Talk:Opus Dei/Archive 2006-1

message: Who has moved all this to the archive? Is this a way to conceal the discussion? 
I feel the discussion is not over yet: and I am not gone. Uncertain 19:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving

message: I moved everything Escrivá to the Escrivá article and added a link.
The following sites were removed. I keep them here, in case they are needed for reference.
* Benedict XVI on Escriva and Opus Dei Should be used as reference, but not as external link as it is part of Opusdei.org
* The Da Vinci Code - Opus Dei Responds Should be (and is) used as reference, but not as external link as it is part of Opusdei.org
* Matt's Opus Dei FAQ  blogs are not reliable sources
* EWTN page on Opus Dei no relevant additional information
* Opus Dei: Fact and Fiction, an article in Tidings.com no relevant additional information
* Harambee2002 no information on Opus Dei
* Opus Dei: Its Mission, Structure and Members no relevant additional information
* Opus Dei: "International Jewish Conspiracy" dead link
* Deep Black Lies this might be liste as a reference of a (not too reliable) source of a conspiracy theory, but not just as external link
* El poder del Opus Dei (in spanish) dead link
===Schools===
* The Heights School - a private prep school for boys in Potomac, MD, USA
Is there consensus for the deletion of all these links? I would object to some of the reasons provided for deletion, as these are the opinions of one editor only. --ZappaZ  22:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Beside external links we should also have a section References: external links for the overall sites providing additional info, references for actual sources of statements which might be a specific article etc. Some of the links which I moved here could go there, if they are referenced to - or they can be used as references in other Opus Dei articles. --Irmgard 16:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the article should remove those links that repeat information, arguments or positions. I do not disagree for removing these. --Uncertain 20:08, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: * The Heights School - a private prep school for boys in Potomac, MD, USA
Is there consensus for the deletion of all these links? I would object to some of the reasons provided for deletion, as these are the opinions of one editor only. --ZappaZ  22:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Beside external links we should also have a section References: external links for the overall sites providing additional info, references for actual sources of statements which might be a specific article etc. Some of the links which I moved here could go there, if they are referenced to - or they can be used as references in other Opus Dei articles. --Irmgard 16:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the article should remove those links that repeat information, arguments or positions. I do not disagree for removing these. --Uncertain 20:08, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Schools

message: I just finished reading Allen's new book on Opus Dei. The book which has been praised for balanced, even-handed reporting even by the secular press,  provides a substantial report on the theology of Opus Dei and its application in about 8 of the 14 chapters of the book. So, we are on the right track! Thomas S. Major 08:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allen's new book discusses theology extensively 

message: I have just finished reading Dan Browns The Da Vinci Code, and have to disagree with the section on Activities and work about Opus Dei being depicted as a sinister cult.  Only two characters from OD were mentioned, and even then they were conned them sleves into doing bad things, thinking that it was for the best.  It is those two that were depicted as sinister, not the organisation.  I am not associated with OD or anything in the story, but I do like facts, and as such I think the section on The Da Vinci Code should be re written slightly.   But, as many people have said before, this is only my view...
Kindly check this out: opus dei and da vinci
and catholic answers. I have not read the book myself, so kindly help disentagle the issue. Thanks. :) Thomas S. Major 04:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dan Brown, The Da Vinci Code and Opus Dei 

message: This para was much too long for the general article, in view of the fact that there is a special article on the subject. I condensed a lot, deleting generalities (it's not too interesting who said where and who else said where else that Opus Dei is a cult), replacing general remarks on ex-members with link to relevant article, shortened Odan and Wilson (both are still in full length in Opposition to Opus Dei),  moving one para to Opposition to Opus Dei which was not contained there, deleting mortification points which are not a prime issue regarding the cult question. I added the reasons which, e.g., Garvey and Moncada give and modified the cult observer section.
:Nice move, Irmgard! And thanks for fixing the pending issue of Andries. :) Thomas S. Major 03:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I surveyed the literature on Opus Dei as cult, and corporal mortification is many times mentioned. Dan Brown's Fact Page for example: The Vatican prelature known as Opus Dei is a deeply devout Catholic sect that has been the topic of recent controversy due to reports of brainwashing, coercion, and a dangerous practice known as "corporal mortification." I then brought back the previous texts in the article on this item. Marax 01:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cult section 

message: Made subsections for each membership type as they are, for the average reader, more informational titles than "Celibatary". Shortened picture descriptions for layout reasons. BTW, supernumerary and numerary articles should get Opus Dei sections. --Irmgard 20:48, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just as for paragraphs, sections and subsections that are very short will make the article look cluttered and inhibit the flow. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading, and in these circumstances, it may be preferable to use bullet points.
I suggest bringing back the old form; or if people don't like the celibacy title, then suppress the subsections. This will reduce the bulk of the article. R Davidson 14:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've integrated sub-sections in the other parts of the article and I've included this issue. The move is based on Wikipedia preference for fewer sub-sections. I read it somewhere. Thomas S. Major 02:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Membership types 

message: :::Although I am grateful for some of Mozzerati's ideas, I tend not to agree with this suggestion: "Please also note, that in some cases information I ask for may not exist or may be provided by non-"credible" sources.  In most cases, the topic should be included anyway, since the lack of information is in and of its self an important fact." I don't think we should follow this suggestion. It would mean that issues that he suggested like repression, legal problems, charity used for theological propaganda should be included even though  there is silence about this from credible experts. I don't think the article on General Motors, San Antonio Spurs basketball team, just to give an example, would include such topics.
:::On Mozzerati's new proposal on integration and summary of sections on teachings, my reaction: Opus Dei is perceived by the experts as a teaching agency. It is analogous to a school (a very limited analogy of course). 
:::Thus, most of the sections should be devoted to an analysis of its teachings and how it teaches. That is how many of the books on Opus Dei deal with it. The separate sections on 
::::(1) Teachings and Message, 
::::(2) Doctrine, Instruction and Training, 
::::(3) Radical Demands of Christian Sanctity follow what one can expect from an encyclopedic treatment of a teaching institution, let's say a military school: 
::::(1) Basic overview or summary of what its distincitve teachings: what differentiates it from other military schools, 
::::(2) Its Training  and Pedagogical Program and Curriculum and people say about it, 
::::(3)  An  indepth analysis of  the logic behind its demanding teachings and its curriculum.
:::Now, why not make number (2) follow number (1) immediately? The training program  (number  2)  should follow  a  discussion on its  structure, i.e. who gives the training program-the numeraries and priests.  Thus, the  discussion on  the Prelature follows number 1. 
:::I do see a problem in the sub-titles which can produce such a feel of over-lapping as Mozzerati's. Please see what I have done to change the sub-titles. Lafem 03:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Article structure: Opus Dei is akin to a school

message: Great point, Lafem, and great edits. Let me explain further what you have just put down so well, but from another point of view. This article is about a Catholic organization studying first its origins and its main influencer (the Catholic Church), its place in the Church and what the Church wants from it, then second studying Opus Dei's influence and reach outside the Church. Since the origins of something determines its nature and all the aspects flowing from this nature, the greater part of the article should be devoted to Opus Dei in the Catholic Church, i.e. Opus Dei in its origins, its nature and rationale. There are 6 sections tackling all these. The last section tackles Opus Dei in Society: aims, members in society, work they do for society, paradigms for action, politics.  
The first 6 sections develop (1) Opus Dei's creation within the Church and its role within it: a Catholic Catechesis, (2) Its Catholic teachings based on its specific lay spirituality, (3) Its structure within the Catholic Church, (4) Its Catholic Doctrine and Training Program, (5) Its Catholic Demands, their rationale and consequences. The last two sections do not overlap per se. Using the terminology of the sociologists of religion, "Doctrine" refers to its "qualitative aspects", and "Demands" refers to its "quantitative aspects" and its rationale. 
I will do some more edits based on what I have just written. Perhaps the problem lies in the length of the treatment of these sections and not the sectioning per se as I wrote above. In fact, I've already done some work to make them more brief. But let's see what else can be done. And yes, thanks to Mozzerati for pushing more improvement. :-) Marax 09:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to fix some overlaps, and also shortened some discussions but I think the present structure also follows the "spiral" approach of delving deeper into what Opus Dei, ie. some repeats but expressed in another deeper angle are essential in this approach. Marax 07:45, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: After thinking through Mozzerati's suggestions, Lafem's and Marax's explanations on the order of the article, I have just integrated Doctrine and Demands into one section and transferred Instruction and training under Vocation, Membership and Training. This has the some advantages. First, training which speaks more of delivery is distinguished from doctrine which is more about creeds. Training really belongs more to membership. Second, Mozzerati's point on the types of cult is better addressed, since the attack on Opus Dei is based both on its doctrine (Catholic-Christian) and its demands (anti-cult). Third, it respects the order seen by Lafem and Marax, which seems most logical, as I see it. :) Hope you like the changes. Thomas S. Major 01:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've also inverted the use of "while," placing it immediately before the phrases of the defense or response for the Kinal and Pot images. Those are the only two other uses of "while" to illustrate contrasting opinions. I also checked the meaning of "while": Aside from meaning "although", it also means "at the same time", so it does not necessarily mean a rejection of one side of the argument on the part of the editors. It remains to be neutral as it is. Anyway, as I said, I already placed the word on the side of the defense. Hope this is helpful for NPOV improvements.  Thomas S. Major 09:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Catholic origin determines nature

message: I think that the article is unbalanced  and especially the extensive quotes of Massimo Introvigne. The vast majority of the people involved with of Opus Dei were, like myself, only shallowly involved. And of course, these persons, incl. myself have little reasons to complain. I do recognize though from my experience some of the points of criticisms made by the critical former members, who were deeply involved  and of course I can understand that they are disappointed and angry about that (though  one has to be quite naive and blind not to see these traits of Opus Dei before joining). Self admitted sockpuppet 18:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, thank you for your comments, Mr. Sockpuppet. I'd venture a guess on who you are sockpuppet for, but it might not be good manners. Anyway, I'd say Introvigne is quoted here because he is one of the few credible supporters who have written specifically about Opus Dei and the anti-cult movement. A response on the attacks is needed you know, but if no other scholar writes about the issue then it is quite difficult to quote them. If you know some scholars who defend Opus Dei against the anti-cult movement, please do not hesitate to propose his inclusion in the article. Thanks again, Self admitted sockpuppet. :) Thomas S. Major 02:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed one of the references to Introvigne and replaced it with the old one put by Irmgard on Bryan R. Wilson. I further elaborated on Irmgard's version, trying to make it more neutral and accurate, i.e. also showing not just opposition to Wilson's thought but also the wide support he receives from his international following (see article on Bryan R. Wilson.) Thomas S. Major 02:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Only the few deeply involved ex-members have reason to complain

message: I have removed this page from :Category:Roman Catholic Church as it is listed in a number of subsidiary pages.  I will come back to these subsidiary pages later, but for now I've simply removed it from the RCC cat.  --JASpencer 13:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Categorisation

message: The FAC discussion page for Opus Dei, from September 2005, just showed up on my watchlist, and I realized that people have been using it as a kind of workshop, adding comments and new sections to it, right up to today. That's a mistake; the page is an archive, and needs to be kept as it was when Raul removed the nomination from WP:FAC. Readers are supposed to be able to click on the link to it in the "This article is a former featured article candidate" template at the top of this page and find the FAC discussion, just the way it went, "to see why the nomination failed", as the template says. They're not supposed to find a confusing mixture of old and new. Moreover, if the article should be re-submitted to FAC at some point, the archive of the previous discussion is even more essential for the FAC reviewers to have, to see what happened last time. Among other things, people seem to have been pasting comments from this talkpage into it. That's a backwards way of doing it: if you wish to have a discussion based on the FAC archive, you should add comments from it to this talkpage. Or, if you'd like to have a separate discussion page based on the FAC nomination, create a subpage of the form Talk:Opus Dei/FAC nomination September 2005 with additions, or whatever, and link to it from here. I've reverted the archive to how it was on September 30. Of course the text with the later comments can easily be retrieved from the history, if you'd like to use it in any of the way's I've suggested. Bishonen | talk 07:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks so much for your observation and suggestion, Bishonen. I will do just as you suggested. :) Thomas S. Major 02:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Er... excuse me, something's happened to the FAC archive

message: Dear Andries, I am trying to synthesize the different versions proposed so far:
*Your first one: Adherents of Opus Dei point in response to the accusations to the fact that several sociologists and religious scholars, like Wilson, treat the testimonies of critical former members with skepticism. In 
*Irmgard's: Sociologist Bryan R Wilson discredits reports of former members as [apostates testimony], a view which is disputed among scholars and sociologists. See Apostates#Opinions about the reliability of apostates' testimony and their motivations.
*Thomas S. Major's:  Reader Emeritus of Sociology of the University of Oxford, Bryan R. Wilson, a scientist admired by scholars world-wide but also opposed by some others, studied the phenomenon of a type of adult former members who "shows himself to have been first a victim" then "a redeemed crusader" and "whose personal history predisposes him to bias." Wilson states: "the suspicion must arise that he acts from a personal motivation to vindicate himself and to regain his self-esteem." These, he says, "learn to rehearse an atrocity story,"
*Your latest version: Some prominent sociologists advocate in general skepticism towards the testimonies of critical former members of controversial religious movements while other sociologists disagree. See Controversy about the validity of the testimonies of critical members of religious movements
My latest proposal: While the topic of the validity of testimonies of former members of religious organizations is controversial, some prominent sociologists like Reader Emeritus of Sociology of the University of Oxford, Bryan R. Wilson, generally advocate skepticism towards the testimonies of critical former members. Wilson, for example, goes so far as to say that some of these adult members who are "prone to bias" sometimes "learn to rehearse an atrocity story." See Controversy about the validity of the testimonies of critical members of religious movements
My proposal tries to put together proposals. I think that Thomas' attempt to provide a quote is ok given the NPOV policy:
:Disagreements over whether something is approached the Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) way can usually be avoided through the practice of good research. Facts (as defined in the previous paragraph) are not Points Of View (POV, here used in the meaning of "opposite of NPOV") in and of themselves. A good way to help building a neutral point of view is to find a reputable source for the piece of information you want to add to wikipedia, and then cite that source. This is an easy way to characterize a side of a debate without excluding that the debate has other sides. The trick is to find the best and most reputable sources you can. 
Although I do agree that the quote has to be nuanced as you said in : that Wilson although prominent and a very "reputable source" is quite extreme. Thus, my rendering: "he goes so far as to say." Lafem 05:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Validity of testimonies of former members 

message: I just placed a colon after the word love in the feature of Escriva's spiritual teaching called love for freedom. In classic theology, love which a union of lover and beloved is shown above all through obedience, a union of wills, for the will is the greatest faculty of the person. 
I've also corrected recently another thing connected to this and as summary of the edit I placed this: it is the Divine Person's use of human freedom as new Adam, with a human love of infinite value, that made up for 1st Adam's sin vs the Infinite God. 
It's an important point which I want to record here. Saint Paul preached that the one mediator is the man Jesus Christ. It shows the importnace of human nature, humam struggle, human excellence. That is why Escriva called the human virtues, produced by free human acts, as the "foundation" of the supernatural virtues, the virtues which save and sanctify us and unite us to God.  Marax 09:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Love : As man, he freely obeyed.... 

message: This article keeps using the term "Ultraconservative" repeatedly. I don't think this is an apt description. Conservative, by definition, implies the preservation of the status quo, therefore, it's impossible to be an extreme conservative. I think the appropriate term to express what the authors wish to express would be reactionary, and I'm not sure that really fits.  --71.141.136.236 09:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm ok for adding the word ultra. This is what the critics say and we have to report on it, whether or not it is reasonable. Lafem 03:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ultraconservative?