Talk:Opus Dei

Lead issues: neutral summary

Reliable Sources

Wikipedia guidelines state that the lede has to be neutral: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Content

NPR and El Pais are biased sources, as seen from these articles:

• https://nypost.com/2017/10/21/the-other-half-of-america-that-the-liberal-media-doesnt-cover/ - the former CEO himself says NPR has liberal bias
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Pa%C3%ADs Wikipedia uses 4 sources to say that El Pais is center-left

Wikipedia itself says that "According to several journalists who have worked independently on Opus Dei, such as John L. Allen Jr.,[13] Vittorio Messori,[75] Patrice de Plunkett,[128] Maggy Whitehouse,[127] Noam Friedlander[124] many of the criticisms against Opus Dei are myths and unproven tales.[140][141][142]"

This lede has been the result of long work of consensus, as mentioned by other editors. Please discuss any changes to this critical part of the article. Marax (talk) 03:40, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

NPR is probably the most respected US media source whatsoever as it’s publicly funded (I have a German background so obviously NPR is very much respected in Europe) and El País might be good for anybody using the thing between his or her ears – so let’s say intellectuals – just stop bullshitting around here – don’t delete relevant information – Opus Dei is accused of being a “brainwashing” cult with a right-wing agenda – who else than liberal and left-wing sources are supposed to say that? So stop bullshitting and accept that NPOV means presenting relevant sources prominent in the article to create a neutral point of view. --CarlPhilippTrump.me (talk) 08:06, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Michael Waslh is very poor source compared to John Allen, Messori, Plunkett--and the Catholic Church, and governments around the world that do not hold Opus Dei a secret society because it has websites and its activities are out in the open. So who is bullshitting? Lafem (talk) 08:38, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

According to multiple authors it’s considered a „secret society“ – membership is mostly unknown and kept a secret to name the main characteristic of a secret society. --CarlPhilippTrump.me (talk) 09:23, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

These appear to be excellent sources, also bias does not generally effect reliability btw. I also don’t think you understand what a secret society is. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:38, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Obviously NPR is a RS. OP misunderstands policy. Feoffer (talk) 20:03, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• @Marax: what specific issues do you have in mind? When I look at [[1]] I see that NPR is generally reliable by consensus, did you check there before asking this question here? Also just FYI in general bias does not effect reliability, you appear to be mistaken both in your overall framework and in the granular details. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:48, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I made a mistake for I thought that NPR and El Pais were used to reference secret society, but they do not say this. The main reference for secret society used by CarlPhilippTrump is Walsh, and as Lafem pointed out, Walsh is an unreliable source. His work on Opus Dei was thoroughly debunked. Anyway, I have renamed the title and made sub-titles for this section to ensure clarity. The main point in this sub-section is that the idea of Opus Dei as a secret society and many other criticisms have been debunked by very reliable sources. Marax (talk) 02:29, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Please also take note that the reference is to an old NPR article of 2005 and it says "critics and some former members have accused the group of having cult-like practices and promoting a right-wing agenda." So it is not NPR declaring this, but it is only quoting "critics". This can't be the basis of a lede of an encyclopedic article. Marax (talk) 03:21, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Marax and Lafem: Note that as Walsh appears to be living so per WP:BLP statements like "His work on Opus Dei was thoroughly debunked.” need to be strongly supported by impeccable sources. Neither you or Lafem have done so... BLP violations are very serious, you need to correct this immediately or I will do it for you both. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:07, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

As I said, Walsh does not compare with John Allen, Messori, Plunkett. Check out the O'Connor's Opus Dei : an Open Book : a Reply to The Secret World of Opus Dei by Michael Walsh. Lafem (talk) 07:38, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

You said "thoroughly debunked” not “does not compare with” Either support or strike, no mention of debunking in that book btw. Also note that its google books category is “Secret societies” which undermines your argument that OD is not a secret society. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:41, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Read Allen's book, "widely regarded as the definitive book on Opus Dei". Lafem (talk) 03:18, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I don’t have time, what does it say about Walsh? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Regarding John Allen, it is important to know that he is a journalist in the mainstream media with tremendous prestige. He is a former reporter for the Boston Globe, is perhaps the most go-to religion commentator on CNN, and is widely praised for his knowledge and fairness. The John Allen book debunks thoroughly the points put forth in the Walsh book. Regarding secrecy, for example, John Allen's book has a whole chapter on this subject which pretty much debunks the accusation -- it makes clear that Opus Dei is not a secret society. For example, John Allen notes that he has spoken to hundreds of members of Opus Dei, and nobody was ever reluctant to say they were members of Opus Dei. He has also said that in his interviews for the book, all his questions were answered. I think it is clear, given all this, that the edits identifying Opus Dei as a secret society are simply not true, and, at best, represent an extreme POV. Lionmarble (talk) 14:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Disagreeing is not the same as debunking (and in any event we would need an independent third party to make that claim), if there are multiple notable opinions presented in reliable sources then we should also present multiple opinions. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:35, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

As mentioned, there are multiple independent third-party researches that have the same conclusion as Allen's: Messori (Italian), Plunkett (French), Friedlander and Whitehouse (both UK). If you read them, they debunk Walsh etc. NPOV proportion means these being the most reliable source have the biggest chunk of space in the article and in the lead. Your multiple opinions are found in the Controversy section and in other parts of the article. Lafem (talk) 00:45, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Who says they debunk Walsh etc? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:03, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

For example, Allen's conclusion: "there’s nothing inherently secretive about Opus Dei." "Opus Dei’s officers and the locations of its centers are matters of public record, its activities are registered under relevant civil laws, and its information offices will answer virtually any question one puts to them. The fact that they do not answer a limited number of questions—most prominently, who’s a member and who isn’t—makes Opus Dei secretive no more than Alcoholics Anonymous. Other groups in the Church, such as secular institutes, also have policies of discretion about membership." Lafem (talk) 03:36, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

That doesn’t work, you need a third party source to say that Allen debunked Walsh. Our job isn’t to present the “truth” its to present the range of notable opinions. I know you’re an WP:SPA and you have almost no experience outside of this space but this is highly abnormal and simply will not be tolerated. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:32, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia says of SPA: their comments be given full weight regardless of any tag placed on them. Your third-party is CBS (one of the Big Three) which testified that Allen's book is "widely considered the definitive book on Opus Dei.". Lafem (talk) 06:32, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I have not placed an SPA tag on your comments. Walsh isn’t mentioned in that article. Did you link the wrong one? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:06, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

The quote "widely considered the definitive book on Opus Dei" is found in that CBS article. Just do a search. Lafem (talk) 01:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

This third party source has nothing to say about Walsh, that sentence is clearly about Allen and Walsh is never even mentioned in the article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:11, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

But my logic was simple. If Allen's work is widely considered as the definitive book on Opus Dei according to a highly reliable third-party source, and Allen debunks Walsh's allegations, then it is right, as you said below, that we "use sources like Allen...for a long time." Again, I agree with you. Lafem (talk) 05:49, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

My logic was also simple, unless you can present a source that says that "Allen debunks Walsh's allegations” or something similar we can’t move forward with this. We aren’t allowed to do cross textual analysis like that, see WP:OR. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:55, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

But this talk page is about editing Opus Dei, not Walsh's book. And thanks for citing WP:OR because it actually says that "If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then—whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not—it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Wikipedia is not the place for original research." Given that Allen is widely considered definitive (by CBS et al) and his research is backed up by Messori, Plunkett, Friendlander, Whitehouse and many other observers, and even governments say Opus Dei is no secret society, then Opus Dei secret society has no place in this article. This conclusion should in fact lead us to remove all the other extreme minority views about Opus Dei in the Criticism section. Lafem (talk) 07:45, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Allen’s book was considered definitive in 2006, we can’t draw a conclusion larger than that from the source you have. The conclusions you are drawing are wild, nothing establishes those as "extreme minority views” although it does certainly reveal how strong your personal POV is. You don't have any WP:COI when it comes to OD right? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:16, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Nothing wild there, because almost all, if not all, of those criticism were pre-2006! Lafem (talk) 01:10, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

You’re trying to disqualify other sources because CBS called your source “definitive” yet made no comment on other sources, I know you don’t edit beyond OD much but that is in fact wild by wikipedia standards. You also do need to directly answer the COI question. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:20, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

What this controversial article needs more of, imo, are level-headed, fair-minded subject experts with an appreciation of nuance, rather than highly held or partisan opinion. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 07:52, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Thats true, but I assume that we will continue to use sources like Allen and Messori for a long time given the high quality of their work even if they hold strong partisan opinions. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:06, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Isn't it clear that, since there are reliable sources -- sources with excellent reputation and credentials -- that have asserted that Opus Dei is *not* a secret society, to present as fact in a Wikipedia article the contrary claim should be regarded not as a verified fact but, at best, as a POV? Lionmarble (talk) 20:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Horse Eye's Back and Lionmarble. But contrary to the point of Horse Eye's Back, Allen's work is not partisan opinion, but based on facts. Agenzia Giornalistica Italiana (AGI) described his book on Opus Dei as having an "empirical approach" and that his book is of "great historical and journalistic interest." Lafem (talk) 01:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Partisans tend to base their opinions on facts and are often very usable for our purposes, I don’t think its really possible to argue that someone so vehemently involved in the new evangelization is not a partisan when it comes to Catholic issues. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:14, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back: Why specifically do you say that John Allen is a partisan, vehemently involved in the new evangelization?

John Allen would be the first to insist that it is not his role to evangelize -- he is a journalist respected for his fairness. Somewhere -- if you want I can try to find it - Allen wrote a remarkable account about the evolution of his personal philosophy regarding fairness and journalism. As he recounts, years ago, he wrote a highly negative book on Pope Benedict XVI. A liberal Catholic magazine, Commonweal Magazine -- a publication also highly critical of Pope Benedict -- wrote a critical review of the book, saying the book was too hostile towards Benedict -- Benedict came out absolutely on the losing side of every single argument. Allen said he re-read his own book, reflected on it, and decided that the critical review was correct, and he decided to strive henceforth for objectivity and fairness in his reporting. Based on the reception his reporting has received since then, Allen has been highly successful in this objective. For years he wrote for the left-leaning Catholic publication "National Catholic Reporter", but he was so much respected that his reporting was widely read by people both on the left and the right. He was also frequently quoted as a knowledgeable source by journalists in the secular media -- he was among a handful of the most reliable go to independent sources most frequently quoted by the media. Horse Eye's Back, if you are skeptical about his knowledge and fairness, please, I encourage you not to reject his book for some a priori reasons, but to give his book a look. In it, you will find that he quotes at length sources on both sides of the contentious issues, trying to state their arguments fairly, something which is a hallmark of his reporting. Lionmarble (talk) 19:42, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

He is currently a fellow at Word on Fire, perhaps I misunderstand the mission of that organization? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:19, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

That is a reasonable question. I don't know what quite to make of it. Yes, you are certainly right that "Word on Fire" is a Catholic organization that seeks to evangelize the culture. What John Allen does there, under the umbrella of "Fellowship of Church and Media", is something I don't know. But my experience in following John Allen's work is that in his reporting he steers clear of advocacy and that he is well regarded for his journalism, including among journalists for major secular publications. For example, in 2015 he received the Religion Newswriters Association "Excellence in Religion Analysis Award". (The Religion Newswriters Association is the main professional association in the United States for journalists covering religion. It's members include journalists from the most respected outlets in the secular media, like the Associated Press, The New York Times, etc.) The Boston Globe, reviewing Allen's book on Pope Francis, opined, "Allen’s strengths are his long background knowledge, his wide range of contacts, and a perspicacity that produces measured judgments." Lionmarble (talk) 20:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Lede as summary of contents

As per Wikipedia guideline, the lede has to be a summary or overview of the contents, and clearly secret society and baby-kidnapping do not form a summary of this article and all the reliable sources on which it is based. Marax (talk) 02:29, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Why not? They both appear to be present in the article and daughter page Controversies about Opus Dei. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:07, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Summaries don't use details. Lafem (talk) 07:43, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Summaries require the use of details (every sentence does) but they have less granularity. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:41, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Secret society in lede??

To those who want to include 'secret society' in lede, what the best source(s) and best way to include that fact? Saying it "is" a secret society is a very high bar that would require multiple very good sources. Feoffer (talk) 05:24, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

No matter whether its “secret society” or not the first sentence of the lead needs to say what the organization is. Right now it says OD "is an institution of the Catholic Church which teaches that everyone is called to holiness and that ordinary life is a path to sanctity.” which is comically non-descriptive, we need better. We also need to reflect the controversy section and daughter page in the lead, currently its a white wash. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 07:59, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

It looks like for some time you've been trying to alert the project to the fact that this article could be improved. You have our attention. But it's not enough to complain that the existing text is problematic: How would you improve it? Be specific! Feoffer (talk) 08:17, 30 July 2021 (UTC) And obviously, edits are the most specific improvements of all! Feoffer (talk) 08:22, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I’d cut the puffery, just say “is a personal prelature of the Catholic Church.” and ditch the two sources attached to the first sentence now, they’re unnecessary and low quality. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 08:26, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good. Type it up, but call institution over prelature? We should define terms before we use them. Feoffer (talk) 08:27, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Opus Dei

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted (t · c) buidhe 02:56, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I have started this reassessment proposal not because I have any ill will towards the article as is, but because it has been 13 years since it passed its GA nom and thought it prudent for the community to reassess its state. My rationale for reassessment is as follows:

• It lacks enough depth discussing the highly publicized role it had in Franco's government, especially its war crimes and unique legal procedures
• The history section is quite short.
• The criticism section reads more like a "he-said/she-said" (MOS:WEASEL). While I can understand how this balance of statements would help preserve neutrality, I personally feel that dividing the criticism sections into supporters and opponents rather than topic-by-topic means that the reader will not be able to gain a coherent understanding of the controversies surrounding Opus. By this I mean that the current section just floods the reader with various opinions and perspectives, meaning there is an overall sense of conflict but no actual understanding. For example, if the section was divided into:
  • Secrecy
  • Membership rules
  • Recruitment practices
  • Sexual abuse
  • Collaboration with dictatorships
  • etc.

it would be much better.

• The members proposed for beatification part does not feel very relevant to the main article. I believe it should be linked within the history or spirituality sections.
• Not going to lie I think the organization of the article makes for immensely dense reading.
• The relations with catholic leaders should be in my opinion part of the history section. See point above.

Please do reply with your thoughts on the matter. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 16:26, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

• I have been looking at the past GA history of this article and wanted to add the following text by Geometry guy from Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Archive_33#Opus_Dei:

• Controversy sections are not a great idea at the best of times: when they are of the form "Criticism - Rebuttal" they are particularly unhelpful at achieving NPOV.
• WP:NPOV is, in my opinion, one of the most misunderstood of Wikipedia policies. I have said this here many times before: NPOV is not primarily achieved via a contest between pro- and anti- viewpoints, it is primarily achieved by writing and structuring the entire article from a neutral perspective.

While I dont necessarily agree with the first comment, I think their points are important to consider in this discussion.A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 16:58, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• Another important point I forgot to mention is the COI of major contributors to the article, especially Marax (15% authorship, second biggest), Lafem (7.2% authorship, 3rd biggest), Walter Ching (5.5% authorship, 4th biggest), Arturo Cruz (3.3% authorship, 6th biggest), StatutesMan (2.7%, 9th biggest), and so on. Just these examples alone (definitely not all the COI or possible WP:Sockpuppet edits) account for over a third of all authorship to the article.

In regards to account just for text-added percentage, Thomas S. Major, IP 1, IP 2 plus the users mentioned above account for 62.3% of added text.

This is positively insane. I have never seen such a massive COI situation. I honestly don't even know what to do. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 17:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I feel your frustration A.C. Santacruz... If I may paraphrase my thoughts when I first looked into the situation “F*cking hell thats a lot of COI.” Like you my conclusion is I honestly don't even know what to do. I personally don’t have the time to rewrite this clusterf*ck of a page and I’m genuinely concerned that I may have inadvertently killed Lafem by taking them to task so taking the rest to task is not high on my to do list. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:34, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• • Question What is the basis of the conflict if interest? Are these editors known members of Opus Dei? –Zfish118^⋉talk 19:03, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Zfish118 Some are (members of Parents for Education) while others' only editing activity is within Opus Dei-related articles.A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 19:30, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

These COI seem minor at worst, especially if the content is otherwise acceptable. From a GAR perspective, however, I agree the article is not really there as noted below. –Zfish118^⋉talk 14:57, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

@Zfish118: A._C._Santacruz linked the wrong group, its actually Parents for Education Foundation so there is a very real and significant COI issue here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 12:11, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• Delist: I agree with most of the issues previously stated about the article, particularly that controversy section should be arranged by topic, rather than defenders and detractors. Without substantial revisions to this section, the article cannot stay listed as GAR. Procedure wise, I don't see any substantial edits between the article being delisted in December 2007, and being relisted four months later in March 2008. If nothing improved after delisting, relisting would have been inappropriate. However the December 2007 decision appears to have been closed early before a consensus was reach, making it easy to challenge and reinstate. Other issues of concern I see: the list of members proposed for beatification should be limited to those where a case was formally opened by relevant bishop, and the list should include the date the case was opened and by whom. Otherwise it should be renamed as notable members, as many have an article (whether those articles are appropriate, I have not assessed). A list of canonized and beatified members would be appropriate as well, as it is a Catholic organization. The "Relations with Catholic leaders" section reads like a list of endorsements, with little substance. The history section is also weak, and redundant to the above list of proposed beauti. One notable issue is the claim that members were responsible for "babynapping". Such a serious accusation needs multiple citations and better explanation of relevance. –Zfish118^⋉talk 14:57, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Introvigne - not spam but scholar

Feoffer, your revert of Introvigne was unfounded. Introvigne is not spam, but a scholar. See these references:

https://www.encyclopedia.com/science/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/center-studies-new-religionscesnur

https://euasu.org/academicians/massimo-introvigne-39

Jesuitsj (talk) 10:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Introvigne and his website fail to qualify as a WP:RS, per many many discussions. Users tied to Introvigne have been spamming his opinions into wikipedia for over a decade -- that's why the page has a COI warning at the top. Feoffer (talk) 18:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Those many discussions have no final outcome. Doubt is no decision.

Take note: "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Bias_in_sources Introvigne is precisely in the controversy section where there are pros and cons. Jesuitsj (talk) 07:50, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I think the issue is whether referencing him is WP:UNDUE. I have no comment on that but introducing him as though he was neutral (sociologist of religion) goes against what you just said. If he is referenced it should be clear that he’s a non-neutrl protagonist and describe him something like he is in our article on him: “a Catholic lobbyist”. DeCausa (talk) 09:01, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Those many discussions have no final outcome. Yeah, they do. You've been made aware, further attempts to spam introvigne-related content is not welcome. Your continued participation in the project is a privilege contingent upon following community consensus. Feoffer (talk) 12:19, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree on community consensus, as long as it's clear one guy does not make community, nor dictate Wikipedia rules and decisions. Jesuitsj (talk) 02:45, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

De Causa, our article on him puts lobbyist in quotation marks and in the bottom of the lead, while categorically states in the very lead that he is a sociologist of religion. Jesuitsj (talk) 02:56, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Introvigne and his associates have never met a NRM they wouldn't defend -- including Aum and Solar Temple. A doctor who gives a clean bill of health to all his patients, even the visibly-sick, may be entitled to his opinion, but it's of limited utility to the rest of us. Feoffer (talk) 04:05, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

OK, now we know you have a bias against him. That explains many things. Jesuitsj (talk) 08:48, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Introvigne is simply not regarded as a reliable source by our community, period. That he has a long pattern of sending people with a COI to spam him into the encyclopedia only clarifies that he is problematic. To paraphrase one of our admins, Introvigne is a for-pay lobbyist masquerading as a neutral scholar. Feoffer (talk) 20:12, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Looks like that is the conclusion of your sub-community, not Wikipedia community. DeCausa agrees with me that Introvigne can be used here in the pros and cons section, so I will put his quote here. Here we follow Wikipedia: "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." Jesuitsj (talk) 07:46, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

If you want to rehabilitate Introvigne to the status of RS, you would need to take that up with the people at RSN. Absence such a consensus, re-adding would likely be regarded as a behavior issue. Why is it you want that quote in the article so badly? Are you trying to educate people about Opus Dei and how it's not a "cult" -- If so, John Allen is an actual journalist who is a RS and has written extensively on this point, there are numerous others. Or are you just trying to promote a fringe source? Feoffer (talk) 08:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

It's your behavior that is in question here, Feoffer, as you want to overrule two Wikipedians because you want to impose your biases on Wikipedia. I kinda like the quote for it tells of the deep reason behind the opposition against Opus Dei: many, including some Wikipedians, don't want the secular society to return to God. Jesuitsj (talk) 12:35, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Who’s the other Wikipedian that’s being “overruled”? DeCausa (talk) 12:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Aside from you, that's me. Jesuitsj (talk) 04:13, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

You’ve misunderstood. I don’t support your addition. DeCausa (talk) 07:44, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Serious accusation

Zfish118 wrote above:

One notable issue is the claim that members were responsible for "babynapping". Such a serious accusation needs multiple citations and better explanation of relevance. –Zfish118⋉talk 14:57, 29 September 2021

The reference is from El Pais: https://english.elpais.com/elpais/2011/03/07/inenglish/1299478844_850210.html

But El Pais later clarified this: El análisis del ADN de 81 casos descarta que fueran bebés robados

In here: https://elpais.com/elpais/2018/09/27/ciencia/1538058145_715458.html

I suggest that the part that refers to baby-trafficking should be removed. Jesuitsj (talk) 09:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with the removal of the statement, as the allegation is well sourced. The bulk of sources, however, allege participation by many Catholic-sponsored hospitals not solely members of Opus Dei. I have edited the article to better reflect the sourcing. I also edited the the following sentence about the "holy mafia" to remove the baby trafficking statemnt, as neither source for that sentence made any reference to the illegal adaptions. –Zfish118^⋉talk 22:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

You said earlier that there has to be multiple sources for such an accusation, but you are only using one source and even expanding the statement. You seem to be doubly contradicting yourself. Moreover, there are several articles on the other side. See below.

Because this is a controversy with pro and con side, it seems logical to move this to the controversy section.

On the pro-side put this: As regards the claim that religious people in Spain, including Opus Dei members were involved in abduction of children during the Franco era, an investigation found that DNA analysis of 81 cases ruled out that they were stolen babies. The supreme court of Spain did not consider the first case of stolen babies to be proven, and the chief prosecutor of the Basque Country, said that "not even reasonable evidence" of any abduction of babies had been found, after special investigations of the police.

On the con-side, your sentence.

But, on second thought, because of the preponderance of evidence on the con-side, it will be better to remove this altogether, lest this become slander. Jesuitsj (talk) 02:04, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

"preponderance of evidence" isn't how wikipedia works, the fact that there is so much coverage means that we have to cover it... Even if what we're covering is that the allegations were unfounded. Please review WP:CENSOR, WP:VERIFY, and WP:NPOV. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

OK, will just transfer all these to controversy section then. Jesuitsj (talk) 12:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@Jesuitsj: I am not contradicting myself. I said the original passage was vague and poorly unsourced, and specifically edited the passage to address that. After examining the underlying source, I found the original text of the passage did not match the source, which made a much narrower and tangential claim about the organization's involvement the purported scandal than the original. Having rewritten the passage to match the source (which no one has claimed to be unreliable), I would find removing it to be extremely inappropriate. As to moving it to the "controversy" section, I am not a fan because the section is poorly written and organized per my comments above in the G.A. reassessment. –Zfish118^⋉talk 17:35, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Plunkett quote removed?

Someone removed a quote from Patrice de Plunkett in the Support part of Controversy. He was editor of Le Figaro, one of the most prominent news sources in France.

He has written many books - https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Patrice+de+Plunkett%22+-wikipedia

And appears in Google scholar - https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Patrice+de+Plunkett%22 124.104.115.5 (talk) 08:45, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Members proposed for sainthood

The Focolare movement has a good section on its members who have been proposed for sainthood. A similar section here would be great. Here's the Focolare example. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focolare_Movement 2600:4040:279C:2700:6C00:5E7A:8D15:832D (talk) 02:42, 20 July 2023 (UTC)