Talk:Opus Dei/Archive 2006-3

message: I went ahead and did a request for mediation.  I only listed myself and NDSS as parties, since he had expressed interest in talking to a mediator-- but anyone else who wants to participate should feel very free to just go ahead and add yourself to the parties list and sign that you agree to participate:  Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Opus Dei.  The more the merrier.  --Alecmconroy 09:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't studied this issue, but I corrected the link to the mediation page. Art LaPella 21:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm in. :) Thomas 01:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hello, the Mediation Committee accepted your request for mediation. I would like to offer to mediate. (You should note, however, that I am not actually a member of the Mediation Committee, though I would like to be.) See Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Opus Dei for more information and to respond. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 21:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me.  Thanks for helping out.--Alecmconroy 22:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you so much, Armedblowfish, for your initiative and kind heart! :) I would prefer though that we go through a more official mediation. Thanks! Thomas 02:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks! It isn't exactly unofficial, persay. It is encouraged for current nominees for the Mediation Committee (of which I am one) to mediate a case, which allows us to be evaluated. Of course, you probably mean you want someone more experienced (my experience being... limitted), so I wish you the best of luck in resolving your dispute! Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 02:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediation

message: Starting on 28 May 2006 an anonymous user with unallocated IPs 58.160.194.19  and 58.160.192.10 has repeatedly vandalised the article Opus Dei and even used false edit summaries. In order to avoid more time spend for reverting, I propose a temporary semi-protection of the page. Any ADMIN hearing? --Túrelio 14:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a semi-protection request to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.  I figured this sort of thing would happen at some point during the run of the movie. --Alecmconroy 02:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent vandalism 

message: This article has again been rewritten to be almost entirely from the Opus Dei POV. An example:
I see that material on Josemaría Escrivá's obsession with pain and mortification of the flesh has again been removed. It's a bit like having an article about a masochist cult without mentioning Sacher-Masoch's masochistic life and writings. Presumably this removal is because some contributors see this as embarrassing to Opus Dei. Why? Surely they should be proud of Escrivá's torn flesh and blood-spattered walls, both of which he relates enthusiastically in his writings?  -- The Anome 09:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey that's a good point, The Anome! Check out my solution. I've done some editing to please both Alec and Rabadur. It's sure is bloody risky to walk between two combatants! Ndss 01:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Escriva, pain, and mortification of the flesh 

message: In general, when it comes to conveying opinions about OD,  do people have a preference on which side should go first:  Supporters of OD then Critics, or vice versa.  Whenever I do a controversial subject, this debate always comes up.  In general, I don't much care, but there is a certain "Chi" that each ordering gives. 
"Supporters first Critics second" tends to convey the feel that that suppporters are the first position, and that critics replying to the claims of the supporters.  Here, critics have the last word.
"Critics first, Supporters second" tends to convey the feel that critics "speak first", and that supporters are then replying to the claims of the critics.  Here, supporters have the last word.  
I've been trying to get a feel for what style is more popular when applied to this article.  Rabadur has, I believe, expressed a strong preference that Suppporters go second, Lafem seems to have agreed.  Ndss at some point made changes putting critics last. Does anyone else have a preference one way or the other?        (and of course, do the people I listed indeed feel that way).  
--Alecmconroy 10:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What I did is part of proportionality. Majority pov should have the last word in most of the sections. Minority pov in minority of the sections. Ndss 05:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Input on Order of Supports and Criticisms

message: By special request, here is my assessment of the sources related to this article:
===Pro-OD===
The first group of sources are who are Pro-OD.  The editors responsible for the bulk of this article have regarded these as the very best sources, and as such, the opinions of these sources dominate the article now by a 90:10 or so ratio.   
:*Opus Dei, and its members
:*The Catholic Church, and its leaders and members (e.g. John Paul and Benedict)
:*Introvigne
:*Allen
:*Messori
Here are some commonalities to these sources:
# They all deeply feel that Opus Dei is a very good thing.  They write from this opinion.
# They are all members of the religion being discussed.  This raises questions of their objectivity.
# Their credibilty is more or less limited to the sphere of Catholicism and Catholic Theology.  They are not generally credible outside of these areas.   
# Opus Dei members are described as "good people", "dedicate", "smart", "very hardworking", etc.  
# The general focus is on a) What a good organization OD is, and 2) how wrong the critics are. 
===Anti-OD===
The second group of sources are those who are strongly Anti-OD.  I won't speak for who regards these as the best source, but certainly some editors do (the vandals we've seen, for example, certainly hold these sources as most reputable).  Some of their opinions are included in the current article, but quickly dismissed by the deluge of Pro-OD material.      
:*Opus Dei Awareness Network. Opus Libre
:*Ex-members who had bad experiences
:*Maria del Carmen Tapia, Beyond the Threshold: A Life in Opus Dei 
:*Robert Hutchison, Their Kingdom Come: Inside the Secret World of Opus Dei
:*Steve Hassan, Combatting Cult Mind Control
:*Michael Walsh, Opus Dei : An Investigation into the Secret Society Struggling for Power Within the Roman Catholic Church
:*Joan Estruch, Saints and Schemers: Opus Dei and its Paradoxes
:*Fr. James Martin, SJ
:*Hans Küng
Here are some commonalities to these sources:
# They all deeply feel that Opus Dei is a very bad thing.  They write from this opinion.
# Many are former members of the religion being discussed.  This raises questions of their objectivity.
# Their credibilty is more or less limited to the sphere of Opus Dei and Theology.  They are not generally credible outside of these areas.   
# Opus Dei is described as "controlling", "cult-like", "dangerous", etc.
# The focus is on OD's controversial practices, OD's control and it's far-reaching influence.
===Journalistic===
Lastly, we come to Journalistic sources.  They do not overtly endorse or condemn Opus Dei. These are the sources I've turned to as I've written my own contrbutions to the article:   
:*Time Magazine, "The Ways of Opus Dei", David Van Biema.  
:*CNN, "An In-Depth Look At Opus Dei: A Conservative Catholic Group", 
:*CNN, "Controversial Figure Canonized", 
:*NBC News, "Does Opus Dei Have a Dark Side?"  
:*ABC News, "Ex-Opus Dei Members Decry Blind Obedience" 
:*CBS News,"Behind The Secret Sect Of Opus Dei" 
:*BBC News, "Decoding secret world of Opus Dei" 
:*MSNBC News, "A day in the life of an Opus Dei supernumerary"
:*Tucker Carlson (MSNBC), "A look inside Opus Dei" 
:*NYTimes, "Catholic Group Says of 'Da Vinci Code' Film: It's Just Fiction",  
:*Bloomberg, "Opus Dei, Vilified in `Da Vinci Code,' Runs Global MBA Schools" 
:*Washington Monthly, "Let There Be Light: A look inside the hidden world of Opus Dei." 
:*AP, "Opus Dei aims to improve its public image ahead of 'Da Vinci Code' movie" 
:*History Channel Special:  "Opus Dei Unveiled"
:*NY Daily News, "Inside Opus Dei" 
:*WHDH News, "Decoding Opus Dei" 
:*The Daily Princetonian,  "Spotted history aside, Opus Dei forges close campus links" 
:*Harvard Crimson "Opening the Doors of Opus Dei"  ,
When you look at all these sources, here are some things that stand out: 
# They do not overtly express an opinion on whether Opus Dei is good OR bad.  They are not using "persuasive style".  
# They have no direct personal involvement in Opus Dei, positive or negative.  They do not appear to have any direct religious motivations.  This strengthens their appearance of objectivity. 
# Their credibilty is in no way limited to the sphere of Opus Dei.  They are generally credible in all areas of reporting.  
# Opus Dei is not described as good or bad.  Some words that do come out to describe Opus Dei are "controversial", "hot-debated", "not well understood, secretic/private", and "conservative".  
# The focus is on objective facts about Opus Dei--- not on value judgements.  OD's history, it's types of membership, it's use of mortification, its role in the Da Vinci Code, and the existence of a controversy are discussed.  For the subset of the article that contains the opinions of the Pro- and Anti- sides, the sides are presented roughly equally.  
The reporting of every major US news organization(as well as many international ones) demonstrates that there is certainly no consensus that OD is good OR bad.  There is no justification for letting the opinions of either the Pro-Opus Dei sources or the Anti-Opus Dei sources dominate the article.  Our focus should be the objective facts of Opus Dei, the existence of the controversy, and a brief summation of each side in the controversy.
I hope this puts to rest the myth that there exists some sort of "universal consensus" among "experts" that Opus Dei is a undoubtedly amazingly wonderful group and that its critics are mentally ill atheists who hate Christianity.  Similarly, there is no universal consensus that Opus Dei is an evil cult that dominates the minds of innnocent youth.  The only consensus is that Opus Dei is very controversial, much loved by some, much hated by others.
--Alecmconroy 13:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A Roundup of Sources

message: Lastly, we come to Journalistic sources.  They do not overtly endorse or condemn Opus Dei. These are the sources I've turned to as I've written my own contrbutions to the article:   
:*Time Magazine, "The Ways of Opus Dei", David Van Biema.  
:*CNN, "An In-Depth Look At Opus Dei: A Conservative Catholic Group", 
:*CNN, "Controversial Figure Canonized", 
:*NBC News, "Does Opus Dei Have a Dark Side?"  
:*ABC News, "Ex-Opus Dei Members Decry Blind Obedience" 
:*CBS News,"Behind The Secret Sect Of Opus Dei" 
:*BBC News, "Decoding secret world of Opus Dei" 
:*MSNBC News, "A day in the life of an Opus Dei supernumerary"
:*Tucker Carlson (MSNBC), "A look inside Opus Dei" 
:*NYTimes, "Catholic Group Says of 'Da Vinci Code' Film: It's Just Fiction",  
:*Bloomberg, "Opus Dei, Vilified in `Da Vinci Code,' Runs Global MBA Schools" 
:*Washington Monthly, "Let There Be Light: A look inside the hidden world of Opus Dei." 
:*AP, "Opus Dei aims to improve its public image ahead of 'Da Vinci Code' movie" 
:*History Channel Special:  "Opus Dei Unveiled"
:*NY Daily News, "Inside Opus Dei" 
:*WHDH News, "Decoding Opus Dei" 
:*The Daily Princetonian,  "Spotted history aside, Opus Dei forges close campus links" 
:*Harvard Crimson "Opening the Doors of Opus Dei"  ,
When you look at all these sources, here are some things that stand out: 
# They do not overtly express an opinion on whether Opus Dei is good OR bad.  They are not using "persuasive style".  
# They have no direct personal involvement in Opus Dei, positive or negative.  They do not appear to have any direct religious motivations.  This strengthens their appearance of objectivity. 
# Their credibilty is in no way limited to the sphere of Opus Dei.  They are generally credible in all areas of reporting.  
# Opus Dei is not described as good or bad.  Some words that do come out to describe Opus Dei are "controversial", "hot-debated", "not well understood, secretic/private", and "conservative".  
# The focus is on objective facts about Opus Dei--- not on value judgements.  OD's history, it's types of membership, it's use of mortification, its role in the Da Vinci Code, and the existence of a controversy are discussed.  For the subset of the article that contains the opinions of the Pro- and Anti- sides, the sides are presented roughly equally.  
The reporting of every major US news organization(as well as many international ones) demonstrates that there is certainly no consensus that OD is good OR bad.  There is no justification for letting the opinions of either the Pro-Opus Dei sources or the Anti-Opus Dei sources dominate the article.  Our focus should be the objective facts of Opus Dei, the existence of the controversy, and a brief summation of each side in the controversy.
I hope this puts to rest the myth that there exists some sort of "universal consensus" among "experts" that Opus Dei is a undoubtedly amazingly wonderful group and that its critics are mentally ill atheists who hate Christianity.  Similarly, there is no universal consensus that Opus Dei is an evil cult that dominates the minds of innnocent youth.  The only consensus is that Opus Dei is very controversial, much loved by some, much hated by others.
--Alecmconroy 13:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Journalistic

message: Thanks for the list above.  However, I do not think that Allen, a major source for the article is appropriately listed as a pro-Opus Dei source.  It would be more suitable to list his book as a journalistic source for a number of reasons.  First, he is NOT a member of Opus Dei.  Second, he is a very reputable and respected journalist.  Third, though his book is favourable to Opus Dei, he notes in his introduction that he did not expect to be in favour of Opus Dei, but his experience and research led him to these conclusions - surely that is a sign of objectivity.   The criticism of Allen below is hardly neutral or objective, it is rather a refusal to accept the recognized standards of the journalistic profession. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.12.90 (talk • contribs) 
:Well, a lot of people agree with you on that point.  But I find it very easy to see that it was inevitable Allen would reach the conclusions he did.  To use a metaphor from U.S. politics-- let's say a journalist, who is a registered Republican, for the paper "Conservative Republican Reporter" were to write a book on the Republican U.S. President George W. Bush.  While there is always the slimmest of chances that the book would a critcism Bush, I think most people would agree that it's a foregone conclusion that the author, an avowed member of the Republican Party and a correspondent for a Republican publication, would ultimately report favorably on the Republican president?   
:Now, when a Catholic reporter for a Catholic publication sets out to write a book on a Catholic organization that is deeplpy beloved by the last two popes--  I think it's a foregone conclusion that the report will be favorable.  Maybe not-- but, probably so.  
:Keep in mind, I don't bring up Allen's bias to in any way marginalize his opinion--  being catholic doesn't DISQUALIFY him from being able to share his views-- but I just think we should be very cautious about looking upon his as a neutral, dispassionate source-- he's clearly not.  He is a member of a religious minority who is reporting on an organization within that religion--  not a truly neutral expert.
:If you look at some of the interviews he's given, this is VERY clear.  For example, he routinely describes members of Opus Dei as "very good, kind people, who are very hardworking".  I'm not denying this is true, but real journalists don't make these kinds of value judgements about controversial organizations.  That's more a pundit/partisan role, not a journalist. 
:But, of course-- I'm just talking to myself here for the moment, so.. I should stop. :)
:--Alecmconroy 12:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Allen as a Source?

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

message: When referencing him multiple times in one paragraph, is it acceptable to refer to him as "John Paul" rather than "John Paul II"?  or should you really include the II in every reference?  --Alecmconroy 03:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As pope "John Paul I" might also be cited as a reference, it's probably safer to write "John Paul II", besides it would save only 3 characters per citation. But that's just my opinion. --Túrelio 08:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: John Paul II -> John Paul?

message: We're probably starting to get to the point where discussion without the aid of a mediator probably isn't going to help.  I probably won't convince you to change the article, you probably won't convince me to accept the current one.  We may just come from two different worlds, or perhaps I'm not doing a very good job of explaining my own thoughts or seeing things from ya'lls point of view.  Ever since we got accepted for mediation, I've instituted a cease-fire-- I won't edit the article again in ways I think likely to be reverted.  
But, I'll try to explain where I'm coming from one more time:
If Allen's book is the end-all be-all of OD scholarship, why don't the major journalistic reports mirror Allen's own point of view?  Why are all the articles equally reporting both sides of the controversy without themselves taking sides?  If everyone agrees with Allen how come the artcles aren't all entitled "Wonderful Humanitarian Organization Slandered by Extremists"?   If you look at organizations that society truly _has_ come to a geniune moral consensus about-- entites like "Special Olympics", "Habitat for Humanity", "Al Qaeda" and "Adolph Hitler", you'll find the journalists reporting from a distinct point of view, rather than a neutral one.  But all the major news organizations do not report Opus Dei is wonderful, or evil.  They report both sides.  
Listen,  I know you like Allen's book.  I know some other people like Allen's book.  Allen was granted  unprecedented access, and I'm sure his book has many qualities that other books do not.  But at the end of the day, Allen is just one man.  He's not even a particularly famous man.  He's just a dude who wrote a book.   That book didn't suddenly change everyone's mind on Opus Dei-- it didn't suddenly create some "universal consensus" that OD is wonderful.
This is like any other major religious or political debate.  Some people thing abortion is right, some people think it is wrong.  People have been arguing about it for decades.  If one day someone writes a book entitled "An Objective Look at Abortion" and describes how, after doing research, he has come to the decision that the right answer is Pro-Choice--  That's good for him.  He may be a reputable author, he may have spent quite a lot of time on his book.  But his book isn't going to suddenly change everyone's opinions.  It's not as if his book comes out on monday, and by tuesday the whole world is suddenly Pro-Choice.  
Not even if he does get some good book reviews. Not even if he did work harder as his book than any previous author.  Not even if some people call his book "definitive", not even if some people call him reputable.  Not even if he has impeccable grammar and exhibits a masterful use of the ellipsis! 
He's just not going to suddenly change everyone's mind.  He's not going to suddenly be the only person you can quote about abortion.  News articles are still going to talk neutrally about the abortion controversy, encyclopedias are still going to present both sides equally.  
Allen's just a guy who wrote a book.  It's not the first book on the subject, it won't be the last book on the subject.  If you try to argue that everyone in the world has suddenly come to agree this one author, you're wrong.  You can talk till you're blue in the face that his book should be the one everyone should believe in because of X, Y, Z.    And maybe you're right, maybe people _should_ believe in his book cause it's the coolest ever, and he's the bestest author in the world.  But the fact is... right now... Everyone doesn't believe him.   
The world does not believe Allen.  The world doesn't believe ODAN either.  The world has not made up its mind.  There is no consensus.   Not a consensus of experts, not a consensus of journalists, not a consensus of Wikipedians, not a consensus of humans.   You cannot pretend that the world has made up it's mind, and that they agree with your side.  We don't!  Not yet.  On this controversy, we don't want just your side or Allen's side, or just odan's side, or 90% of Odann's side.  We want both sides, presented absolutely equally, so that we can decide for ourselves.  
----
Now let me change gears for a second and try a different approach.  
I address all the OD supporters out there who are actively trying to promote OD using wikipedia (if, indeed, there are any-- I absolutely am not insisting that there are, or pointing any fingers at anyone in particular):
I'm sure OD is something you personally feel is very good, and something you personally know about a lot better than Pvazz or I probably ever will.  I'm sure it's very difficult to see critics, most of whom know so little about OD from your point of view, malign a life-changing and life-saving organization that is like a family to it's members.  For my part, I personally do not, in fact, believe OD is a cult-- and what is a "cult" anyway but a religion that's unpopular and scary to non-members.  Judaism was a cult, Christainity was a cult.  The Jesuits were cultists.     
I'm sure that you'd want to be sure any organization and any teachings you love get presented in the best light, rather than slandered by people who don't know what they're talking about.  You wouldn't be human if you didn't, you wouldn't be doing a good job if you didn't try to share what you know with other people. 
But please, believe me when I say, to the outside reader-- someone who doesn't already know about OD,  this article makes the organization look very, very bad.  Very bad.  When you don't treat both sides in a reasonable debate equally, when you include 9 positive opinions for every negative one,  the reader does see what you're doing.  He doesn't think "Wow, there must be 9 positive opinions for every negative one".  He thinks "Wow.. the author of this article really wants me to think positively about this organization.. I wonder what they're not telling me".   To the outside reader, it looks like a propaganda piece.  It looks like a cover-up, it looks like a snow job.  That why people keep coming here and say it looks like a "OD Brochure" or a "Catholic Encyclopedia".  The impression you get when you read this article isn't that OD is good-- the impression is that OD has a lot to hide.  And I don't think that reflects the truth behind OD very well at all. 
If you really want to promote OD...  then present the arguments equally.  First present the neutral facts everyone, critics and supporters, can agree on-- being infinitely careful not to include opinions or theological assumptions.  Then admit OD is very controversial, and say it upfront, don't be afraid of it.  Then honestly, without trying to smash their arguments into bits, tell the reader what it is that the critics say.  Then, when they've had their say, just as honestly, present what the supporters say.  Show them that John Paul II was a fan.  Show them that Benedict XVI is a fan.  Have faith that people are smart.  Have faith that when both sides are presented completely equally, Truth will always win out over Falsehood.  
There's one other thing to consider.  We all want this article to be a Good Article.  We all want this article to wind up on Featured Articles.  We all want this article to be the #2 hit on Google when you type in "Opus Dei" (#1, I expect, will always be the organization's official site).  And if you want this  to wind up on Featured Articles, then "I am the way-- no article cometh unto the Featured Articles but by me".  By which I don't mean me personally, I just mean critics in general.  Pvazz, and all the others who come here and post their dissent. Every article must answer its critics, work with them, incorporate them, until finally you have an article that _both_ sides agree to call neutral.  Only when all sides are happy is an article Good.  This article, as it currently, will always have a huge faction that finds it non-neutral.  You can revert them, you can debate with them, but there will always be more.  The NPOV will be added time, and time, and time again.  The peer reviews will fail. The FA candidacies will be opposed.  The Good Article statuses will be revoked.  The article must be re-written. 
(Lastly, I should take an aside to apologize even speaking from this point of view.  I do not wish to imply that any specific editor is, in fact, editing wikipedia for the purposes of promoting OD.  I'm a little embarassed, because it's quite rude to speak about other editors potential motives.  I am not saying anyone out there IS trying just to promote OD--  disputes happen all the time without anyone trying to promote anything, just because we all have our own worldviews and our own biases.  Maybe, seen from a truly neutral point of view, I and all the other critics are the biased ones-- for you can never see your own bias.  So please, don't take this as an accusation that anyone lacks good faith.  But all the same, I thought I'd take a few paragraphs to say that, just in case, by some chance, there's anyone  who reads this page who is, in fact, actively trying to promote OD. If so, I swear to you-- the current article is working against your interests.) 
--Alecmconroy 12:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alec, this all seems a bit unwikipedian to me. The entry should be good, and I wouldn't like anyone to be unhappy with such an article. I don't think you or I can safely go further than that. Wikipedia has criteria for deciding what good entries are, which are objective rather than subjective. Anonimus 11:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: One more diatribe

message: There are as the bard says (hehe) two opus dei.
 
An opus dei for it members and one for non members.
Opus dei for its members is all about becoming a saint but for non members that almost unimportant what they care about is what opus has done good and bad in pursuit of this goal which is why no non religious encyclopedia  talks much about opus dei theology .
Marax ndss others I know you disagree  I have a hunch that even after alice`s impassioned plea (which no surprise I completely agree with) you still don’t agree but hopefully you do agree with the stuff on making this a good article and what it will take.
The thing is I’m not against an article on the theology of opus dei and clearly you guys can write a good one might I suggest that you write one and limit your contribution to this one too advising alice/pvazz.
Not forever but let them with your help (and I hope my suggestion that they do this conforms to there wishes) rewrite the whole piece and then if you wont you can critique it.
I know that sound harsh honesty I don’t intend it to be  but I don’t think you will ever see the middle ground on this one.
Maybe i`m wrong:).Ansolin 04:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ... And I thought the article was already occupying the middle ground. It has been stable for several months, during which time it has been consulted many times. :-) Anonimus 11:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lot of fallacies floating around, this is one of them.  "The article has been stable, therefore there must be a consensus  behind it and it must be NPOV".  People have been complaining about this article for months and months.  Changes to it have consistently been reverted,  complaints consistently (and quite expertly) rebutted.  I've completely lost count of how many different readers had to add NPOV tag to it before it stopped being revert-warred, and I wouldn't be surprised if it disappeared from the page again tommorrow.  I can't argue about whether the page is "True" or "Accurate"-- those are big concepts, and who can reveal what truth is?  But the page is not stable, there is a huge and persistent NPOV-dispute about it, and has been since long, long before I ever heard the phrase Opus Dei. --Alecmconroy 00:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eight (8) months without any NPOV tag is quite a long time for a five year old encyclopedia and for a controversial topic in Wikipedia. R Davidson 11:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I encourage you to discuss this in mediation, assuming, of course, that you are willing to agree to mediation, and that you and everyone else are willing accept me as a mediator. And yes, I noticed you weren't on the list of people who originally agreed to mediation, but all who are concerned about this are welcome. : ) Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 11:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Two opus dei

message: Along with Tony Blair and sex... Might be useless info... just thought you might find it cool to be in the news... http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/17/technology/17wiki.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
--Nino Gonzales 01:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This article was mentioned in New York Times

message: My two cents worth:
*Is there any way to make it shorter? I know Wikipedia is not paper, but shorter is many times better...
*I think the current one should be improved rather than starting from scratch
*I'm sure Opus Dei has a wonderful spirituality. However, I think some sections could be better worded... the "Analysis" part, I think, could use some clearer language. I don't know its history (maybe it's the best compromise) but "Analysis of the message and actual practice" sounds weird to me.
*I prefer the criticisms and praises to be distributed rather than limited to their own sections
*For controversial topics such as this one, I prefer to know who said what quotation up front, as well as who these people are. 
*It's difficult to detect the POV that the neutrality tag indicates... maybe it's because one expects da vinci code, and you read some nice things about being Catholic and see smiling happy people?... Perhaps the focus on certain controveries is POV? A western POV perhaps? For instance, the self-flaggelation is hardly an issue for most people in the Philippines, where people whip themselves in the streets during holy week. (To make sure it's bloody, they make small cuts in their backs with shaving blades [after drinking a whole bottle of a potent native coconut wine]). People also have themselves crucified with tiny nails... (I'm sure most Americans would think these people are sick barbarians... hehe).
*This has more criticism and counter-criticism than George W. Bush... I don't know if that is a good thing or a bad thing... 
--Nino Gonzales 05:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Feedback

message: Thank you so much to everyone who are contributing to this discussion!! :) Thanks especially for the impartial editors who are putting in their comments, and for the continuance of good faith in our discussions. 
I totally agree with Alec that there is no consensus on Opus Dei. The article itself does not take any final stand. As Davidson once clarified, there are around 800 words of criticisms here, perhaps much more than in another article. I’ve seen some blogs that say that this article just shows the debate and allows the reader to decide: . There is also a blog of people who are critical of Opus Dei and who describe the article as the one of the few objective accounts on Opus Dei. . 
I also agree with Alec that there is no basis within Wikipedia to delineate expertise on moral issues such as abortion, although even in this issues Wikipedia points to the need to make a list of important contributions. 
However, the crux of the matter as Ndss has shown is proportionality. Wikipedia’s standards of neutrality accept expertise in social sciences and mandates that articles are written in proportion to the representation among experts. And it is here that Introvigne comes in. And also Allen. It is clear to me that Allen’s main contribution is not theological but sociological. His main contribution is an empirical analysis of OD’s social issues: politics, secrecy, power and money, women, freedom and obedience, recruitment.  
However, IMHO, it is becoming clearer through this discussion that there is much more evidence showing the strength and importance of Allen’s work, and through the same movement, the strength of other writers’s who support his empirical findings are further enhanced. Even comments from Pvazz acknowledge the importance of these authors. I go with Davidson’s request that Pvazz should further elucidate her insinuation that Allen “manipulated” his data. In academic work such as this, there should be clear evidence for assertions we make. Unless Alec and Pvazz are able to counter Ndss’s evidence and show more concrete evidence that the pro-OD writings are unreliable and that anti-OD and the magazine articles have greater reliability and expertise, I am afraid eventual arbitration will not be in favor of their premises. 
I am totally opposed to a 50:50 distribution between criticisms and responses, or in Allen's expression, between myth and reality. The world has not made a final decision on this, and so does the article. But the Wikipedia world wants to grant more weight to the ideas of writers whom the world highly regards (as evidenced by the press, the professionals, the public or the three Ps covered by Ndss’s evidence). Of course, the article should continue showing that there is no 100% consensus on Opus Dei, a neutral pov which the article continues to have as observed by Geo.plrd from the Mediation Cabal, but neither should the article give undue space to non-expert opinion. The crux of the matter is that more space should be given to experts in this field. 
In the practical language of Anonimus, the next step would be for Pvazz and Allec to produce evidence which counter Ndss's basis for proportionality. :) Thomas 03:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Crux of the matter

message: Hmm. well, hopefully the mediation will start shortly, but in the mean time, everyone's being exceptionally civil, so I don't suppose it hurts to discuss more until mediation kicks in.  AS usual.. . brevity is not one of my strong suits..  I apologize :).  
===The Blogs===
The blogs you cited are perfect example of what's wrong with this article.  Let me quote two comments from the first blog you cited:
:Raymond G said,"You can check out the Wikipedia article on Opus Dei.It was written by both sides of the debate. And you find out for yourself who wins in the debate."
:Matthew replies"If I'm not mistaken any conspiracy-monger can get on Wikipedia and write anything they want. That doesn't bode well for the veracity of the article."
I couldn't have found such a great quote to demonstrate what's wrong with article myself if I had searched for days.  One pro-OD blogger points someone to our article, pointing out that OD clearly "wins" in our article.  Another blogger replies that the bias makes him doubt the truth of the whole article.  EXACTLY.  These are two different readers, from opposite sides of the debate, and BOTH characterized our article as being "biased" and having a "clear winner".  
 
When our article is NPOV-- there will be no clear winner.  When our article is NPOV, people won't be able to figure out which point of view our editors had.  
==="Equal" vs "Proportional"===
I think we can all agree that the current article does indeed favor the Pro-OD opinions and treat the two sides in the debate un-equally.  The question is whether this inequality is NPOV or not.  If I understand ya'll correctly, you accord the Pro-OD opinions with great reliability, luminosity, and reputability.  Accordingly, you feel the current article is NPOV because it favors the Pro-OD opinions over the Anti-OD opinions, do to the percieved disparity in expertise.  I feel this argument is in error.         
When we talk about the "proportionality" argument used to justify the current article, what you're in essence saying is this:  We do not want this article to treat the Pro-OD and Con-OD sides equally.  We want this article to be inherently 'biased (albeit NPOV)' or 'unequal'.  We want MORE Pro-OD space, we want Pro-OD  to have the last word, and we want the Pro-OD opinions to dominate, to be able to reply to every single criticism and to criticize the critics.  We want an article that is distinctly favoring the Pro-OD sources.
   
The proportionality argument is an argument to try to treat two sides in a debate un-equally.  To overtly and intentionally favor one side over the other, to give one side more space.  The proportionality argument is an argument that says Wikipedia's article SHOULD choose sides to some extent, should have a favorite side in this debate, and should give that side special treatment.  
To me, if you want to make an article that deviates from 50:50 or "equal" treatment, you have a HUGE burden of proof that you have to meet.  If you want us to favor one side over the other, you have to come up with a huge amount of evidence showing that society has come down on one side of this issue.  If you really want this article to be un-equal, you have to be able to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that almost everyone who knows anything agrees with your side. 
The proportionality argument may be valid in a few isolated cases where we should deviate from 50:50.  Issues like "Nazis" or "Al Qaeda" or "Flat Earth Society".  But Opus Dei isn't one of those issues.  There is no consensus that OD is good (or bad).  There is no consensus that Allen is the most reliable author.  If you want to make an "unequal" article, you have to be able to prove beyond all shadow of doubt that everyone reliable agrees OD/Allen is wonderful-- and you can't prove that, because it's not true.  If you personally believe Allen is the most reliable, it's your opinion, but it's your original research and is barred.  The preponderance of sources neither agree with Allen's conclusions, nor do they agree with your conlusions that Allen is the only reliable expert.  The sources come down in the middle. 
Ulimately, if you want to make an "unequal" article like the current version, you have to have an overwhelming preponderance of sources agree with you.  But you don't.  I rattled off like 20 major news sources after about just ten mintues of googling, and they all have a point of view that doen't agree with Allen.  
If you really want to make an unequal article, it is incumbent upon you to prove that there is a consesus that Allen is the only reliable source on this-- that he is more reliable than CNN,NBC,CBS,ABC,BBC, etc.  A half dozen people who write nice reviews for Allen's book isn't going to do this-- you have to be able to prove a huge consensus of sources accept Allen as the best.  Your personal opinion on the subject isn't going to do it-- that's just your original research.  You need to be able to cite that the overwhelming consensus of news sources say Allen's views are correct-- but you can't, because they don't say that. 
Ultimately, it comes down to this:
:# We should treat both sides in a debate equally unless we have an incredibly good reason not to.  
:# We do not have a consensus of authors who have written on the subject.
:# We do not have a consensus of theologians or sociologists.
:# We do not have a consensus of members of the public.
:# We do not have a consensus of wikipedians.  
:# We do not have a consensus of journalistic sources. 
:# We do not have any kind of consensus.  
:# Therefore, we should try to treat both sides of the debate fairly and equitably.
Without an overwhelming, indisputable, undeniable consensus of these groups, it is not justifiable to overtly try to give preferential treatment to one side of a debate over another.  You do not have any kind of consensus to justify this.  All you have is one book, written by one author Allen, and all you have to justify him are the opinions of a few isolated readers and reviewers.  There is no consensus here-- just your personal insistance that Allen is the most reputable.  
Take home message:  if there is no consensus, there can be no proportionality argument for unequal treatment.  If there is no consensus, then we have to fall back on the old principle of treating both sides in a debate equally and fairly.
===Burdens of Proof===
You say "the next step would be for Pvazz and Allec to produce evidence which counter Ndss's basis for proportionality.".  But the burden of proof is not on us to disprove your claims about Allen's credibilty-- I just want the default equal treatment, unbiased article-- in the event of a hung jury, equality and non-biasedness wins.   If you want to make an article that does favor Allen and OD over everyone else, the burden of proof is upon you to demonstrate that Allen's views dominate the field-- something the journalistic souces clearly show, he does not.  IF you want to create an unequal article, it is you who have to prove Allen is the only reputable source-- more reputable than CNN.  And that is an impossible task.
It's not enough for you to argue Allen's views should be universally accepted-- you have to prove Allen HAS been universally accepted.  But they haven't been been.
For every source you cite calling Allen "definitive" or "respected", I can cite another source calling him "biased" and "a mouthpiece for the catholic church".  For every source that mention Allen's name, I can give you five that mention ODAN.  And for every article you can cite that quotes Allen as the only expert, I can cite you twenty sources that do not share his view but instead treat the issues neutrally and journalistically.
===Allen himself===
It's not enough for you to explain your opinion about Allen's expertise being greater than CNNs--  rather you have to cite a consensus of society that Allen's expertise is greater than CNN.  But even setting that burden of proof aside-- explain to me again why Allen, the journalist from a small catholic newspaper, is a better expert than all the other journalists from all the other papers combined??   He's less famous, he's less well-known, he's less respected than the major news sources.   He is catholic, could be a member of OD itself for all we know, writes for a Catholic paper-- Am I the only one who notices this is a serious potential bias that casts doubt on him as an objective expert?  
As best I can tell, Allen's only claim to fame in this subject is that OD picked him to be the one to write a book and to grant him exclusive access.  This hardly qualifies him as the world's greatest expert on OD.  During the US-Vietnam War, the famous actress Joan Fonda traveled to Communist North Vietnam, met with their leaders, and then spoke out against the United States.  She too was granted unprecedented access-- but no one ever accused her of being the world's greatest expert on the Vietnam War.  Many people regarded her as a mouthpiece for the North Vietnamese-- someone who was granted unprecendented access only because it was clear what her conclusions would be once granted that access.  Many people feel the same way about Allen.  
  
Allen is one man.  Not a world-famous man, not the end all be all of journalists.  He's not a PhD, he's never won a Pullitzer Prize or a Peabody Award.  He writes for the National Catholic Reporter, not the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal.  He's been interviewed on CNN occasionally, but he's not one of their reporters.  Allen is a man who once wrote an article entitled "Three Cardinals Who WON'T Become Pope".   Guess who topped the list-- you guessed it:  Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger aka Pope Benedict XVI.  <sarcasm>Yes, Allen obviously is the world's greatest journalist, whose opinions should be trusted over all others</sarcasm>.  If he now writes a book entitled "Three Organizations that are definitely NOT cults" and includes Opus Dei at the top of the list, does that mean everyone now believes him?  
Furthermore, I can swear to you that if Allen had written a book entitled Opus Dei: A Dangerous Cult--- I _still_ wouldn't let his opinions dominate the article, because I do not regard him as the world's greatest expert whose opinions outweighs all others.  But if Allen had written a book calling OD a cult-- can you honestly promise me that you would agree with him, and still insist that his opinion that OD is a cult dominate the article because he is such an expert?  
Surely not.  It isn't that his overwhelming expertise compels you to agree with him, not matter what his conclusions.  Rather, I suspect it is the very fact that you agree with his conclusions that compels you to believe in his expertise. 
Allen is no universally accepted expert-- he's just a guy with an opinion.  And even if he should be a universally accepted expert, he isn't seen as one now.   It's not enough to insist he should be seen that way, or to reiterate that you see him that way--  right now, as of 2006, he isn't seen that way by a consensus of anyone.  Right now, his opinion cannot dominate.
Mind you-- I don't mean to dismiss Allen to the point that his opinions should be excluded.  If you look at the article I submitted, his opinions are indeed in there, as are those of John Paul II and Benedict XVI.  But I do not think Allen's opinions are so universally accepted as to allow him to have more than his equal fair share of the article.
===A Different Next Step===
One thing we can do is try to improve the Suggested Replacement to help find those parts of it we can reach consensus on.  We can do this in mediation, of course, but we can try to do the non-controversial parts while we wait.  
Keeping in mind that we're probably going to have to "agree to disagree" on the proportion of the Pro- and Con- section lengths, I think (hope) we can all agree that we'll need something LIKE the suggested replacement if for no other reason than that our current article isn't in summary style and is WAY WAY WAY longer than the recommended article length.   
So, aside from the issue of Pro-/Con- space balancing issue, which I know is controversial, how about the non-controversy parts-- the parts that are just condensed & summarized versions of the existing article.  
*Is there anything else that you think absolutely should be in it that currently isn't?  
*The "new" article includes one block quote of support each from John Paul II and Benedict XVI-- are these the "right" quotes, or would there be better ones to use.  I don't think the Benedict XVI quote really captures the extent of his support-- but is there a better one we could use?
*Are there any other particularly famous corporate works--  the University of Navarra is the one mentioned, but if there's a more represetantive example we could use it.  
*Setting aside the issue of how much space is devoted to it,  does the summation of the "Support for Opus Dei" mention the right "top five" counter-arguments?   
*Does anyone have a preference for what three or so "Pro-OD" sites are listed in the links?  I picked a few for structure, but if there are better ones.   
*Is it okay to not mention the criticism of OD's treatment of women?  I excluded it, because I think it's more of a Catholicism criticism than an OD criticism.
*Do we have a citation for how many OD there are in the US?  IS it apppropriate to include that in the article? or would that be too US-centric.  
*For the Theology sub-article-- what would ya'll think about including an Escriva quote from The Way that sums up each of the the five or so major "highlights"?  That would be too verbose for the main page, but it seems like that would be a really great way for us to convey the theology without us trying to have to block quote a entire OD page or else just paraphrase it all on our own.  That idea hit me in the middle of the night last week and I got out of bed just to write it down because I thought (hoped) you guys would all like it.  If so-- man... help me out with which short maxims you think are "most representative" of those five or so "big highlights" of OD.  
*Am I missing any of Opus Dei sub-articles?  I put all the ones I've found in a list on the "new" main page-- but there are a lot of them, so I worry I'm missing some. 
*Are we okay with the Da Vinci Code section being so dismissive of the idea of a global OD conspiracy trying to exterminate the bloodline of Christ?  I'm fine with being dismissive because I _think_ nobody seriously believes that, right?  
*Do we have a direct quote where Escriva talks about why he/God chose the name "Opus Dei"?   
--Alecmconroy 08:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: Crux of the matter

message: One thing we can do is try to improve the Suggested Replacement to help find those parts of it we can reach consensus on.  We can do this in mediation, of course, but we can try to do the non-controversial parts while we wait.  
Keeping in mind that we're probably going to have to "agree to disagree" on the proportion of the Pro- and Con- section lengths, I think (hope) we can all agree that we'll need something LIKE the suggested replacement if for no other reason than that our current article isn't in summary style and is WAY WAY WAY longer than the recommended article length.   
So, aside from the issue of Pro-/Con- space balancing issue, which I know is controversial, how about the non-controversy parts-- the parts that are just condensed & summarized versions of the existing article.  
*Is there anything else that you think absolutely should be in it that currently isn't?  
*The "new" article includes one block quote of support each from John Paul II and Benedict XVI-- are these the "right" quotes, or would there be better ones to use.  I don't think the Benedict XVI quote really captures the extent of his support-- but is there a better one we could use?
*Are there any other particularly famous corporate works--  the University of Navarra is the one mentioned, but if there's a more represetantive example we could use it.  
*Setting aside the issue of how much space is devoted to it,  does the summation of the "Support for Opus Dei" mention the right "top five" counter-arguments?   
*Does anyone have a preference for what three or so "Pro-OD" sites are listed in the links?  I picked a few for structure, but if there are better ones.   
*Is it okay to not mention the criticism of OD's treatment of women?  I excluded it, because I think it's more of a Catholicism criticism than an OD criticism.
*Do we have a citation for how many OD there are in the US?  IS it apppropriate to include that in the article? or would that be too US-centric.  
*For the Theology sub-article-- what would ya'll think about including an Escriva quote from The Way that sums up each of the the five or so major "highlights"?  That would be too verbose for the main page, but it seems like that would be a really great way for us to convey the theology without us trying to have to block quote a entire OD page or else just paraphrase it all on our own.  That idea hit me in the middle of the night last week and I got out of bed just to write it down because I thought (hoped) you guys would all like it.  If so-- man... help me out with which short maxims you think are "most representative" of those five or so "big highlights" of OD.  
*Am I missing any of Opus Dei sub-articles?  I put all the ones I've found in a list on the "new" main page-- but there are a lot of them, so I worry I'm missing some. 
*Are we okay with the Da Vinci Code section being so dismissive of the idea of a global OD conspiracy trying to exterminate the bloodline of Christ?  I'm fine with being dismissive because I _think_ nobody seriously believes that, right?  
*Do we have a direct quote where Escriva talks about why he/God chose the name "Opus Dei"?   
--Alecmconroy 08:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A Different Next Step

message: I find it shocking that Opus Dei has been listed on this site as a cult. This could not be more wrong. Opus Dei has the support of the Papacy and, therefore, is not a cult. Opus Dei is just a wing of the Catholic Church. Thus, it IS catholic and NOT a cult. --Unsigned commment left by 24.43.53.43
:Welcome to Wikipedia.  Ideally, this article shouldn't say that Opus Dei IS a cult.  But it does have a duty to say that some people feel Opus Dei is a cult.--Alecmconroy 17:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thats not quite correct.  See WP:WEASEL for more. Roodog2k 21:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay-- strictly speaking the duty is to say that some people feel Opus Dei is a cult and then cite a source verifying that that is true.  :)  --Alecmconroy 22:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I don't find the word cult to be particularly helpful.  9 times out of 10, it just means "religion I think is bad" or "religion whose adherents are fanatical in my eyes".  I think we have to mention it here once or twice, because the word does come up, but I don't think it's a word we should use ourselves.  It suffices to talk about "Support and Criticism for Opus Dei" and in that way only get into the whole "is it a cult thing". --Alecmconroy 04:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Opus Dei Not A Cult

message: The correct meaning of the "Space and Balance - Expertise & Moral and Political points of view" section of the NPOV tutorial has been integral to this debate.  So, I thought I'd ask  the original author of the relevant section to see what he has to say about whether there is expertise on religious debates.  Here's his reply:
:My opinion: Expertise is only of interest in things on which there is a possibility of scientific or technical expertise. For instance, a legal scholar who has studied a particular field of law in a certain country is an expert on that issue compared to a random journalist.
:One issue to take into account is whether the experts are neutral; proximity to the topic being studied may lead some to being biased. One can, for instance, argue that experts whose work depends on the well being of an industry may be biased in favor of that industry. This is especially true if the industry is controversial.
:With respect to the Opus Dei, it is probably the case that some Opus Dei people are experts as to the history of their own movement. However, it is also fairly reasonable to think that these experts may be biased in favor of their own movement, thus what they say should be taken with a grain of salt. There is a tendency, in similar cases, of conveniently "forgetting" unsavorable issues.
:(Similar example: I have seen very detailed biographies of politicians on their own official sites, obviously written with expertise... ignoring things such as criminal convictions.) David.Monniaux 11:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NPOV requires views to be represented without bias. [...] Types of bias include:  Religious bias, including bias in which one religious viewpoint is given preference over others.
It really doesn't get any simpler than that.  This page is a _textbook_ NPOV violation.   But, if we haven't convinced you before now, I doubt these will either.  
But my question for ya'll is this:  If it turns out in mediation that this page DOES violate NPOV, it will mean you guys have all been dead wrong this whole time, and have been consistently sabotaging the effects of editors who have been trying to bring this page in line with NPOV.  IF that happens, are you going to admit your mistakes, admit you've been completely wrong about what a good page looks likes, and make a concerted effor to STOP inserting pro-OD bias into this and all the other OD-related pages, and let the people who were right about this issue work to make a neutral page without further attempts at interference?
(obviously, if the result of mediation/arbitration is that this page is 100% fine as it is, it will be I who has to do all that)
--Alecmconroy 11:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV Tutorial Intepretation

message: This article has recently reached rank number 2 in a google search for Opus Dei. 
It started out in number 6. While we congratulate those who contributed to this article, we should also thank Alec for the semi-protection tag that he placed. It's then when the New York Times took notice! Cabanes 05:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sweet!  Life's so ironic.  Whatever vandal it was that came here trying to call OD "a corrosive narcissistic cult within the Roman Catholic Church masquerading as a "personal prelature"" merely succeeded in not only getting his own remarks reverted, but in getting our article mentioned in the NY Times, thereby generating even more OD publicity.  Karma, baby, karma.--Alecmconroy 05:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wonderful. In Catholic theology, it's called God's capability of drawing good from evil. See Catechism of the Catholic Church 312-313. Thomas 07:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Suggest to read WP:CIV or Wikipedia:Profanity before using such language. --Túrelio 20:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Number two rank in a google search

message: I don’t think I’m the only one who hasn’t seen much change in opinions in a while maybe we should try to speed up the mediation?:)
Might I suggest that every one involved take a look at the members on the mediation commity and see who would be acceptable then together or separately we could as them to help use out?.Ansolin 04:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Wisden17 has offered to mediate-- Thomas, NDSS, and I have accepted him (Pvazz has been MIA for over a month, so we'll probably just go ahead without him.)  Wisden is on break but was due back yesterday. Hopefully, it'll start any day now. --Alecmconroy 05:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation

message: Anyone know any really good online sources for responses to OD prior to Pope John Paul II?  I've found a few tidbits strewn throughout the article and a couple of references online, but nothing particularly comprehensive. --Alecmconroy 16:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pre-JPII response