The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Opus Dei, or anything not directly related to improving the Wikipedia article. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Opus Dei, or anything not directly related to improving the Wikipedia article at the Reference desk. |
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 210 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 210 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
This page has archives. Sections older than 210 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
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:
Please do reply with your thoughts on the matter. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 16:26, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
References
Zfish118 wrote above:
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)
@ 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)
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)
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)
Opus Dei Awareness Network https://odan.org/ Murphy1492 ( talk) 22:57, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Is there any reason why the supporting view section is mentioned first? Normally, the criticism is brought up first, and then the counter-arguments are presented.
If no convincing arguments are presented within the next few days, I will rearrange them.
Ideally, however, the entire criticism sections needs to be rewritten and joined together. If anyone has the time and expertise to do so, go ahead. Arsaces ( talk) 18:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Opus Dei, or anything not directly related to improving the Wikipedia article. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Opus Dei, or anything not directly related to improving the Wikipedia article at the Reference desk. |
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
Opus Dei was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 210 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 210 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
This page has archives. Sections older than 210 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
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:
Please do reply with your thoughts on the matter. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 16:26, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
References
Zfish118 wrote above:
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)
@ 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)
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)
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)
Opus Dei Awareness Network https://odan.org/ Murphy1492 ( talk) 22:57, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Is there any reason why the supporting view section is mentioned first? Normally, the criticism is brought up first, and then the counter-arguments are presented.
If no convincing arguments are presented within the next few days, I will rearrange them.
Ideally, however, the entire criticism sections needs to be rewritten and joined together. If anyone has the time and expertise to do so, go ahead. Arsaces ( talk) 18:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)