Talk:Opus Dei/FAC nomination September 2005 with additions

message: :: This is not the Catholic Encyclopedia. When we write about the Roman Catholic Church, we do it from a neutral point of view and in a manner that is accessible to all readers.--Eloquence* 02:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Eloquence. Giano | talk 09:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Objections: Article sounds like Catholic Encyclopedia

message: I just need your help to resolving once and for all the basic issue raised by my friend R Davidson as regards neutrality. It's an issue which will continue to hound this article if it is not resolved. 
The basic issue is how this article is implementing the following NPOV policies:
::"We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a majority view. To give such undue weight to the lesser held view may be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties."
From Jimbo: 
::"If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts"
::If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents
From the NPOV tutorial:
::"Wikipedia should report all major points of views; however, it should do so in proportion to the credibility of the experts holding the various theses.
::One measure of a view's importance is the credibility of the experts who hold that view. What makes an expert credible? Some criteria include:
::* the reputation of the expert, the reputation of the tradition within which he or she works, the reputation of the group or institution for which the expert works
::* whether the expert uses the common methods of the field or completely different ones
::* whether the expert has or has not failed to respond to criticisms
::* whether the expert has reputable supporters of his or her claims
::* whether the expert's point of view belongs in a different article (e.g. evolution vs. creationism)
::In other words, an idea's popularity alone does not determine its importance." 
Right now the editors are one in saying that the majority position is held by the following credible experts: reputable investigative journalists who studied Opus Dei: (John Allen, V. Messori, Thierry, West), theologians and philosophers: (James V. Schall, Fuenmayor, Rodriguez, Ocariz, et al), Sociology of religion scholars: (atheist Bryan R. Wilson, protestant Dr. Kliever and Jenkins),  Catholic officials (John Paul II, Benedict XVI, JPI, bishops, etc.) ,St. Josemaria himself (JE=OD according to Samuel Howard and other scholars), and other Catholic leaders, and non-Catholic leaders (I intend to collect these as well in a separate sub-page).
According to the editors, the view of these experts and their credibility and expertise has an overwhelming and lopsided advantage over the other positions in terms of their view on Opus Dei, and thus most of their views are quoted or reported, giving what some people said is a "Catholic" tone  to the article, or a “Pope’s point of view,”  even if some of the sources are atheists or Protestants. 
Should the editors change their opinion on who has the expertise? Are there other experts on these subject who should be given the majority position? That's basically the question of my friend, Davidson. And we still do not have a clear answer.
I need your help to resolve this basic issue. Of course, we can also assume that "silence means consent." But I'd prefer a clearer "outside" opinion on this. 
:The experts should be followed. Wikipedia is not here to express original ideas. We're having problems with the Philippine related articles because there are too many opinions, and very few sources being cited.--Nino Gonzales 07:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional Response to NPOV Issue