Talk:Controversies about Opus Dei/Archive 2006-1

message: This article is really a list of complaints without any citations or references.  It does not give a sense of what the different sides in the disputes are on any of the issues that are discussed. What's happened to NPOV????
:This article is about the opposition to Opus Dei. You can see some references:
In english:
About corporal mortification
Writings of ex members
Recent Articles and Programs about Opus Dei
A lot of resources
Mond.at/Opus.Dei (The Unofficial Homepage) Many sources and links
Beyond the Threshold A Life in Opus Dei By Maria del Carmen Tapia Former numerary, Chapter One 
 
Bibliographic Guide or Opus Dei's Index In spanish
About corporal mortification
Religious Movements Homepage: Opus Dei University of Virginia
Government, Direction and Control in Opus Dei By Dennis Dubro, former numerary
Making Modern-Day Martyrs using Medieval Methods by Sharon Clasen, Former Numerary
Voluntaristic Obedience by Dennis Dubro
Writings of ex members
Recent Articles and Programs about Opus Dei
Mond.at/Opus.Dei («The Unofficial Homepage» — by a communist) Many sources and links
Bibliographic Guide or Opus Dei's Index
Seventeen years in Opus Dei by Dennis Rubro ex member and ex director.
Deception and drugs in Opus Dei by former numerary Maria
Moncada, Alberto, Catholic Sects: Opus Dei, Revista Internacional de Sociología, Madrid, 1992 by a former numerary
Roche, John, The Inner World of Opus Dei, 1982 by a former numerary
 
My Basic Human Rights Were Violated by a former assistant numerary Tammy di Nicola 
I Was Shocked by Hidden Agendas Behind Opus Dei "Service Projects, 1993, former numerary
Gonzales, Joseph, 
Talking Points - Obedience in Opus Dei, 2003 (former numerary)
The vocation trap by Joseph I. B. Gonzales, former numerary, six years
In Spanish:
Index of forbidden books
Internal docs of Opus Dei
The Opus Libros website contains over 500 testimonies and books written by former numerary members of Opus Dei and others.
Tapia, Mª del Carmen Tras el umbral, una vida en el Opus Dei (Un viaje al fanatismo).Ed. B
de Armas, Isabel Ser mujer en el Opus Dei.Foca
E.B.E. (18 de mayo de 2005) La Obra como enfermedad (y a veces mortal)
Azanza, Ana. (2004)Diecinueve años de mi vida caminando en una mentira: OPUS DEI El olivo
E.B.E. (2004) La ‘Santa Extorsión’
Walsh, Michael  El mundo secreto del Opus Dei Plaza & Janes
Guía para padres sobre el Opus Dei 
J. Garvey (extracto) 
J. corbiere, Emilio Opus Dei: El Totalitarismo Catolico. Ed. Sudamericana ISBN: 9500722755
Do you need anything else?
--85.57.7.114 02:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NOPV 

message: This section is factually innacurate and POV:
::Some of the foremost professional cult research organisations like The International Cultic Studies Association (ICSA) and The Rick A. Ross Institute (RRI) have classified Opus Dei as a cult. With this, Opus Dei is in the same list as the Al-Qaeda, Wicca, Waco Davidians, Charismatic Pentecostals, Legionaries of Christ, Amway, Multi-level Marketing, etc. [9] Formerly called American Family Foundation, ICSA was founded in 1974 by parents who were concerned about their children who joined what they perceived as cults. These organizations are part of the anti-cult movement, which obtained an important victory when a Belgian Parliamentary Commission Report of the 28th of April 1997 officially classified Opus Dei as a sect.
# The Rick Ross institute and ICSA are not "foremost professional cult research organizations". That is POV. 
# The inclusion of Opus Dei in the Rick Ross website does not mean that Ross considers them a cult. Read the disclaimer in Ross's website.
# The Belgian and French reports have been challenged widely as creating an atmosphere of anti-religious bias in these countries. Either you remove the specious comment, or add crticism againt these reports.
My suggested NPOV version:
:Anti-cult organisations such as The International Cultic Studies Association (formerly the American Family Foundation) and the Rick A. Ross Institute (see Rick Ross) have included Opus Dei in their list of groups of interest. The Belgian Parliamentary Commission Report of the 28th of April 1997 officially classified Opus Dei as a sect. See Cults and governments: Belgium.
::I removed the section - it is off-topic in this article. The groups should be mentioned with the allegations they make, not in a separate section. Irmgard 07:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-cult organisations section 

message: Could someone please sort this out with the reference used - what is quoted, what is omitted, what is said about Ratzinger, about Escriva, what's Ratzinger speaking, what's Escriva, etc. Best would be, to formulate Ratzingers idea in one's own words. As it is, I have some problems to get who is saying what in which context. --Irmgard 20:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ratzinger

message: Where is the original? What is the misunderstanding referred to? --Irmgard 20:39, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Context ? 

message: What is the context of the Jenkins quote? Is it from his book - and in an Opus Dei context? Anti-Catholicism in general is not the subject here, we have another article for that. I checked the index of the book - Opus Dei is mentioned on one single page of 300, so it's sure not a main subject. Or is the quote from someone else who relates it to Opus Dei - if yes, who? --Irmgard 21:36, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jenkins 

message: Statements of Opus Dei which counter the allegations should be included (actually those are mostly missing so far, there have just been a lot of general statements on theology which no one disputes. The allegations are not regarding theology but regarding cultic behavior and the few things said about that are not attributed (it's a difference if something is said by the pope or a speaker of Opus Dei).  --Irmgard 07:53, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theology general 

message: Thanks for the thorough analysis of this section, Irmgard. You are correct in stating that many points in the Opus Dei response do not have attributions. You might say that the main source is Cardinal Schonborn's article. It is a very good and it is a pity it has not been used fully. I will have to read it more thoroughly to see what are the best quotes or ideas to use. Feel free to do it yourself first, if you wish. We can collaborate. Marax 10:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Today I reordered the critique - it was focusing almost exclusively on the cult issues and former members, which is sure not the only controversy around Opus Dei, so I added some to round the picture a bit off (Küng and Martin are nice contrasts among the critics ;-) ). I did not delete any critique, just reordered it and adapted the intro to match the contents. I think it is important to show the critique as it is, especially in view of the fantastic daVinci allegations (maybe we should add a section on that, too - sort of that this is refuted by critics and supporters alike - we'd just need a ref for it). --Irmgard 21:29, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Thanks for your work, Irmgard

message: How about "Opus Dei Controversies" as title? --Irmgard 21:29, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hume sure was no hard-core opponent to Opus Dei. But could you please give the source for your contribution - that's usual here. --Irmgard 16:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I now think the best option is just to include those things for which there is a good published reference. So I have deleted some of the information about Hume. But I have retained the 1998 Mass of Cardinal Hume for the 70th anniversary of Opus Dei (source: Catholic Herald, 9 October 1998), and have added the parish in Westminster which rounds the story off (source: The Times, 16 April 2005, although there are others). Asoane 15:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Should the sources above be added to the references? Asoane 15:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename article 

message: This is the response of ODAN by email:
Dear Raul,
 
Opus Dei Awareness Network, Inc. (ODAN) grants you permission to put the web page http://www.odan.org/questionable_practices.htm that appears on the Opus Dei Awareness Network, Inc. (ODAN) web site on Wikipedia.
 
Sincerely yours,
 
Dianne DiNicola
Executive Director  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Raúl XXXXXXX  
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 11:48 PM
To: odan@odan.org
Subject: I need your permission to copy some paragraph of your page
Hi, and sorry for my bad english.
 
I am an editor of wikipedia. Can you help me, please? see this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_Opus_Dei
If you read the historial, I try to put some paragraph about certain questionable practices of Opus Dei. But other wikipedian, says that it is a copyviolation to put some parts of this webpage to illustrate the bad practices of the work. Your page is: http://www.odan.org/questionable_practices.htm
I need your permission to quote these paragraphs, Is it possible?
Best regards 
Raul
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.57.5.197 (talk • contribs) as of 03:15, 30 May 2006 
:Just because the original author give you permission to post something doesn't mean you can, or should. Those sections still amount to an unreferenced rant, and very possibly slander. --InShaneee 21:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed your text dump again. You can add critisism, and if it's sourced, all the better, but simply copying and pasting large amounts of text from another website is not acceptable. This other site is not writing an encyclopedia, therefore the content and formatting of their work is not going to be up to our standards. --InShaneee 23:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted and then rereverted his latest changes. It looks like he cleaned it up, but I'm hardly the one to decide its encyclopedic merit. Scrap it again if you feel an utter need to. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 02:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to go ahead and do that. As I said above, permission is only one of the many problems with that section. --InShaneee 23:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: WP:AGF, and don't make accusations. I have no problems with the critics. As for those two pages, I agree with the tag at the top; they should both be moved to Wikiquote, though they also need a LOT more sources. --InShaneee 18:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have permission of ODAN  

message: I seriously object to the removal of the scholarly explanations behind opposition to Opus Dei. The theological explanation is a must for an encyclopedic article. The same goes for the sociological explanation. 
Wikipedia:NPOV demands explanations of phenomenon that is based on experts. These have a preferred status in an indepth explanation proper to an encyclopedia. Please do not remove Messori and explanations of Catholic scholars. You are destroying Wikipedia if you do.  Cabanes 01:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Scholarly explanations of opposition: do not remove!

message: Thanks so much Pradehkava for your support! :) Your comment is so encouraging. 
I have just done a bulk of changes, and this includes converting the two long enumration of books into two paragraphs, without shortening the list provided, which for both sides of this debate is advantageous. For the anti-OD, it shows how enlightened OD is, for the pro-OD, it is a free way of warning people about what they think are books that are dangerous for the mind. :) But since we are in Wikipedia, we follow Wikipedia guidelines on space use. Thomas 10:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Book listing

message: This picture is obviously a perfect picture to explain Opus Dei's non-monkish character. It's perfect for the section on understanding Opus Dei's nature. The image is highly relevant in this discussion. The caption makes its connection super-clear. Somebody has been repeatedly removing this picture for no reason, except a unilateral "not relevant" comment. This is unacceptable. Please stop. Lafem 10:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perottet image