Talk:Opus Dei/Archive 2005-2

message: Something tells me that this page is a losing battle. I personally subscribe to the Wikipedia idea of balance and neutrality but I also fear that Opus Dei has both the time and resources to make this entry fit its purposes (nefarious or not). The bottom line is that unless a fairly neutral, dispassionate editor takes control, most of the entry is going to sound like a tract - peppered with the odd (usually short-lived) additions that point to dissent or controversy. It would be interesting to compare entries for other organizations (the "Moonies", "Church of Scientology", etc.) to see whether this a more general problem. Personally, I have no axe to grind one way or the other but I would like to see an entry that argues both sides of the case.
Bowfell
Recent edits have made this almost a manual for Opus Dei.  The only reference to controversy in the entire article is one sentence in the introduction.  I think this article needs to be trimmed down and the controversy stuff reinserted.  Any takers.--Peacenik 00:08, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: I basically agree with the two previous comments. The present structure of the article is rational and reader friendly. It has flow. A totally separate section on criticism (with counter-arguments) will have to be balanced by a praise section (with counter-arguments). That's messy and will not have the look of a serious encyclopedia article. 
Still I wouldn't remove Walsh from the list. In fact, he should be quoted in the criticism parts of the article. 
I also think the size is still ok given the interest on this page. There are other sites which are much, much bigger (e.g. Pope John Paul II). Rabadur 06:31, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Agree

message: I am placing key excerpts of the Wiki policies here so that we can more easily refer to them. I can foresee that this type of disputes can occur again in the future and some will occur just because the policies are not clear to everyone. I also placing key statements in bold to facilitate reading. 
:Archived - kindly link to those instead of quoting them - the page is too long as it stands, anyway. -- AlexR 11:20, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia NPOV and Accuracy Policies (please do not archive)

message: From these policies, I see following things:
1. Regarding neutrality. 
a) Representing both sides: I think this piece does this. 
b) More space given to majority, significant and important (credible experts's) view than the popular view(#6.d):   I think the present article does this. The references are mainly scholars and they mutually corroborate each other.  Of course, some people might also be argue that experts's view in this case is also the popular view given the wide-support given to Opus Dei in the world-wide Catholic Church. Anyway, whatever it is, Wikipedia keeps on repeating that it is not a matter of giving equal validity --#9. Space differences can be turned around in the future if there is a change in the status of present day scholarship.  
c) Good research (#7): I think there is much research done here. There are many HTML links plus paragraphs referred to in the text.  What can be improved is the research on the criticisms. I think more can be done to organize them, e.g. get citations from ODAN, explain ODAN. 
d) Fair and sympathetic tone: In general, this is ok. We just have to keep on looking for clearly partisan tones per statement. In the future, when people want to contest NPOV, specific statements have to be referred to; or they themselves should start editing them. 
2. Regarding accuracy. 
a) Well-studied field: I think this is the case of this topic on Opus Dei. There are quite a number of reputable book on the matter available in libraries. 
b) Citations: I check the embedded links and they match. The books, I believe, also match the text. Some books are cited without pages. This will have to be done to perfect this page. 
c) Dubious sources: I think the article does not use dubious sources. Marax 03:18, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Article assessment

message: I suggest that a section on Opus Dei history be put up. This could be a section that can replace the section on Opus Dei members in leadership roles. 
Reasons:
1. History section is usual for this type of topic. 
2. Will help readers to understand Opus Dei better. It can be very enlightening. 
3. Will deal with permanent data unlike the present section on Opus Dei members list which needs so much updating. Wiki policy states that we should avoid this latter type of data. 
4. Members list section is becoming a hodgepodge of names and is a usual place for vandalism, absurd remarks, etc. Hard to keep it clean. Rabadur 22:15, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: History section

message: How about an intermediate solution? How about putting up another article like Opus Dei: prominent members or something like that. We can write something in the Privacy vs Secrecy portion which can lead to a reference to this new article. 
By putting that list in another article, the Opus Dei article itself will contain a more scholarly tone and its size will be more manageable. This is the practice in many other articles and Wiki policy encourages it. 203.177.7.50 22:56, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Compromise solution

message: It's a very good idea to transfer names of members to another article. Now people can add names ad infinitum. I created a new article and transfered the data. R Davidson 02:43, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ad infinitum

message: This article is in serious need of wikification as according to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style.  PLEASE, Please, try and remove the bolded paragraph starters (as ugly and not helpful) and at least attempt to rephrase the teachings?  They read like diect copy/pastes, and that's not helpful to anybody, really. humblefool® 23:29, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikify 

message: Probably inadvertently, some major cuts and duplications have been made on the page. These edits will need to be reverted. Charles Matthews 10:00, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edits

message: After replacing the bold marks into italics I removed the wikification sign. Lafem 10:09, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed wikification sign

message: One of the problems with this article right now is people aren't honoring WP:AGF - some users are assuming others are Opus Dei cabal, some users are assuming the other users are anti-Opus Dei. AGF! :) Afterwordafter-word 12:36, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assume Good Faith 

message: Dr. Peter Berglar's works are extensively quoted as a source in this article. Question: is Dr. Berglar an Opus Dei member or supporter? -- Karada 09:43, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I can tell you that he is a German academic and biographer of the founder. Charles Matthews 10:06, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peter Berglar 

message: I just got back on line. Had to rush to an out of town work after I wrote the "discuss or ask for mediation" plea. 
First, let me echo The Anome's thanks to Samuel Howard for his revision work. It takes an experienced writer to do the revision.  
Second, thanks to those who assumed good faith behind the recent edits made on this article. We are new in this work and full of enthusiasm, but at the same time totally with the npov policy of this encyclopedia. That is why I was shocked when the copy of the npov policy was removed and it was supposed to aid any rational objective discussion on this controversial article. The actual policy says that: (1) there should be no equal validity and space to all viewpoints, (2) experts's view determine space and importance but (3)at the same time criticisms have to be written and researched on. Some work on #3 was done since Marax's assessment (see above): that is why I can't understand why there is still an impression that the cult section was removed when in fact is the single longest paragraph (in terms of number of lines) in the whole article. I suppose Samuel's removal of other subheadings (mass of words) solved that misimpression. But I do intend to help researching on the criticisms. 
Third, am happy to see everyone's concern for producing the best article on this topic based on npov, a concern which I hope also refers to the npov policy that the article has to be based on what the experts have to say, and not what the media or popular opinion, or our own biases tell us. The npov policy says that the "trick" is to research on what the experts say then cite these. This is what this article has been doing, but going through the usual learning curve of beginners. 
Fourth, I will write some more comments later on what the experts have to say, some other comments made here (e.g. transfer of quotes), etc. Lafem 13:01, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Thanks

message: 1. As regards the Escriva quotes, I'd go for the point raised by Samuel Howard: JE=OD as Margaret Thatcher=Thatcherism, with all due respect to those who think otherwise. The OD organization sees him and his words as the embodiment of its culture. In theology, his words are supposed to show the "charism" of the institution he founded. Just to prove this, the Church officials used Escriva’s own writings and rulebook for the Vatican's Particular Law Concerning Opus Dei. 
Also,his words can add literary spice to an otherwise boring article. His basic writing technique is the "aphorism," short sentences which describe what he wants to explain. Lastly but very importantly, those aphorisms do give very important intellectual insights into the organization itself, its environment, style, culture. 
That's why if the concern is about un-attributed sentences, then I will add the citations for them. If the concern is npov, then the explanation is this: Escriva is the basic expert about Opus Dei; if what he says is corroborated by other experts, then his words are totally in line with the npov policy of this encylopedia. If the concern is that some of these do not explain anything, then I'd strike those sentences out, if there is proof that they are meaningless. If there is any objection to this way of proceeding, please say it here.  
2. Changes made on the teachings section.
The main argument raised is that the teaching section contained an interpretation of Christianity with lengthy doctrinal statements, rather than a discussion on what  Opus Dei is all about. 
This is how I would explain this matter (which Samuel somehow defended through the je=od equation.) My explanation: The mission of Opus Dei is precisely to remind ALL Christians about the universal call to holiness.  Thus, (a) it's main message and the bulk of its system is directed towards explaining that Christianity itself has the internal mechanism to make this happen for those living in the secular sphere thus the discussion on the seven main features of the teachings (b) Here I'd differ with Samuel: since these teachings are supposedly for all Christians, we will have to bring back the word "Christian" in that section, a word which was replaced by "members", if we want to be factually accurate with the existing information about Opus Dei, (c) I'd also bring back the paragraph on divine filiation, because Escriva and all those who have studied OD say that this is the "foundation" of the OD teaching on Christianity. For analysts, they consider it some sort of hermeneutical key to understand OD. 
The main problem I think behind the complaints about this article, from what I've seen so far, is what Samuel called reverential titles and pious locutions. This problem, which is a problem of "tone" and titling, is a big bulk of the neutrality issue.  
So with everyone's permission, I'd try to rewrite parts of the teachings section with a more neutral tone, and get some citations from experts on the relationship of Opus Dei and Christian or Church teaching. Kindly correct the tone if it gets too one-sided. Lafem 04:06, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think NPOV is, in the end, attainable here. Sources are always helpful. There is still a question in my mind on how to make this more accessible to ordinary readers - our entirely lay audience. For example, 'doctrinal formation' is a technical term. Charles Matthews 07:16, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: JE=OD=Christianity for people in the world 

message: I've reverted, I was going to try to roll back some of these things individually, but it was giving me a headache.  Why all the rearrangement?  Also, the attempted NPOVing resulted in some very odd suggestions that historical facts which could be considered favorable were now suggested to be "just the opinion of historians".  We don't write "historians say that the Battle of Gettysburg was fought in 1863".  The history of an organization (except for an organization that no longer exists) is less important than it's mission and ideas.  The way the article was rearranged deprecated the nature of the organization in favor of its history.--Samuel J. Howard 20:24, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
I'm going to change the template to NPOV disputed, I don't think there are signigant factual disputes.  If there are it can be put back.--Samuel J. Howard 20:26, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
*Ok, Samuel, thanks for changing template to npov disputed. 
You are right that the phrase "historians say" is quite awkward. I didn't put it in the original but out of fear that papragraph will be seen again as pov, I placed it there. 
As regards the rearrangement, please try to understand it, by re-reading it without the phrase "historians say". The history portion is deliberately very short, just the foundational portion which throws some light on the very nature of the the organization: based on a calling, divinely inspired, grounded on human collaboration and prayer, it started in space and time ("incarnate Christianity", like the phrase "he died under pontius pilate" in the creed), it is personal and not abstract. 
From there the discussion on the mission as confirmed by the Pope flows in. Also the Pope officially confirms its divine character. An important connection so that Escriva does not come out alone giving self-testimony. 
From the mission (catechetical and formative), the teachings flow in, then the criticism on its mission and teachings. 
Please take time to "soak it in" as you said. And I ask you to revert it back with the changes that you think are necessary. I find the research on the criticisms important for npov status. I was just trying to copy the pattern you set by making the criticism come out clearly as sub-headings. Thanks. Lafem 02:17, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverted

message: I think it will be good to insert criticisms on Opus Dei's mission and teachings. The step by step flow proposed seems logical enough. Origins manifest nature: dogs produce puppies. I think, though, that the proposed quote is too long. Just cut some portions in the middle and it will be alright. Marax 10:13, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree to putting in the foundational account with the mission. By doing this we can also cut the long section on Summary of Opus Dei's Teachings. Mission is not a teaching anyway. Teaching follows mission. R Davidson 08:52, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Insert criticisms

message: Am not favor of putting the criticisms ala hutchinson and walsh--OD as org lusting for power and money. That's trash, from tabloids. It's like putting Osama's discourses on the article regarding American democracy. Jimbo Wales wrote that we should not quote non-credible or dubious sources as part of NPOV policy. Da Vinci code section should be enough to take care of this angle. I'm ok with Hans Ur criticism section on JE teachings. It's an intellectually satisfying discussion. As regards, nature issue, just remember the four causes in philo: final cause (mission), formal cause, material cause and efficient cause (origins). R Davidson 07:37, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: No to dubious sources

message: ok,  ok, understood. It’s pretty long.  How about this?
:The Work was born to help those Christians who…form part of the very texture of civil society to understand that their life…is a way of holiness and apostolate…The one and only mission of Opus Dei is the spreading of this message which comes from the Gospel…
:And to those who grasp this ideal of holiness, the Work offers the spiritual assistance and the doctrinal, ascetical and apostolic training which they need to put it into practice….
I've also found this quote from the Statutes to make the "double purpose" of opus dei given by the vatican more precise. It will be the vatican "confirmation" of the the twofold goal seen in the escriva quote:
1) to sanctify its own faithful by means of the exercise of the Christian virtues, each one in their own state, profession and condition of life, in accord with Opus Dei’s spirituality which is totally secular.  
2) to bring about that persons from all walks of life in civil society (first of all, those in the intellectual professions)  may adhere wholeheartedly to the teachings  of  Christ the Lord, and that they may put into practice these teachings in the middle of the world, by sanctifying their professional work, so that all things will be put in order according to the Will of the Creator; and to form men and women to do apostolate in civil society. (Statutes of the Prelature of the Holy Cross and Opus Dei; Codex iuris particularis Operis Dei, 2.1 and 2.2; See Fuenmayor 1994, p. 610-611) 
This latter one is also long but if we are to produce a serious encyclopedia article these official sources, especially on something as core as the vatican stated mission should be quoted as is. ok, samuel what do you think?  Lafem 02:55, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: shorter quote

message: Quote
"Falangists, Franco's political organization"
Falange was not Franco's political party by any means. He absorbed it into his political structure after the war, and they eventually had internal breakdowns and the like. It's very weird that considering the usual levelof Wikipedia's historical articles, those related to the Spanish Civil war almost always contain grave mistakes.
Interesting article, anyway.
PS: My first contribution to a Wikipedia discussion :)
* "After Franco seized power, he united Falange with the Carlist Monarchist Comunión Tradicionalista, forming Falange Española Tradicionalista de las JONS (FET de las JONS)." If you look at it from this POV (from the Falange-Article), it was his party after all (as he was dictator of the whole of Spain only after the civil war) --SoWhy 14:47, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Falange was NOT Franco's political party 

message: I would suggest the removal of the section regarding The DaVinci Code as mostly irrelevant to the purpose of portraying Opus Dei and as more accurate belonging with a discussion of the book itself. Its being a work of fiction means that any and all claims and allegations included within are made to further the plot of the novel, not as a form of attack or commentary on any organization.
A mention of the reference and responses thereto are appropriate, but any further indepth discussion ought to take place on the page for the novel itself, where claims of its veracity can be placed into proper context.
--Agamemnon2 13:59, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  That section does not belong here.  --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:13, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think an earlier, concise version of this section should be reinstated. It was amplified for no particularly good purpose. Charles Matthews 18:55, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The irrelevance of The DaVinci Code 

message: To the person who wrote, "The fact that no fewer than 12 of the 19 ministers in Franco's 1969 cabinet belonged to Opus Dei is evidence of the organization's penetration into the highest echelons of Spain's Fascist regime" kindly cite your sources, so the statement can be checked.  Your statement is presently contradicted by the research done by Vittorio Messori, an independent investigator. His conclusion is that the ministers who were members of OD all in all never went beyond 8 throughout Franco’s regime. So to have 16 at a given moment does not jive with this datum. R Davidson 11:13, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Please cite your sources

message: I am toying around with the idea of creating other articles to reduce the size of this one (now at 65 kb). I will need help though in choosing the right titles, choosing the right sections for the mini-articles, while leaving behind a short discussion on it. 
Possible sections to transfer and reduce:
1) Allegations of far-right links (this is very long) New Article Title could be: Opus Dei and Allegations of Far-right Links
2) Canonization of the founder. This might have to go to the Escriva Article. 
3) Timeline of Opus Dei's History (same title)
4) Allegations of cult status (this is also very long) New Article Title: Opus Dei and Allegations of Being a Cult)
Of course, people might also prefer to keep all of these sections as they presently are. R Davidson 04:10, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Article reduction; creation of other mini-articles

message: I fixed a few clunky bits and added a few obvious links to other Wiki pages because I was reading the document and just couldn't help myself.  The use of citations and links to other documents on this page is horribly inconsistent.
:Thanks to you from everyone who have been helping out here. Please continue trying to find more time to help edit it. R Davidson 09:32, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar clean-up 

message: After the encouraging comment of Samuel, I now also intend to transfer the Support of the Popes Section to a new article called Opus Dei and Catholic Church Leaders. I suppose this section is one of those parts which make people think that this is a propaganda piece of Opus Dei. I will leave behind shorter quotes in the Novelty of Doctrine Section. R Davidson 09:18, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Transfer of section on Support of Popes to remove "propaganda" flavor