Talk:Opus Dei/Archive 2007

Archive 2000

←

Archive 2005

Archive 2006

Archive 2007

Archive 2008

Archive 2009

Archive 2010

"Criticism and 'cult' allegations"

Alec has asked me on my talkpage for an opinion about the bullet points in the criticism section, "Criticism and 'cult' allegations," but I think I'll reply here. I dislike the way having bullets in that section, and nowhere else, separates out the criticism as being in a special category, distinct from the rest of the article. It should be in ordinary prose like everything else.
However, I have a larger question: should there be a criticism section at all? I'm sorry to be difficult, and I don't exactly know what alternative placement to suggest for the criticism, but take a look at this section of Wikipedia:Words to avoid: "Separating all the controversial aspects of a topic into a single section results in a very tortured form of writing, especially a back-and-forth dialogue between "proponents" and "opponents". It also creates a hierarchy of fact - the main passage is "true" and "undisputed", whereas the rest are "controversial" and therefore more likely to be false, an implication that may often be inappropriate. Since many of the topics in an encyclopedia will inevitably encounter controversy, editors should attempt to write in a manner that folds debates into the narrative rather than "distilling" them out into separate sections that ignore each other... In summary, controversy sections should not be used as a tool to marginalize criticism." It seems to me that especially the title of the next section has the effect of structurally marginalizing the criticism: ""Support and rebuttals". Seriously... I see people on this page opposing the use of the word "cult" in the heading of the criticism section—surely a less serious issue (given that the section is about "cult" accusations) than using a word like "rebuttals"? So, Alec, you've done a great job on this article, and I know this is a lot to ask, but if you're thinking FAC here... can you think of a way to "fold" the criticism into the narrative? Bishonen | talk 18:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC).

Well, this is an issue that comes up from time to time. The old mediator initially was concerned about this, but ultimately decided this sort of structure was required. As he totally non-bindingly said "'From reading through the article and debate again I would agree that a separate section would perhpas be more useful to the article (and that the use of response section is a good way of achieving this). I think my intial suggestion of trying to weave criticism in, whilst in theory is quite a nice idea, on reflection is a bit too difficult to achieve effectively in this article."

Here's my understanding of "Article Structures Which Imply A View". The way it's been explained to me, the reason that people sometimes suggest not having a criticism section is to ensure that one side doesn't get an advantage in a issue debate, with all the criticism being pulled out of the main narrative and relegated to exile in a post-scripted exile section. So, a structure like this would be bad:

1. All kinds of facts mixed with opinions from supporters
2. All kinds of facts mixed with opinions from supporters
3. All kinds of facts mixed with opinions from supporters
4. The opinions of critics.

That would be bad. It subtly implies that the supporters POV is factual, whereas the critics POV is not. It creates a 'hierarchy of fact' where the main body of the article is factual or supportive, but the criticism is sequestered off. That sort of section is bad.

In contrast, a slightly different structure, called a Response Section, is okay. (see here) Ours is entitled Responses to Opus Dei. In such a section, both major POVs are presented in a section, rather than just one-- rather than having one side or the other presented in the main body of the article. This looks like:

1. Introductory material unrelated to controversial
2. Responses to Section

• Major POV 1
• Major POV 2

This sort of section IS okay, because it's "equal" and doesn't create a hierarchy of fact with one POV being factual and the other POV being notfactual. The heart of Article Structures Which Imply a View is this: In summary, controversy sections should not be used as a tool to marginalize criticism.

The way I see it, the spirit of the recommendation is to not have an article structure which gives either POV an unfair advantage, but instead to have a level playing field. But nothing in that is to prevent presenting one side in a controversy and then another side in a controvery. Sometimes organized by POV is the just best way to do it. Just a quick glance over the Featured Articles list reveals that almost every controversial subject does do a "by POV" organization or other such controversy section(s): Boy Scouts of America membership controversies, GNU/Linux naming controversy, Cannabis rescheduling in the United States, Evolution.

In some cases, this being one of them, I can't even begin to fathom how you could make a good article that doesn't have a "critics say X" section and a "supporters say y" section. You could intersperse them, but it'd make each sides argument impossible to follow-- and in practice, with this article, such an approach has been utterly impossible to balance.

--Alecmconroy 18:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

As regards the words "rebuttals"-- yeah, that is a rather poor choice of the words-- "Support and replies to criticism" might be better. ---Alecmconroy 18:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I haven't weighed in on the "criticisms" issue yet because there are advantages and disadvantages to doing it either way (a discrete section vs. interwoven). While I find it almost physically painful to disagree with the esteemed Bishonen, I tend to view this particular issue in a different light. I think it would be better to keep the section seperate and make sure that criticisms and responses are carefully phrased and properly balanced. This should help keep the rest of the article cleanly focused on specific topics. Attempting to interweave criticisms throughout the article could lead to an argumentative tone in the presentation and make it difficult for the reader to follow. These are just my initial thoughts, and now I'm going to crawl into a hole and hide from Bishzilla. Please don't hurt me! Doc Tropics 19:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Almost physically painful? We'll see. Bishzilla 22:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC).

I would like to observe that the "rebuttals" section could certainly be worked into the overall article, even if the criticism section could not. I would also like to note that we have spin off articles for the criticisms, so this only needs to be a brief gloss, not detailed. Lastly, in our desire to be sourced, we need to be careful not to turn this encyclopedia into an advert for ODAN or any other webside with a "political" agenda. It would be a bit of a coup if ODAN could use Wikpidea to express its ideas, granting it a much higher readership than before. This would entail abuse of the encyclopedia, I think. Lostcaesar 22:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

PS, I made a prose version of the criticisms here — Lostcaesar 22:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry I forced Alec to rehash all that, from my ignorance of the mediation. While I think "folding" of criticism into the narrative desirable, I do see that it's probably impossible. But the criticism section is more problematic than it need be; I don't think it sufficiently "carefully phrased and properly balanced" yet. It needs to be considered in tandem with the pro section, and the phrasing needs to try to make up for the fact that the supporters get the last word, and get to "rebut" all the criticisms. They'll presumably have the last word —somebody has to—even after the seriously bad word "rebuttal" (=disproof, refutation, proof that something is false) is changed, as it surely must be. One point of imbalance is the quite literally hagiographic quotes in the pro section from John Paul II's statements on the occasion of Escrivá's canonisation. (There are no quotes in the criticism section.) Escrivá's canonisation is certainly an important fact, but it has already been given plenty of weight in the "History", "Doctrine" (via a cite), and "Historical responses to Opus Dei" sections. Is it really warranted in "Contemporary responses to Opus Dei" as well? Is the year 1982 claimed as the very breaking point, and overlap, between the historical and the contemporary..?

Lostcaesar, about keeping the criticism section short because there are already spin-off articles about it: I understand how you got that impression, but actually there aren't. It only looks like there are, from the list of no less than four putatively "main articles" at the head of the criticism section: Opposition to Opus Dei, Opus Dei and Catholic Church leaders, Opus Dei and civil leaders, Opus Dei: Responses to Cult Accusations. But I'm afraid the whole array melted in the sun when I clicked on it. Three out of the four of them are currently up for deletion (and properly so) as POV forks. And the fourth, Opposition to Opus Dei, is redirected to Controversies about Opus Dei, and is not anything like a neutral presentation of opposition; in fact, surprise, it's yet another "rebuttal" of such opposition. There is no remotely acceptable or neutral spin-off article presenting criticisms of Opus Dei. Even if there were, this central article, Opus Dei, is supposed to have a proper criticism section. That's the way NPOV works—not through forking. Bishonen | talk 02:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC).

Thanks, Bishonen, for chiming in here. Hello again! :) I agree with you that it is preferable to fold the disputes into the narrative. And IMHO, it is not impossible.

In relation to providing equal treatment to two major POVs or avoiding a hierarchy of fact, I would like to know how this can be reconciled with "undue weight" as expressed here at Wikipedia's explanation of giving equal validity: Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth.

I still think that Wisden17, our mediator, was speaking with objectivity when he said that the "body of evidence" is strong enough to assume the existence of a majority view. John Allen, Jr., CNN's Vatican analyst, did empirical research. Reed Business Information said the following on his book on Opus Dei: "Allen's balanced, even reporting sometimes borders on the clinical." Introvigne, a social scientist who wrote in twelve scientific journals, commented that the analysis of the anti-cult group is "of very poor scientific quality." I think giving equal validity to the two views gives undue weight to a pseudo-scientific theory.

As I said at mediation, the issues in dispute with regard to Opus Dei are empirical, sociological issues: wealth, power, amount of demands and freedom, political stance, secrecy. These are not matters of faith, where there can be no expertise, but observable and measurable items.

I'd truly appreciate hearing people's comment on this issue, especially on the proportionate prominence and reliability of sources such as Allen, Introvigne, and Messori. I think we will not be doing Wikipedia a favor, if we treat the latest, and best researched work on Opus Dei at the same level as ODAN or Rickross. I support what User:Dominick and User:Lostcaesar are doing in questioning these latter sources. Thanks! Thomas 07:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Just remember-- we don't ever cite Rick Ross, not as of this moment. We cite new stories and provide a link to a mirror on rickross. Big diff. --Alecmconroy 11:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Bish-- thank you so much for diving in and looking over all of this. Let me reinterate Doc's sentiment that we're all a little starstruck to see ya here "in person" as it were-- I'm used to just watching you from the peanut gallery of the Arbitration Committeee. Anyway, I'm not totally clear how you think we fix the page? should some of the hagiographic quotes be pulled? Should the brief bullet points be transformed into full length prose? I'll try some things and show them to you, doc, and other and see what ya'll thing. --Alecmconroy 12:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I took the somewhat bold step of restructuring the bullets into prose, and renaming the section "controversy", to step away from the back and forth nature previously used. In time we can work the other sections more seamlessly into the article. Also, we might want to go over those spin off pages, if they are so poor, and include their content here, deleting them as needed. Lostcaesar 14:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Did you mean to delete the entire "replies to criticism" section? --Alecmconroy 14:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

No I already patched that back in, sorry. Lostcaesar 14:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Alec, I notice you changed by prose, and in the edit summary said that "if we're give a prose version a shot, we can't just collapse the bullet points, have to make it less dense". But what it seems you did mostly was to add more criticisms, or to add more details to those criticisms. I just wanted to inquire about this. Are you condensing information from the other pages? Lostcaesar 15:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I think so, although four controversy pages are such a shambles it's sometimes hard to be sure-- they're basically an almanac where either side can interject any criticism they want, with no real summary or integration between them. If you think this page is too much of an ODAN/OD brochure, check out the controversies article, where whole sections appear to be just copied verbatim from odan, along with gobs more rebuttals copied directly from supporters.

Basically I'm trying to turn bullet points into paragraphs to avoid the "schizophrenic effect" where we have one paragraph that changes topics every sentence. In doing this, i'm trying to not add NEW issues at all-- i.e. I'm not just willy-nilly adding bullet points. Instead trying to find just one or two explanatory sentences about each criticism, so that the prose doesn't jump around. The downside of this, which I can already hear the OD member hear objecting to, is that even though it may make the same basic points, it will visually appear larger than the bullet points did.

Maybe once i've made the full prose section, if the celebrities (Bish,Doc, et al) think it needed, we could add more supporting/rebuttal material. --Alecmconroy 16:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

"Star-struck"? Heh, is that the famous love-bombing? :-) Yes, I think the canonization statements by John Paul II should be removed from the response section. Or, at least, from the "historical" response section—my big point was that it's a bit absurd to have it in both places (and it's not like it hasn't also been mentioned before).

I too have made a prose version of the criticism section, here. It turns out to be a good deal like yours, Alec; in fact I guess mine might have been more to the purpose if I'd gotten round to posting it a bit sooner. Anyway, feel free to mine it for any details that might be of use. A minor matter, btw, Alec and Lostcaesar: you both use the word "claims" in your redactions of the criticism section. That's a bit of a weaselly word, please see Wikipedia:Words to avoid. Bishonen | talk 21:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC).

I believe I solved some of these difficulties, move at least some of the back-and-forth material into proper integration into the article, and moving the papal comments to their own section. Lostcaesar 21:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I crawled through "Criticisms" and briefly rewrote a few things to reduce redundancies like "Critics claim...", and improve the flow a bit. "Criticisms" and "Replies" seem relatively well-balanced right now, with perhaps a little extra in "Replies" that's not 100% relevant. Also, I would like to reorganize "Replies" so that responses to criticism are at the top; this will improve overall flow as well. Doc Tropics 21:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I think, now that I have filtered out some material, that we might be able to conflate the criticisms and the responces into one, "controversy" section. Lostcaesar 21:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm new to this article. Sorry for being so naive. But....

The criticism, that Raynlawyer just tried to straighten out, bothers me. It's not enough that the accused says that a) Hitler was a great guy. I think we can agree that, if Escriva said that, most of us would disagree with Escriva's logic, or lack of same.

However, Escriva also supposedly says something that is Politically Incorrect: that b) the exact quantity of Jews Hitler (the Nazis) murdered is 33% less than is currently accepted today. By the way, the original figure was eight million. I can't trace the claim historically, but it would be interesting to see when six million and not eight million became to be generally accepted. I can remember William Buckley publically doubting the eight million figure. I think that was in the 1970s.

Somehow the two together are not very convincing to me. Had the critic stuck with statement a) he might be believable. Sandwiching in statement b) seems unecessarily redundant.

I assume the critic is claiming that Escriva was anti-Semitic. Is that it for evidence? One sentence said one time in front of one person? And a rather odd sentence. Was his logic and sentence structure often that fractured and off the cuff?

If someone can trace out when it became possible, without fear of being labeled anti-Semitic, to claim that six and not eight million Jews were murdered, that might lay the critic's claim to rest. If it was after 1975, then the critic's memory of what was said was incorrect. Having said that, I would assume that someone has already thought of that a long time ago!

As I said earlier - late to this dispute! Student7 03:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Student-- yes, I agree that the alleged Hitler praise isn't very convincing. Even if he did say the things in question, it's a hard stretch to say that this actually says anything bad about Escriva. If we imagine someone in 2007 saying such things, it might be logical for us to conclude the speaker was anti-semetic. But for someone speaking in the 1940s-1970s, such statements might just mean the speaker was ill-informed. Whole nations believed Hitler was a good guy, whole nations were skeptical of the holocaust initially-- if Escriva was one of them, that just means he was uninformed, human, and fallible like the rest of us-- it doesn't make him evil.

But, it's not up to me to personally weigh the evidence and decide what I find convincing and not. The hitler allegations are notable enough that it's been discussed in the mainstream media (Newsweek, Intl Herald tribune, others), so, we can't delete it even if we personally find it to be uncompelling. What we can do, however, is insert more rebuttals if we can find them into the Controversies about Opus Dei article.

Inserting more rebuttals in to the controversies article is still a work in progress, because while there are lots of things _I_ could as rebuttals, that'd be original research. The only sourced rebutal I've found is basically an outright denial that Escriva ever said such things. Ideally, we'd also find a quote or two explaining some of the points you raised and that I raised-- namely-- that even if he did say those things, that hardly means he was a bad person. So far, I haven't been able to find anyone making that argument, which is odd since I find it so compelling. If anyone knows of any media source that says as much, give me a heads-up so I can put it into the controversy page. If not, I haven't given up yet-- I'll just have to order more books. :)

--Alecmconroy 14:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. You are right, of course.

I'm sure it says it elsewhere in this commentary that the Opus Dei criticism section is far too long. I think most of it, with a proper one or two lines after "see Opus Dei criticism" should be moved out to that section, including the rebuttal(s).

Just looked at the Democratic Party (United States). Are you surprised to learn that there are only two lines about Clinton's impeachment trial there? I think that is as it should be. Ad hominem attacks against Escriva should be in an article about HIM or in a separate article of criticism about HIM. Unless it is fundamental to criticism of Opus Dei, which it doesn't seem to be. I assume that Opus Dei has sinners in it like every other organization in the world. That is hardly "newsworthy" in itself nor necessarily of encyclopedic value.

This is Opus Dei's "parade" and while critics should not be surpressed, they should not rain on this parade. They already have a venue elsewhere. There are (and should be) good links to the criticism section.

I have to admit that the Democratic Party article seemes a bit too puffy. But even allowing for the usual political hype, comparing it with the article on Opus Dei brings into clearer focus the necessity of letting the subject of the article (and it's supporters) explain itself as accurately as possible. There is ample room elsewhere for raw criticism. Student7 15:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Separating out the critical aspects of Opus Dei and putting them elsewhere would violate NPOV. See Wikipedia:POV fork. --Alecmconroy 02:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Accusations as myths in intro

I reintroduced "and they state that these accusations are mere myths." This my edit stresses my point: without this, it's as if the Popes support a cultic secret society and lede is supposed to contain a summary of section "Replies to Criticism." One editor claims my edit is "incongrous-sounding" and "weakens" the Pope's statements. ???? Enlighten me por favor. Walter Ching 11:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I made several edits to the introduction. First, I removed the "mere myths" language in favor of the phrase "greatly exaggerated." "Mere myths" suggests that there is no substance to these charges, but the citations provided do not go that far. For example, John Allen's book -- even though it contains "myths" in its title -- does not say that there is absolutely no substance to the claim that Opus Dei is secretive. Rather, Allen concludes that these accusations are based on misunderstandings or serious exaggerations. Second, I removed the portions of the paragraph that suggest that criticism of Opus Dei is limited to "secularists" and supporters of liberation theology. This statement runs counter to the rest of the article itself and is non-neutral in its POV. The article points to numerous sources of criticism within the Church, including by those who would not consider themselves "secularists" or devotees of liberation theology. I hardly think it is objective to suggest that criticism of Opus Dei comes only from the non-devout or from the far-left fringes of the Church.

Pjb dinky 22:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)Pjb_dinky

Re mere myths and secrecy: Allen said (see below):"I’m not sure that today, you can make an argument that Opus Dei is secretive in the sense that people normally mean it. One needs to distinguish between some Opus Dei members and Opus Dei corporate policy...At the level you would use to identify secret societies in the world, I just don’t think Opus Dei rates. Their offices, their headquarters are a matter of public record — the information office puts out information about budgets and membership and all that kind of stuff. So I wouldn’t say it was secretive...And their logic for that is, again, secularity. They don’t want to be a religious community and they don’t want to run specifically religious enterprises — they want to run secular enterprises that have a Christian spirit. Therefore they don’t want to be distinct from the rest of the world. That’s one reason why they don’t wear habits."

Re highly controlling: Allen said: : "The vast majority of members I met seemed healthy, well-adjusted, intelligent, running their own lives, and posing no threat to themselves or to others. I never had the impression, however, that anyone was being subjected to this regime by coercion or 'mind control.' For the most part, members seem to experience this structure as liberating rather than confining, helping them become the kind of person they wish to be." He also reported on Opus Dei's policy of "delicate respect" for each person's freedom that Escrivá practised and preached.

Re cult: Allen: Sociologists of religion often say that "cult" is not an academic term, but a pejorative word for a religious group someone doesn't like. Hence it's difficult to answer this question with any precision. In common parlance, "cult" usually means a group whose members are under the sway of someone else, no longer thinking or acting for themselves. It often carries a note of potential danger, either to oneself or to others. (Think of the Aum Shinri Kyo cult in Japan that carried out the 1995 sarin gas attacks on the Tokyo subway). On the basis of my experience, all I can say is that I didn't meet anyone in Opus Dei who seemed to fit that profile. The vast majority of members I met seemed healthy, well-adjusted, intelligent, running their own lives, and posing no threat to themselves or to others. [1]

Re Catholics: yes, I rewrote the intro: some Catholics, especially liberals.Lafem 08:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Some Allen quotes that you elided: "Opus Dei's clear choice has been to survive, which means that over the years they have moderated—they're much more open today than they were 50 years ago." And "One needs to distinguish between some Opus Dei members and Opus Dei corporate policy. It is certainly true that you will find some people in Opus Dei today who practice a kind of excessive practice of what's traditionally been called discretion."

I could go on, but the thrust of Allen's book (and reiterated in his interviews and other writings), is that concerns about Opus Dei are based on exaggerations and misunderstandings. He doesn't say that these concerns are all simply baseless fables (although there were historically some allegations that he says did fit that category). It is more accurate to describe The Da Vinci Code type of distortions as "myths." But as I read Allen, whether Opus Dei is "secretive," on the other hand, is a question that depends on context and perception. He concludes that they are not secretive today in the sense that might ordinarily raise concern. But the very fact that he takes care to explain how he gets to that conclusion supports the fact that allegations of secrecy are not made up out of wholecloth.

As for the distinction between Opus Dei and its members, Allen also goes on to explain (in a part of the first interview that you did not quote) that while there may be no Opus Dei policy on certain points, the organizations actions -- legitimately undertaken, in his view -- may appear to the outside world as the product of a more broad policy. His example of the case of Ruth Kelly in the UK, and the reluctance of Opus Dei to confirm or deny her membership in the group, is instructive on that point.

In any event, I'm going to take another crack at editing the introduction. I don't understand the reappearance of the "liberation theology" and "secularists" language. As I commented earlier, that seems to be driven by POV. I hesitated to make any changes when I first read the article, because I saw from the talk page that it seems to be a source of constant bickering. But the portion of the introduction I edited was a particularly bad example of the kind of non-neutral discussion that has no place in a wikipedia article. I have no dog in this fight. I am not a member of Opus Dei, nor am I "out to get" the organization and its members, so I do not intend to get into a reversion war. If you are comfortable having the article look like a battleground for Opus Dei partisans rather than a neutral account of the organization, then feel free to reintroduce that language. --Pjb dinky 02:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)Pjb_dinky

Thank you, Pjbdinky.

Re liberation theology and secularist language: Please take a look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Opus_Dei#NPOV_and_Suppression_of_essential_backgrounders

Then please take a look at the backgrounders of the critics here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opus_Dei#Criticism

Please see my attempt at compromise. Thanks. Lafem 05:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

"One needs to distinguish between some Opus Dei members and Opus Dei corporate policy. It is certainly true that you will find some people in Opus Dei today who practice a kind of excessive practice of what's traditionally been called discretion." So what does this prove? It but proves accusations of secrecy against the Opus Dei corporate organization are false. Some errant members, some people to do not make the organization. Some pro-Hugo Chavez Americans do not make US of America pro-Hugo Chavez. "One needs to distinguish." Words of wisdom. Cheers! Pradeshkava 02:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Removed "exaggerations". Walter Ching 11:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Revision Suggestion

The line The depiction of Opus Dei in the 2006 Da Vinci Code movie was scaled back and significantly less ominous than its depiction in the novel. appears to be an opinion. I read the book and saw the movie and while I think they both make Opus Dei look pretty ominous, at least the book has a disclaimer. Brown also attempted to make Aringarosa innocent at the end of the book. In the film, both Aringarosa and Opus Dei are in on the murders. I am not a WikiProject Catholocism member. My mixed feelings and personal experieces regarding Opus Dei make it hard to be neuteral. Therefore I will leave it to project members to edit this line if they deem it necessary.nut-meg 06:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

So, you're saying that in your opinion, the film made Opus Dei look worse than the book did? --Alecmconroy 06:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

If participating in multiple homicides is worse than not participating in multiple homicides then yes, the movie makes Opus Dei look worse. But that's not the issue so much as the line in the article is an opnion and opinions are not NPOVnut-meg 00:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Back when I was trying to find sources for every sentence in the article, I tried to find sources that said point-blank "OD's role in the film was scaled back". The only thing that really came up was another Wikipedia article-- which is always a bad sign, but I left it in since I haven't read the book. If it was "completely obvious" to anyone who had both viewed the film and read the book, then I'd be okay with leaving that statement in without a source. But if we have someone such as yourself, who knows both the book and the film, who considers it not to be obvious (i.e. OR), then we should cut it. In the end, it's not that important for us to compare the book and film in this article. I'll make the change now. --Alecmconroy 05:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Article quality

Having come back to this article after some time away, I just wanted to say that the general tone and balance is very good, and much improved on the state of the article last year. It sets forth not only the undisputed facts of the matter but also the heavily diputed views of pro- and anti-Opus Dei proponents in extensive detail, and seems to be NPOV throughout. -- Karada 13:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I have the same thing to say about the current version (August 07), a remarquable piece of work, with all the balance needed and very informative. The big holes of dec. 06 have been filled. The old version (05-06) was too much filled with controversies (2 sides at each sentence) from beginning to end. Now there is a distinct descriptive section. Much better and encyclopaedic. I disagree with only one thing: an anecdote like the blessing of a statue by a pope (end of history section) has no place in an encyclopaedia. Louisar 17:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

BBC television - Waking the Dead

The article does not mention the current controversy surrounding the BBC television series Waking the Dead. There is a BBC news article about this at [2]. The matter is still developing, and it may be worth adding this when more is known.--Ianmacm 20:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, not really a surprise considering the proven anti-Christian bias of the BBC [3]. --Túrelio 20:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yup! How come this aint in article BBC? Important self-descriptions should be in encyclopedic article. Mustn't it? For that matter, impt self-descriptions of OD: spiritual direction, no political leanings, work for youth, social projects, secularity, freedom, divine filiation, etc etc. Or is secular dogmatism on the rise in Wiki? Ndss 07:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

How come this aint in article BBC? Probably because it was forked to Criticism of the BBC, an article that references the above mentioned Daily Mail-report three times.-- Túrelio 08:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Something proved by the Daily Mail? I can't write any more for laughter. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmh, was there anywhere written that the Daily Mail has proven that? No! My above remark said proven bias (that were my words) and then listed a reference. That reference reports that BBC's own executives have admitted such bias, and IMHO that's quite near proven. If it had been totally wrong, surely BBC would have forced Daily Mail to publish a rectification or counter statement.
Though it may be less funny, try reading Criticism of the BBC, [4] or [5]. Now, if you want to remove all Daily-Mail-based references from :en, good luck. Suggest to start with ref 49 in Ruth Kelly. -- Túrelio 16:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

One must remember that the organization that is Opus-dei is completely voluntary. One is not rquired to inflict pain upon oneselsf by means or corporal mortification. SO what is with all of the questions and discussion of how people think it is not thr right thing to do. Nathan Melo (16:44, 15 February 2007)

Article History

I took my best shot at compiling the various Featured/Good article nominations into the {{ArticleHistory}} template at the top of this page. This article has a very complex history, so if I missed anything, please accept my apologies, and either go ahead and add it in, or list the date and link here, and I'll go ahead and update the info. Thanks, Elonka 02:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

As a followup, I've added some article IDs to the history, so that you can click on the date to see the version of the article from that time. In some case, I'll freely admit that I wasn't enirely certain which version of an article from that 24-hour period to use, so I made my best guess. If anyone knows of a more precise ID to use, feel free to change the oldid in the template, or give me a diff here, and I'll fix it for you. Best, Elonka 01:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Beautiful, Elonka. Thank you. :-) Walter Ching 10:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This may just be me

I'm fairly new to the community, so I may not know all of the ins and outs yet, but why is there a "citation needed" marker after cite 100? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Capt.Frigate (talk • contribs) 03:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

You are right. Everything said in that sentence can be found easily in ref 100. I will remove that cite tag. -- Túrelio 08:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Opus Dei and Catholic Church leaders

There are two sections in this Opus Dei article that does not have its own main article: Structure and Papal Support.

Someone redirected the article titled Opus Dei and Catholic Church leaders, an article that fits perfectly into Papal Support, and has high notability. As per our discussion, Badlydrawnjeff and I believe the article can stand on its own. May I ask an Admin to help bring back the article to its previous state? Thank you for whatever help you can give. Lafem 02:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I put my personal considerations on it - ex-OD member: Marcos (Brazil)

Sorry folks, but as a ex-OD member (18 years, since I was 15 yo(!)) I had to put some "real life" commentaries inside the article (you will find it there and perhaps hate me - but it is a kind of rebellion). It is so "official", I can smell it. To be frank, after 7 years avoiding the theme, I think that is time to make things clear. Folks, try to understand the other side (of thousands of ex-members)accessing www.odan.org, www.opuslibros.org, www.opuslivre.org. And sorry for my poor English. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 189.140.34.90 (talk) 07:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

Sorry Marcos, but Wikipedia is not a place for personal experiences, whether bad or good ones. Therefore, I had to revert your personal remarks in the article; please read WP:RS and WP:VERIFY or pt:Wikipedia:Verificabilidade. By the way, this article has undergone a mayor rewrite by end of 2006 mainly by a highly critical and literate wikipedian. -- Túrelio 08:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Turelio: Here should be a place for imparcial opinions and not an unofficial site of Opus Dei - Marcos (Brazil)

You seen to be very "professional" but professionality should include being imparcial and including not only commentaries of people who say OD criticisms are myths but perhaps go deeper and show those criticisms. It is funny! I don´t have time as you from OD to keep this site an unofficial OD site.rsrs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.178.9.240 (talk) 19:25, 18 April 2007

more criticisms in this encyclopedia about oD than United States who has plenty enemies, MORE CRITICISM than Democratic Party or Republican Party very controversial subjects, isn't it. No Opus Dei writer cited save Peter Berglar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.37.189.199 (talk) 18:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Preferred version

I prefer this version: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Opus_Dei&direction=prev&oldid=90391850

In fact it had 798 words of criticisms. Cabanes 02:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Controversy section

Istead of dividing this section into criticism and responses to criticism, why not divide it by topic (e.g. secrecy, women, historical relationship with Franco/Hitler/whoever, etc.). As it is now, it is hard to read. Trying to match up the correponding parts of the two subsections is tiring. Savidan 05:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

When the controversy section was topically organized, it kept growing to enormous lengths as partisans in each side inserted more and more information into each paragraph. Eventually, there would be five, six, even ten sentences of support for every sentence of criticism-- making the criticism diluted and buried within a monolithlic block of praise.

Organizing the controversy by side, rather than by topic, makes it much easier to maintain balance by ensuring that each side will have a place to "make their case"" without being interrupted or "shouted out" by the other side. --Alecmconroy 08:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't deny that its an easier way to maintain the balance; I'm merely pointing out that its not (by far) the best way to organize this information. If there are those with aspirations to move this article toward FA status, this material will have to be organized in a sensible manner first. It will likely be difficult, but I think ultimately possible to figure out what the main areas of controversy are (i.e. those that need to be mentioned in this article) and what areas are relatively unimportant (i.e. those that can safely be relegated to the subarticle). Once the main areas are chosen, it's a simple matter to include a fair and balanced description of the controversy, which doesn't necessarily have to take the form of one sentence written by each group of partisans. Remember that there are more than two points of view on some of these issues, and that it should be possible to write about them from a detached perspective. Savidan 17:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I basically agree with everything you said. If I were a sole author, there's no way I would do the tortuous "he-said, she-said" style employed here. I know how to fix it if I'm the sole author, but I don't know how to fix it in a collaborative environment. You're a respected experienced-type who'd likedly be seen as a trusted broker by everyone here-- if you wanted to take a stab at integrating the two controversy sections, I'd defintely support your efforts. --Alecmconroy 02:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Whatever steps are taken should remember the article's basic problem-- giving equal validity to statements coming from obviously biased sources (Tammy DiNicola, ex-member, and Fr. James Martin, a Jesuit) as against statements proceeding from professional journalists such as CNN's John Allen, Jr., Le Figaro's Patrice de Plunkett, and scholars like Vittorio Messori, Massimo Introvigne, John Paul II, etc. I am not saying the latter half do not have deficiencies. All I'm saying is-- weights and spaces cannot be equal. R Davidson 07:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Massimo Introvigne, sociologist

As a side note, it's not NPOV & Verifiable that Intovigne is a sociologist. He doesn't have any professional training in the discipline, no degrees in sociology, and hasn't been published in reputable journals of mainstream sociology. He's been accused of academic fraud by members of mainstream psychology and sociology. At the same time, he does claim to be a sociologist, does produce writings he calls sociology, so I don't know that we can NPOV say he's NOT a sociologist either. Minor point, since that level of detail is inappropriate in the intro anyway--Alecmconroy 07:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

External links

Some external links I removed have been added back. I understand the desire to have balancing perspective - it's a goal we need to aim for. But the current links in the criticism section fall foul of our external links guidelines and I think our readers deserve better. Are there no better sites that can be used that would be more appropriate for an encyclopedia and useful to our readers than the current ones? -- SiobhanHansa 23:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

ODAN and Opus Libros are so notable that it's hard to imagine not linking to them. Those guys were on the news every other day when the Da Vinci Code madness hit last year. The Mond site, on the other hand, I think could be replaced with something better if anyone knows of one. --Alecmconroy 00:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Error of Alberto Moncada on Paul VI

I removed Alberto Moncada's erroneous statement that Paul VI "blocked Escrivá's petition to transform Opus Dei´s canonical designation from a Secular Institute to a prelature." [6]

John Paul II himself contradicts Moncada: "Therefore, in 1969, Our Predecessor Paul VI, of beloved memory, graciously accepting the petition of the Servant of God Josemaria Escriva de Balaguer, authorized him to convoke a special General Congress to begin, under his guidance, the study necessary for a transformation of Opus Dei, in keeping with its nature and the norms of the Second Vatican Counsel." [7]

O'Connor also reported: "Shortly afterwards, in Pope Paul VI's reorganisation of the Roman Curia in 1967 (Apostolic Constitution Regimini Ecclesiae Universae), personal prelatures were placed under the competence of the Congregation of Bishops. This added further to the advisability of seeking a personal prelature as the definitive juridical structure for Opus Dei... After obtaining the Holy See's permission, Monsignor Escrivá convoked a general congress of Opus Dei for September 1969. In his capacity of Secretary-General of Opus Dei, Fr Alvaro del Portillo reported to Cardinal Antoniutti, in a letter dated 23 March 1971, and two years later it was Monsignor Escrivá himself who had the joy, in a personal audience, of informing Pope Paul VI of the progress of the congress. The Holy Father encouraged him to proceed with the work, and in October 1974 Monsignor Escrivá put the final touches to the text and approved the Code of Law particular to Opus Dei." [8] Lafem (talk) 09:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)