Talk:Opus Dei/Archive 2005-3

message: Instead of transferring the entire section to another article, I have decided to just trim down the wordy OD responses. The opposing sides of this issue, I presume, would prefer to see all the basic arguments on the cult issue retained on this main article. R Davidson 09:05, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Trimmed down OD responses to cult accusations

message: I think it is best to bring out the most caustic and prevalent criticisms against Opus Dei and to let OD answer it. (I changed my previous opinion of not putting Walsh) It is the only way to ensure the neutrality of this page. 
In my opinion, after airing out these criticisms, and removing some of the propaganda flavor, this article already has a more neutral tone. If after one more week and there are no other suggestions to the contrary, I intend to remove the disputed sign. 
Of course, we have to continue striving to come up with the best article on Opus Dei as the two opposing sides seem to agree on. :-) R Davidson 09:05, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you now saying that you will compromise Jimbo's neutrality rules as regards not using dubious sources --like Walsh's trash-- in order to obtain a "neutral" tone? Just asking.
That's a good point. However, Walsh's book may be dubious to you, to me and even to many others who evalute it but it may not be so dubious to quite a number of others. Anyway, the structure of the article allows OD to respond to any kind of allegation. R Davidson 20:42, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Added criticisms on pursuit of power plus improved development of ideas on OD and society

message: It apppears to me that this article has a bias against Opus Dei. It breaks the Wikipedia policy on Wikipedia:Words to avoid.
So-called is used to refer to Opus Dei's political pluralism. Link is also used. The word hints at connections with terrorists. 
Purported appears many times. Purported means "to assert especially falsely" or "to have the often specious appearance of being or claiming something". Supposed also appears often. Supposed has the meaning of pretended. The article also uses the words claim and suggest when it comes to Opus Dei statements. Wikipedia neutrality rules (see Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial) say that the article should avoid these terms and should prefer "said", "stated" or "wrote." Please change the terminology or I will change it myself. Marax 07:39, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias against Opus Dei

message: After almost two weeks since the time I proposed the removal of the disputed sign, I am removing it. Thanks also to the work done by Marax and Thomas Major to make this page have a neutral point of view from the perspective of Opus Dei. I have just added another paragraph to ensure the continuation of neutrality in the OD in society section. For this, I had to modify some of the good work done by the two, but I hope that it will be acceptable. I hope everyone will continue collaborating to achieve the best non-biased article on Opus Dei. R Davidson 01:18, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed disputed sign

message: I tried to do something about the weakest part of the whole article: the Other Criticisms Sub-Section. It looked like a dusty storeroom of unclassified things: canonization, cardinal hume, traditionalist criticism, yauyos. I redistributed these, set up a new (short) section on canonization, which I think is very important for any discussion on Opus Dei. For the OD side, it is an "infallible" papal confirmation of their founder's sanctity. For the anti side, it is another example of its shrewd ways. (Removed yauyos criticism. It seems to be a pro-Opus Dei thing masquerading as criticism. It's too small anyway for the major things discussed in this article.)Thomas S. Major 04:41, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Redistributed "unfiled" section

message: Transferred this 10kb long section to new article.
I intend to trim down the cult section (again); it has become even longer now with new additions. I will try to see if I can do the same for other sections like teachings. R Davidson 06:14, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Transfer of Bibliography and external links

message: Somebody added "adjectives taken from the search engines on Fr. James Martin's scholarship": Eminent Scholar, Outstanding thinker, Distinguished scholar. 
I looked for the definition of scholar in Wikipedia and here is the meaning: A scholar is either a student or someone who has achieved a "mastery" of some academic discipline. Wordnet states: a learned person (especially in the humanities); someone who by long study has gained mastery in one or more disciplines. American Heritage dictionary:  A specialist in a given branch of knowledge: a classical scholar. Thesaurus: A usually elderly person noted for wisdom, knowledge, and judgment
Do these definitions fit Martin? I know he is a journalist, but a scholar? and an eminent one? Is he a professor at a university? He has mastery over a specialization?  How old was he when he wrote the articles? Thomas S. Major 20:45, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Fr. James Martin, SJ

message: I just added an image of Dr. Bryan Wilson, one of the world's foremost authorities on religious studies. As I stated in the Letter Request to CESNUR Biblioteca which owns the copyright, this photo can be used by other articles which want to bring out a scientific defense against the international anti-cult movement. Thomas S. Major 10:45, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo of Dr. Bryan R. Wilson

message: Somebody has been trying to impose a view that Opus Dei is a European topic and thus has been transforming the English of this article into British English. 
Just by reading this article, it is clear that Opus Dei is "international in scope," and its "geographic extent is vast." So this transformation is going against Wikipedia rules of style. Can someone help fix this? Thanks for the helping hand! Thomas S. Major 10:45, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: US English is absolutely not international English. The Opus Dei was founded in Europe, and holds most of its operations outside of the USA; it is therefore legitimate not to use US English. Rama 12:18, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: International English not European English

message: i added some links to odan. they were sorely lacking in the cult section.... Desaparecidosdo 09:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: links to odan, etcetera

message: I have not heard from Walter Ching since july 6. I hope he was not intimidated by the objections that his photos were "propagandistic".  
I dugged up anew the Wikipedia Neutrality Policies I placed in the Talk Pages some months ago: 
From Jimbo Wales, September 2003, on the mailing list:
* If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
* If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
* If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.
From the NPOV Tutorial: 
Different views don't all deserve equal space. Articles need to be interesting to attract and keep the attention of readers. For an entry in an encyclopedia, ideas also need to be important. The amount of space they deserve depends on their importance and how many interesting things can be said about them. One measure of a view's importance is the credibility of the experts who hold that view.
Walter, I hope you see that those positive photos even if they far outnumber the negative ones are totally in accord with Jimbo's NPOV Policies: (1) They belong to the majority viewpoint (not to the "vociferous minority" who produce atrocity stories); they are substantiated by commonly accepted reference texts on Opus Dei, (2) They deserve more space than the negative ones because the view that they espouse belong to the most credible experts (Dr. Bryan R. Wilson, Prof. James V. Schall, CNN's John Allen, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, respected historian like Berglar and a respected journalist like Messori, and as Samuel Howard argued: Escriva's teachings=Opus Dei as Thatcher=Thatcherism) VERSUS (former members Alberto Moncada, John Roche, Tammy DiNicola, C. del Tapia, Fr. Vladimir Felzmann, former Jesuit Walsh, social scientist Estruch of Cataluña, Spanish commentators of the Franco era, Rick Ross, American Family Foundation or ICSA, Urquhart, etc.), and lastly, (3) Those photos are very interesting indeed.
Be not afraid, Walter. Jimbo is on your side. Marax 08:26, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. None of this, however, is to say that minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can possibly give them on pages specifically devoted to those views. There is no size limit to Wikipedia. But even on such pages, though a view is spelled out possibly in great detail, we still make sure that the view is not represented as the truth.
As regards the text, we then have put into effect the right proportion between the two camps. Right now the answers of OD are more or less the same length as the anti-OD. There are two ways to go: (1) Cut length of the anti-OD or (2) Lengthen the OD responses. R Davidson 14:29, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Do not be intimidated: the LAW is on your side

message: Given that there should be no equal validity nor equal space given to either side, the earlier move by R Davidson to create the sub-section on Two Perspectives has to be reversed. This sub-section gives the impression (or misimpression) that the two sides are equally valid.
I merged this sub-section with the sub-section on Opus Dei's professed mission. I added the phrase "its general strategy" in the title since two paragraphs there describes this. 
I also transferred the paragraph describing the "other perspective" to the Allegations, its proper place. Marax 02:08, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Consequence of non-equal validity: redistributing Two Perspectives sub-section

message: I am happy to see the photos that Walter and Lafem have put in. Aside from making the article much, much more attractive and readable, this article is at last establishing the correct proportions based on Jimbo's NPOV rules. I am also happy that some people have erased the defensive sounding captions for supposedly NPOV purposes. The huge disparity between the two sides, which as Davidson says might even show a legitimate basis --on the part of some people-- for elimination of the criticisms, is a very strong basis for this "lop-sided" treatment. Of course, let me clarify that I agree that the minority has the right to be heard. But it should be clear over-all that they are part of a small minority. Up to now though there seems to have been not much attempt to cut the length of the criticisms which Davidson suggested as one of the two options. I will see what I can do regarding this. Thomas S. Major 02:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality = right proportion between credible experts and representation 

message: Based on the foregoing consensus, there is a bigger problem of neutrality that has to be fixed: the subtitles of the allegations. These sections are suppose to contain lengthier discussions on what the credible experts say but the subtitles do not express them at all. 
I propose then to change some of the subtitles;
1. (Present title) Feminist Criticism to (proposed title) Authentic feminism vs. reactionary doctrine on women
I would transfer the Traditionalist Criticism to the answers to the Ultraconservative Criticism, since they do constitute an answer. 
2. (Present title) Allegations of Secrecy and Pursuit of Power -- this should be broken up into two subsections:
(Proposed titles) 
Privacy and Secularity vs Secrecy
Ethical Social Influence vs. Pursuit of Power
This solution will allow the minority position to be aired in the sub-titles, but also, and more importantly, the majority position.  
I would keep the Allegations on Far-right politics as is, since they are in response to the previous section on Political Pluralism. Thomas S. Major 07:21, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I have always thought those subtitles were biased and did not represent correctly the content of the subsection. I think the proposed sub-titles are neutral and respectful, more like an encyclopaedia entry. Asoane 15:16, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-proportionate = non-neutral subtitles

message: This paragraph from my point of view is unfair to Opus Dei and the majority position:  
:In the 1940s, Opus Dei was denounced as a heresy and a secret society by well-placed ecclesiastics. Since then it has been described as a secretive, authoritarian organisation. Beginning with Spanish writers of the Franco Era, some allege that it has connections with right-wing organisations. Lately, it has also been described a cult, especially by former members who question its practice of corporal mortification.
Given the nature and the limits of an introduction, the paragraph does not allow Opus Dei to respond to each one of the criticisms
I propose to have a short paragraph which says something like:
Criticized in various ways throughout its history and described as one of the most controversial groups in the Catholic Church today, Opus Dei has been called by Catholic theologians a sign of contradiction. 
The length of this paragraph will then obey the 95-5/90-10 proportions agreed upon above. Marax 05:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems reasonable. I didn't like the word "controversial" in an earlier version of the intro, but the way it's used here is fair enough. Asoane 10:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction: one paragraph is unfair to Opus Dei

message: I am a disinterested party -- I knew nothing about Opus Dei, was curious, and read the whole article.  I found external fact to mesh too much with internal belief structures and POV, which is why I then read the entire discussion.  
*The flow of it reads as a well-written and fairly objective religious pamphlet -- good in the context of a church/religion, but way too strong a point of view for an encyclopedia
*The claims of possible Franco connections and the testimony of former members that OD is a cult were both dismissed out of hand by the way they were mentioned in the article and immediately refuted.  Again, I really knew nothing about OD other than it being part of the Catholic Church, and had never heard either claim; however, the defensiveness came through clearly, and, if anything, cause me to be suspicious of the authors' motives.  Why not have a non-OD member work on the criticism section, then both OD & non-OD people work together to incorporate the sections?
It seems from the discussion that the page has gotten much more neutral; however, as an outsider, I think it needs more work.
Eeblet 19:58, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am happy to hear that this is page is just a bit POVish. Thanks again to R Davidson for immediately doing something about it. Sorry I was the one who summarized the cult portion a bit too much. 
I would like to explain the enmeshing of external and internal which eeblet saw.  My take on how this article is approaching this material is this: it is trying to enter each camp from the best angle it has and using the leading proponents of each camp.
*The OD camp from the theological perspective. I think -- and this is not just because I studied theology -- this is the best approach to the subject even from the OD perspective. Many writings about OD like Berglar, Le Tourneau, Fuenmayor, have approached it from a historical, canonical point of view. They had to also because of their disciplines. But for a serious encyclopedia any subject matter has to be approached from its own field. I think the approach of this article from the OD camp viewpoint is the best one since OD is primarily a theological reality from the point of view of the expert on this field: the Catholic Church. It has pronounced that Escriva founded it ductus divina inspiratione. It is a work of God. 
Thus, most of the perspectives are provided by writings of theologians about the subject. There is a plethora of literature on OD theology, the most profound of which is Holiness and the World, where prominent theologians like Ratzinger and William May have contributed. I intend to put this citation in the text since this is one of the most important books about the subject. Of course, it contains the theological writings of Escriva. He said he can only write about God....so they have to be theological...
Also many canon lawyers have already stated that the theological perspective is also the best way to understand Opus Dei. That is why one of the best books about Opus Dei is that of Pedro Rodriguez, Ocariz and Illanes: Opus Dei in the Church. Those are heavyweight theologians studying this phenomenon. Thus, this article puts the prelatic discussions after teachings. The external prelature status follows logically from the Opus Dei theological spirit. 
*The anti-conservative camp from the political perspective. At one point the leading proponent here was von Balthazar. 
*The anti-cult camp from the sociological perspective, plus some psychological treatment. ODAN, ICSA and Rick Ross Foundation are the leading proponents here. 
*The anti-fascist camp from the political and historical perspective. The Spanish commentators are the lead here. 
*The feminist camp from its feminist perspective. Urquhart who wrote a book on Opus Dei is the leading proponent here. 
*The anti-secrecy and pursuit of power camp is led by Fr. James Martin and the earlier Jesuits. Of course, Dan Brown. 
Also, since the editors of this article have identified a majority position based on an analysis of experts, the minority camp accusations have to be answered by the majority position. 
I also saw how the anti-cult part grew. There were quite a number of things written against Opus Dei as cult before I arrived last March: love bombing, threats, mortification of the flesh, cilice, blessed be pain, aggressive recruitment, etc. From what I know, those accusations were not touched at all, they were treated like sacred pieces and they kept on growing. Yes, they were edited for brevity recently and summarized. By me. But it was because of space agreements. And the main essence continues to be there. And I also treated them with much reverence.  Marax 14:36, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seems a bit POVish 

message: :According to the editors, the view of these experts and their credibility and expertise has an overwhelming and lopsided advantage [...] giving what some people said is a "Catholic" tone to the article, or a “Pope’s point of view,” [...] I need your help to resolve this basic issue. 
Here is my attempt to read through the article and state clear actionable problems with NPOV.  
Firstly, what is NPOV:
:"assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves."
to which we have to add Verifiability
:"The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth."
So let's take the first, disputable but not too difficult fact.
:"the prelature has about 85,500 members in 80 countries"
The [BBC claims] that Opus Dei membership is secret.  Thus this is a fact which can't be verified.  Rewritten as 
:"Opus Dei membership lists are closed, but it claims to have more than 85,500 members in 80 countries"
with a reference below,
:" http://www.opusdei.org.uk/art.php?w=20&p=9698"
This can very simply become NPOV.  The difference is not in what fact is stated, but that it is clearly attributed and treated as no truer than the trust of the source which provides it.  
Now let's continue to the next such statement.
:Opus Dei's aim is
Opus Dei is a controversial organisation.  This simply must be rewritten (with appropriate reference) as 
:Opus Dei's published aim is
Of most importance in the introduction is what is missing.  To be frank I have little interest in Opus Dei, and haven't even personally read "The Da Vinci Code", but the main reason for my hearing about Opus Dei recently is a) that book and b) that Cherie Blair is accused of being a member.  Opus Dei themselves even dedicate an web pages to answering problems with it.  In general, the accusation that O.D. is a cult and some of it's more strange practices such as corporal mortification are the prime reasons why it is interesting to many people and should be mentioned (the latter is at least mentioned later in the article).  
* clearly present each statement which might be disagreed with as attributed to someone
* dominant view points need to be presented where others are not, but they should not be treated as true; the language should clearly imply that other POVs exist.
* expert opinion is not the only form of "majority" opinion.  "Uninformed" mass opinion needs to also be represented, even if a clear rebutting can be done from other sources.
Looking through the article, certain things stand out clearly in terms of NPOV failure.    Every critic
:Some critics however say that Opus Dei has problems...
is followed by an immediate rebutting
:On the other hand, Fr. James V. Schall,
often with ad hominem attacks immediately following
:Estruch says, for example, that priests go to seminary only to improve their lot.
The context clearly implies that this "must" be wrong; that, however clearly breaches NPOV.  If we changed it to 
:Schall claims that Estruch says that "priests go to seminary only to improve their lot." a statement which Schall considers to be patently rediculous
Then NPOV is restored.  There are many many examples which can be found based on the above list.  If you run out of things to fix then I can definitely have a look through again. Mozzerati 22:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV response to FAC 

message: Thanks Mozzerati. Thank you for spending time analyzing NPOV with the editors. Frankly, I've been very much involved in this issue, that I wouldn't want to comment yet. I'd like to think about it, leave it for a while, so as to be detached. I see that there is a new guy --Mitch73-- who has come in editing for NPOV. Perhaps he can help disentangle this issue that you raised. 
The only thing I'd like to do now is to quote other things from NPOV so it can help all of us to further analyze this. Thanks again. Please bear with me. I need to rest a bit...
:Where we might want to state an opinion, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone. So, rather than asserting, "The Beatles were the greatest rock band," we can say, "Most music listeners believe that the Beatles were the greatest rock band," which is a fact verifiable by survey results, or "The Beatles had more Billboard #1 hits than any other rock band," which is also a fact. In the first instance we assert an opinion; in the second and third instances we "convert" that opinion into fact by attributing it to someone. It's important to note this formulation is substantially different from the "some people believe ..." formulation popular in political debates. The reference requires an identifiable and subjectively quantifiable population or, better still, a name.
Kindly look as well into the paragraph above: http://en.wikipedia.org/[wiki/Talk:Opus_Dei#Neutrality_.3D_right_proportion_between_credible_experts_and_representation]
And the resulting quantification. Part of the problem as I see it is this: the editors see the contrary position as being  in between a significant minority and an extremely small minority. The first one has proponents mentioned. The second one should even be in a separate article. 
Second part of the problem is that there are two types of majority-minority ratios: Majority and minority in terms of credibility. The present ratio is 100-0. And majority and minority in terms of representation. The ratio is wavering between 80-20 to 90-10. 
If the credibility ratio is at 100-0. Then the majority position has a go to say whatever it wants, without fear. That is what is happening right now in some articles, where the "majority position is taken as the only position." And other positions are disregarded. 
If the representation ratio is not 100-0, then the minority position is allowed to say something, but taking into account the policy of non-equal validity/and undue weight:
:"We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a majority view. To give such undue weight to the lesser held view may be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties."
:"Points of view held as having little credibility by experts, but with wide popular appeal (e.g.: the belief in astrology, considered as irrational and incorrect by the vast majority of scientists and astronomers), should be reported, but as such: that is, we should expose the point of view and its popular appeal, but also the opinion held by the vast majority of experts." Some editors here argue that theology and history are technical scientific fields, and popular views should be dealt with in this way. 
There is also the attribution policy to take into account: 
:"It's possible to introduce your own bias even while attributing. Take this sentence as an example:   "Duane Gish said that the Earth and its living creatures were created by God."
:"This is a neutral statement as it stands. But what if "said" were substituted with:
    :* noted
    :* explained
    :* pointed out
    :* claimed
    :* suggested
:All have different connotations, which could introduce bias, depending on context. "Noted", "pointed out", and "explained" in particular, imply that the Earth indeed was created by God, which many people consider false. In choosing words, imagine how a sentence will read to someone with another POV, and choose carefully. Whenever "said", "wrote", or "stated" are options, they are usually the safest."
Hope this helps.  Thomas S. Major 02:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV policies to consider

message: Some Wikipedians, in the name of neutrality, try to avoid making any statements that other people find offensive or objectionable, even if objectively true. This is not the intent of striving for neutrality. Many groups would prefer that certain facts be stated euphemistically, or only in their own terminology, or suppressed outright; such desires need not be deferred to. Lafem 05:26, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: From [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial NPOV tutorial]: Things not to avoid

message: Opus Dei: secrets and power inside the Catholic Church
See also Decoding Opus Dei
Marax 02:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New Book of John Allen supports the overwhelming majority position

message: Since people kept silent regarding the question of Thomas S. Major and of Davidson whether this article is using the credible experts, we presume that the answer is yes. With the new book of Allen (see above), the overwhelming majority position has been further strengthened. If we presume that there is both internal and external assent to this position, then the structure and main contents are correct in substance. 
Thus, the penultimate stage for this article is to ensure that the intro summarizes the contents of this article. (The last stage is to ensure that all the details of attribution and flow are taken care of. )
Please see what I wrote as intro.  
In the first paragraph the emphasis is on OD being a structure of the Church serving a message.  As P Rodriguez says it is both a message and an institution bearing a message, having a specific mission which "partakes very profoundly of the aim of the Church itself."  
The second paragraph explains the structure more, i.e. it is something emanating from the Church itself ("a development of the Church itself" says Rodriguez): (the source or efficient cause in Philosophy) and what it is composed of: prelate, clergy and laity (the material cause). From here it flows into the logical support of Catholic leaders (because OD is Church). And then follows the criticism, which according to theological analysis of the "sign of contradiction", flows from OD being essentially Church. 
The third paragraph develops the message some more, starting with the credibility or "ethos" of the messenger (he is a saint). The first sentence covers the basis or "logos" of the message/mission that is mentioned in the first paragraph. And the second sentence presents the formal cause (what the prelate, clergy and laity offers differently from the other ecclesial circumscription): spiritual training.
I am still not so sure whether we should bring back "sign of contradiction" in the intro: As Walter and Rabadur have clarified, this falls under the categories of Catholic theology, history, prelatures, doctrine, etc. Marax (forgot to sign last time: sorry) 
:Whoa. Presuming that silence gives consent sounds like a dangerous move on a volunteer website. Contributors have limited time, and those who took the trouble to comment fully on the WP:FAC nomination can hardly be expected to restate their positions on this page yet again. Please look again at the FAC discussion. Have the objectors withdrawn their objections? No? See, that means that the objections still stand. That the assumptions on this talkpage have started to drift in the opposite direction doesn't mean that there is consent, it only means that some people have more time to edit than others. I suppose you're technically free to ignore comments outside this page, but it won't make for high quality if you do. You received FAC comments from contributors with a lot of editing experience, and with collectively a lot of Featured articles under their belts; ruleslawyering selected passage from Wikipedia policy pages is no substitute for taking those comments, especially about the concept of NPOV and the question of "credible experts", with full seriousness. Btw, could you please sign your post so that others may know who is speaking? Bishonen | talk 15:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction

message: :May I also add what V. Messori said: We need to pay attention to all the words, especially, "The purpose for which the Lord brought this kind of supernatural reality into existence..." ...What many intelligent people seem to have forgotten for decades is a clear necesity: religious experience must be approached with religious categories. ...  So many distrusts and hostilities, which burden the Work especially, have their origin in inadequate methods of interpretation....A religious reality --and something that does not intend to be anything but radically, and essentially, religious like Opus Dei--almost winds up being analyzed and then judged according to political, economic or sociological categories. Important categories but categories that exhaust the realities of politics, economics, and society....the most relevant sociopolitical consequences of the actions of a person of faith are nothing but the consequences of the choice of faith. For this adequate categories need to be observed, or at least taken into account. Baruch Spinoza taught that the actions of men are not to be laughed at or scorned, but understood."...Opus Dei is defined as a specific calling from God and the search for sanctity....(Messori, 1997, p. 82-83) 
In my opinion, the deeper the understanding of the search for sanctity which defines Opus Dei, the deeper the understanding of Opus Dei will be. Lafem 02:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Religious experience must be approached with religous categories

message: After thinking about Bishonen's comments, I am now of the opinion that the lopsided treatment of the majority position should allow more treatment of the minority position and POV. The established 90-10/95-5 ratio should be seen for example in the introduction by explicitly stating the criticisms on cult-like behavior, ultraconservatism, rightwing and balancing them in some way. Please see what I placed in the introduction.  Marax 02:40, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strengthening the non-catholic/non-christian perspective for NPOV 

message: I changed the direct quote from Woodward's "shadowy church within the Church" to more encyclopaedic language. Please let not this article do a pendulum swing to non-serious encyclopaedic writing "just for the sake of NPOV," just so it won't appear to the FAC objectors as the Catholic Encyclopaedia. Please!
I said in the Peer Review that I don't understand why many Wikipedians think the photos of the girls doing good is promotional and the photos of Sex Positions informational. And now I also don't understand why many (some?) Wikipedians think that this is written as the Catholic Encyclopaedia would. Please! It won't even cross the mind of the CE to argue at length the utterly ridiculous notion that one of its strongly supported Catholic prelatures is a cult!! It's self-contradictory! It's irrational!! Untrue!! The CE won't refer to one of Church's much loved institutions as a right-wing fundamentalist secret society!! It won't try to use the arguments of the Catholics for Free Choice. It won't quote Urquhart and Hutchinson, etc. Hey guys, this article is much more of Wikipedia than other Featured Articles that are monopolized --tyrannized-- by ONE POV. Rabadur 09:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't understood a word of that. Rama 10:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose by CE he meant Catholic Encyclopedia? Thomas S. Major 06:25, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

text: If you check out Bishonen's Userpage, you might understand her tirade. If you visit Eloquence's work at Talk:Mother_Teresa, the FAQ is his, you'll understand his NPOV objections. Cabanes 10:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Catholic Encyclopaedia POV!! 

message: Lafem broke out some of the OD sections into separate articles. In the process, he also changed (and in my opinion violated NPOV) the content. For example, he's added in praise, and removed criticism. In addition, his "broken out" pages are full of copyvio (and promotional blurb) from the opusdei website. For these sins, I reverted the article to the previous non-Lafem state. The article is long, and should be broken up one day, but not by this underhanded means. Sdedeo 02:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Breaking out articles by Lafem

message: I plan to summarize the Opus Dei in society section and transfer the section to a new article of the same name. By doing this, we shorten the criticisms and we shorten the article. Perhaps we should keep in the summary the section on Revolutionary or conservative. It gives a good ending and ensures a neutral reading of the text. 
I also plan to execute immediately what Lafem intended: shorten the discussion on Estruch. This can and should be done now even while waiting for Lafem to create the new article on Source of Controversies. The discussion on this book is inordinate--disproportionate, to use the current terminology. It takes up too much of precious space. Rabadur 15:19, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Separate article on Opus Dei in society

message: Since there seems to be some changing and rechanging of the subtitle on the theological viewpoint, I added some subsections to clarify further the content of that subsection and help the readers: Miseducation on the Christian vocation and Positive Meaning of the sanctity and mortification. Thus I think the first proposed change for the subheading is correct: Theology of Sanctity and Apostolate. 
I suppose there should not be any neutrality problems with these subtitles. They are but an enumeration of the theological responses. 
I also changed the subtitle on authentic feminism and feminist criticism. Women in Opus Dei is more neutral and covers the total content Rabadur 01:23, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sub-dividing the OD responses: on theology of sanctity and apostolate 

message: I propose to change the title of Opus Dei supporters response to cult accusations to Response: sociology of religion and theology of sanctity. The sub-sections will be entitled accordingly. These titles are more in consonance with the content. Rabadur 02:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Improving titles of sub-sections

message: This article needs a section on how Opus Dei is portrayed in fiction, I would be willing to guess that most people are looking up Opus Dei because of the Da Vinci Code.
Please see old discussion this:
I would suggest the removal of the section regarding The DaVinci Code as mostly irrelevant to the purpose of portraying Opus Dei and as more accurate belonging with a discussion of the book itself. Its being a work of fiction means that any and all claims and allegations included within are made to further the plot of the novel, not as a form of attack or commentary on any organization.
A mention of the reference and responses thereto are appropriate, but any further indepth discussion ought to take place on the page for the novel itself, where claims of its veracity can be placed into proper context.
--Agamemnon2 13:59, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Opus Dei in fiction

message: Introvigne did not respond to the empirical research by Zablocki about the reliability of apostates in Introvigne's book review of Zablocki's book Misunderstanding cults. I am too tired to correct it now. Andries 18:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Section is factually wrong