's 1994 paper "Apostates and New Religious Movements" was published in?  The online version doesn't say, and googlesearching hasn't turned it up. --Alecmconroy 08:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bryan Wilson, Apostates and New Religious Movements?

message: Anyone know of a better source that refers to Opus Dei as a Sign of Contradiction?  There are a few "OpEd"-ish pieces that use that reference, but we could use a better one.  I see in Sign of contradiction that the Archbishop of Westminister made such a statement, does anyone have a source documenting that?  --Alecmconroy 08:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Opus Dei as Sign of Contradiction source?

message: This article has been listed as a good article and I see no reason based on Good Article Criteria to delist it. If someone dissagrees with my take on this, please bring the article to the project's attention at: Wikipedia:Good articles/Review. Thanks! --CTSWyneken(talk) 13:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Article Status/Review 

message: There is a Neutrality flag on this article, but I see no attempt made to justify it on this talk page, nor do I see bias in the article itself. If there is no objection, I will remove the flag. If there is, please copy the text that is believed to be slanted to this page for discussion. Thanks! --CTSWyneken(talk) 13:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Much of the mortification is pretty overblown. It isn't like members of Opus Dei walk around bleeding like the Movie. Too much weight is given to crtics of Opus Dei. Dominick (TALK) 13:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Would you please copy the words you think are over the top here? As far as I can tell, the article describes the relevant POVs neutrally and documents them, as Alecmconroy states. --CTSWyneken(talk) 14:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: But Dominick-- I believe every word in the mortification section is verifiable and indeed, verified.  We explicitly say bleeding does not occur, we explicitly talk about what a load of psychotic lunacy the Da Vinci code is.  The criticm is kept exceptionally brief, and sentence for sentence, there's less of in than was in the old article.  Which sentences do you feel are untrue/violate NPOV?  --Alecmconroy 13:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  While these may not be a problem in terms of POV, it is probably too detailed for an FA. Perhaps an article on mortification might be created, or, if it exists, have the detail here moved to it. Here it is probably enough to have one paragraph stating that OD advocates optional, moderate forms of mortification and why. --CTSWyneken(talk) 14:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I object to any removal of the neutrality flag-- on the basis of Wisden17's Mediation Ruling. The present version violates NPOV's non-equal validity. It uses a word to avoid (cult), and used it as section title. The whole section is POV fork. R Davidson 14:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am unaware of this ruling. Would you please summarize it or link to it? Also, would you be a bit more specific. Where is the word used that you are objecting to? --CTSWyneken(talk) 16:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  Thanks! I'll read the ruling. For the matter at hand, does anyone object to removing the word "cult" from the subhead? I do not see it is necessary to make the points of the critics. --CTSWyneken(talk) 11:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would without a doubt be acceptable and indeed preferable if that term could not be verified to have been used in any of the critiques (i.e., its inclusion is OR).  If it was used, there probably is no escaping using it somewhere, but where depends on the degree, context, etc.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 04:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My inclination would be to leave it in.  We use the "c word" very sparingly and we always mention it as merely an allegation.  But it is a valid part of the discourse, and almost all the news stories about Opus Dei controversies mention the cult accusations.  A google search for pages containing both "opus dei" and the word "cult" yields some 140,000! So while it might not be a true accusation, it is notheless a very major portion of the debate.  --Alecmconroy 06:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  If it truly the only issue that prevents removal of the neutrality flag, then perhaps you should just remove the word from the heading. As you all have done in the lead, anytime you use the word, refer to the critics of the organization, use qualifying phrases such as "According to ____," critics "charge that" or quote someone directly with proper citation. Does that make sense? Can we do that for the sake of moving on? --CTSWyneken(talk) 15:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality Flag 

message: Regarding Escriva's self-mortification, I don't want to go into it in any detail in the Opus Dei article (as you say, that's for the Josemaria Escriva article itself), but it should at least be mentioned in the Opus Dei article, not least because he originated the practice and serves as a role model for the movement. I'll also defend the word "vigorous": Opus Dei does not, AFAIK, require its members to flagellate themselves to the same degree as their founder. -- The Anome 13:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I reverted your additonal mortification material about Escriva's practice of it is because we really don't want to make too much out of this mortification thing.  If you ask the members of Opus Dei, it's a very small part of what they do.  We have to mention it, and explain it, but we needn't dwell on it.  Yes, it's true Escriva himself practiced it, but so have many people, and we should keep our focus, as much as possible, strictly on Opus Dei itself.  There's also the fact that descriptions of Escriva's practice of mortification very quickly run towards the lurid, and he practiced it so intensely, in ways normal numeraries do not, that I think it would be almost misleading or "prejudicial" to go into it.  Obviously, there's nothing stopping the Escriva article from going into it, but I think it might be a tad much to get into.  That's my take anyway. To get to FAC, we need an ULTRA-TIGHT focus, trying not to go into excessive detail, but leaving that to the subarticles. --Alecmconroy 14:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding Escriva's self-mortification 

message: As far as I remember it contained an extensive collection of references and literature. Is this all gone? --Túrelio 19:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently it was deleted by an admin a few months ago, his reasoning was posted here.  I myself didn't have any strong objection to the bibliography, but I guess a case could be made for invoking Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.  If you can talk the admin into undeleting it, I have no problem with its being reinstated.  --Alecmconroy 19:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What happened with the article [[Opus Dei: Bibliography]] (today recursive to [[Opus Dei]])?

message: I read through the article and did some cleanup - minor things like removing wordiness, redundant statements, or paragraph structure.  Overall it is very nicely referenced and presents good material.  However, the final section is a mess.  It gives way too much attention to fringe theories.  Hopefully this can be addressed soon.  Lostcaesar 10:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I might just take this up myself.  The section relies heavily on one web source, yet states the position broadly - this needs to be fixed.  One example of poor quailty was "ref bombing", where 6 ref's were stuck after the association of the founder with Hitler, even though all but one of the refs refered to previous names in the list (Franco), and the the one on Hitler was not properly expressed in the article (and still is not).  Very unprofessional.  Lostcaesar 11:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My sincere apologies-- I wasn't trying to refbomb or be in any way misleading or anything.  Originally I just had three cites that meshed well with the three claims.  But there was a desire to have more refs, and so I added some, but I admit that did make it look a tad "refbomby"-- your idea of interspersing them over the sentence is a vast improvement.  I also added by back in the extra cites that had been requests, but commented them out so the result would appear "bomby", that way we can have our cake an eat it too! --Alecmconroy 06:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Quick Review

message: Since the main objection to the article has been the use of the world 'cult' in the subhead, I have removed both it and the NPOV flag.
I believe that the word is unneeded to speak about opposition to a controversial movement (see Jehovah's Witnesses for another group labeled cultic). The general shape of this article is the same as a number of controversial religious groups. I believe that we should condense the opposition sections in a similar way and leave it at that. Any thoughts? --CTSWyneken(talk) 19:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: About the section title "'cult' allegations"-- I personally think it should be on the section title.  I mean, that is the criticism.  I know it's a harsh word, but the fact is, the cult allegations DO exist and they are notable, so we don't need to censor it away or try to hide it, we just need to let there be a response to it.  Virtually every news story about Opus Dei mentions the "cult" word, it's notable, indeed it's THE most notable criticism.  Certainly, we don't want to give undue weight to criticism, but as of this moment, the controversy is an integral part of what Opus Dei is in public discourse right now.  Of all the news stories that have been run on Opus Dei lately, I don't know if there's been a single one that hasn't mentioned the controversies--- some authors find the controversies unfounded, some find them justified, most are in the middle, but practically all mention it.  The discussion of Opus Dei is centered around the controversy and the 'cult' allegations-- we shouldn't shy from introducing the criticism and the rebuttals.  --Alecmconroy 19:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Alec, above: I think the word "cult" is justified in that heading: of the allegations made by Opus Dei's detractors, their being a cult is by far the commonest, and the section discusses these allegations in particular. Note that by having a header called "'Cult' allegations", we are saying that there are allegations that they are a cult (which we must be cited, per WP:V and WP:NPOV), and not saying that they are a cult, which would be contrary to the NPOV policy. -- The Anome 20:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, exactly. I was sorry to see my restoration of the "Criticism and 'cult' allegations" heading so promptly reverted. I thought I'd made a reasoned case within the confines of the edit summary (unlike the editor who originally removed the heading, in an edit marked "minor" and referring to a "category" (?)). Alec has made a very strong case above. I'm sure nobody wants to edit war—I certainly don't—but Alec, if I may say so, I think you should revert to the heading that has been part of the "new" version all along, especially considering that User:CTSWyneken didn't scruple to change the heading within two minutes of inviting "thoughts" on this page.  Bishonen | talk 20:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe I helped this a bit with the content restructuring, and thus allowed the title "controversy".  Lostcaesar 21:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I went ahead and put cult allegations back into the section title for now, for the reasons specified above, but let me say that in doing that, I totally have no disrespect or assumption of bad faith towards the editors who have argued the other way, because I admit we're getting into gray here.  I've solicited the opinions of a couple of people who appear to be totally outside editors with no strong feelings (positive or negative) about OD/Catholicim one way or the other.   If the word on the street comes down that it the section title should go, I can totally live with that, but for the moment, I think it should stay.  --Alecmconroy 21:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  I'll leave it in, then, although I do not find it necessary. Simply because someone labels a group a cult does not mean we have to imply that Wikipedia agrees with them. Unless you want to try to put the word in a title at Jehovah's Witnesses and Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and see what kind of reply you get. 8-) --CTSWyneken(talk) 12:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Word 'Cult", Structure 

message: Just a quick aside--  should it be Saint Escriva or Saint Josemaria?  I'm used to Saints being referred to as Saint <Firstname> but maybe that's just me?  Googlesearches reveal both terms seem to be used, but is one "more official"? --Alecmconroy 23:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lets just use both then. Lostcaesar 09:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tiny aside:  "Saint Escrivá" or "Saint Josemaria"?

message: If anyone knows of a good, high quality, portrait-like image of this sort which is under a free license / public domain, we could use it here.  Something like this.  The image we're using now works, but since we talk about JPII in the context of his making OD a personal prelature, an image from that era would probably be best.  Wikimedia commons has some, but nothing of good quality.  Obviously, tons we could snag under fair use, but I think that would probably be stretching it a bit and we wouldn't get to FAC that way. --Alecmconroy 17:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image of Pope John Paul II circa 1982

message: Dear Alec. Sir, regarding your arguments against Louisar regarding bibliography issues, I respectfully refer you to these official guidelines: Wikipedia:Citing sources, Maintaining a separate "References" section in addition to "Notes".
:It is helpful when non-citation footnotes are used that a "References" section also be maintained, in which the sources that were used are listed in alphabetical order. With articles that have lots of footnotes, it can become hard to see after a while exactly which sources have been used, particularly when the footnotes also contain explanatory text. A References section, which contains only citations, helps readers to see at a glance the quality of the references used.
Best wishes. Marax 07:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't use non-citation footnotes.  If we only listed (del Portillo, 1996, p.23) then I could see why we'd need such a section but we're going for FAC, so we took the time to put the citations in the footnotes.  --Alecmconroy 11:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference section 

message: Go to the Alec page. Youll see why your formulation is a mistake. And go to the OD discussion page. Your "rather than " is totally innaccurate, it adds a mistake in an encyclopedia! May I add that the version you go back to is worse than that of Alecmconroy improved one: he had changed his old one and you put it back! Louisar 17:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A practical tip: if you compose the explanation for the talkpage before you revert the article, you won't have to get stressed by writing it, and people won't have to wait an hour for it after seeing the revert. I'm certainly no expert on catholic theology. However, I note with regret that you don't address my point about accessibility. It's a pity that you insist on an incomprehensible lead section in an encyclopedia. Did you click on the Wikipedia lead section policy, WP:LEAD, that I linked to? Did you read the post from the reader (User:SMcCandlish) who is bemused and mystified by the article? Do you realize that you keep putting back a rather noticable grammar error ("its jurisdiction, which concern"), along with a focus on points of doctrine that have no business in a lead section? Bishonen | talk 19:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Louisar on the lead section: from my talkpage 

message: I get to this article as a reader looking for info for once, instead of as an editor — I use wikipedia as well as futz with it — and I'm struck immediately by how much it delves into esoterica like History and Doctrine, and I'm already yawning, because I still don't have a clear idea what O.D. is, in plain non-R.C. language (all this talk of prelates and dioceses is just Greek to me; actually I think at least half of that is Greek, literally...), or what its purpose/goals are.  It does appear to be balanced and well-cited, but... eh.  I gave up about 1/10 through it. The only things I walked away with were that OD is more recently-founded than I thought, its founder was canonized, it has some kind of inexplicable-to-non-Catholics-without-lots-of-research status due to a Pope saying so, and it is controversial for reasons that weren't made clear up front and are still a total mystery to me (other than vague notions of insularity) after a solid 3 minutes of reading.  It's taken me only about that long to even type all this.  Summarize and de-Catholispeak it a little, perhaps? :-)  — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 17:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well,it's the same thing about the Talmud for me. It is not easy to understand outside a context. You must read about Catholicism and Christianity. no way out.Louisar 18:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a comment we need to take seriously.  It's not enough to say "If you aren't well-versed in Catholicism, you're out of luck if you want to understand the article".  One thing we need to do is try to avoid techincal Catholic jargon whenever possible.   I'll think on what else we might could do. --Alecmconroy 01:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  True, but there's a limit. As you say, "wherever possible". An article cannot define everything, it must refer to other articles, like any encyclopedia. Louisar 18:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reader vs. editor comment: Reorganize & get to the crucial (no pun intended) points faster 

message: Stop reverting, people. Louisar and Alec are both close to breaking the three-revert rule, which is a blocking matter. Bishonen | talk 19:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:3RR]]

message: I have removed the sentence " Supporters suggest that he may have been motivated by a concern that Opus Dei would take away vocations" in the "History" section, for several reasons: 
# To immediately follow criticism with an undercutting of that criticism, an implication that it was made for irrelevant motives, is POV. See WP:NPOV on "refuting opposing views as one goes along".
#There is nothing in the given source which supports the statement.
#The sentence is hard to understand. I think I know (just about) what a vocation is; but people who don't get no local information about it here. They're sent on to a long article where you have to look hard to find a relevant definition (not sure I ever did). I don't understand what it means to "take away" vocations, I don't understand why doing it would be a "concern" for anybody, and I'm not offered any explanation. Bishonen | talk 01:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, but I was just explaining what was wrong with it as a sentence in an encyclopedia article. See point 2 also, which is reason enough for removal in itself. Bishonen | talk 18:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cutting catholicspeak

message: Regarding the debate between the New York Headquarters image or the Rome HQ image-- I can live with either.  Rome makes the most logical sense, since the NY is just the US headquarters, and OD isn't even a particularly american institution, avoiding these sorts of Amerio-centricisms is a good thing.  The one thing the NY HQ has in its favor is that it's a very easy image to recognize, visually.  I look at the OD headquarters image and I have a hard time visually parsing what it is I'm actualy looking at.  If anyone has the ability to request permission of a clearer image of the Rome HQ-- an exterior shot, for example, like the one we have of the NY headquarters.  Also still looking for a circa 1982 John Paul II image.  --Alecmconroy 02:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Exterior image of Rome HQ?

message: I changed the following sentence by adding the bold text:
:"...and concluded that Opus Dei's founder was neither pro-Franco nor anti-Franco, because any political position goes against the notion of non-secularity: in matters of politics there is great pluralism in Opus Dei, this author declared."
I think this is what the author meant, if I understand it correctly: secularity meaning wordliness, and detachment from politics being an aspect of "flight from the world", i.e. unworldliness (non-secularity).  But since this flipped the meaning of the sentence I thought I would ask.
Lostcaesar 11:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: sentence

message: Had a lot of trouble finding that there was any leader between the first and last . This list may not belong at the begining of "History," but it should be summarized somewhere. Readers need to know that this isn't a one-man organization.Student7 21:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put the mention of del Portillo and Echevarria into the text.  --Alecmconroy 22:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: List of leaders