This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
For follow up work on Feature Article Candidacy, please see:
Talk:Opus Dei/FAC nomination September 2005 with additions
Although I had no part in writing the article, I would like to respond to the question on using Allen's book. I have reviewed Allen's book for a major national newspaper in Canada. I would argue that it is quite appropriate to rely on his work. I think it is a helpful point of reference because the author is an acclaimed reporter well versed in Catholic issues with no ties to Opus Dei. His research is far more thorough than any other book on the topic, and he had much greater access to information than anyone not a member of Opus Dei has had before. The problem with so many of the sources on this topic is that they have vested interests in the dispute. I don't think you would find any experts at least writing in English of Allen's stature who are not also engaged in a polemic on one side or the other. Allen is unique in this respect. So I think it is important to consider not primarily the diversity of the sources, but their relation to the dispute.
Finally as to the testimony of critics there is a section on this which cites Walsh, whose book is probably the most influential source of criticism, which many mainstream journalists seem to have used until quite recently. Also there is a Wikipedia article on Opposition to Opus Dei which is linked and which does go into this in significant detail, I'm not sure that it is necessary to repeat this in the present article.
(Unsigned edit by Jlawest as of 20:38, 6 June 2006. -- Túrelio 20:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC))
This is my first time commenting on Wikipedia. I read the article with great interest, and seems fairly reasonable. However, John Allen is quoted and referred to constantly and repeatedly in such a way that one is left wondering if we shouldn't simply be posting a summary of his book up here! Perhaps there are few other "good" sources or "experts" on this issue, but is it appropriate for a single "expert" to be referenced on virtually every single controversial point of the article. It seems that for every criticism or implied criticism of Opus Dei, Allen has an answer, and the writers of this article are very keen for us to see it. I don't know about others, but I'd rather read opinions from more diverse sources.
I find it a little strange, too, that none of the ex-members however "non-credible" are directly quoted, nor are some of the "racier" allegations of certain practices by Opus Dei members mentioned, even when they've been mentioned by the more reputable organs of the mainstream press.
Still, the frequency with which Allen is quoted and cited is the only problem I have with the article. It seems inappropriate to rely on a single journalist so heavily.
(Unsigned edit by Eurhetemec as of 21:20, 23 May 2006. -- Túrelio 20:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC))
Let's strive to keep order in the article, i.e. portions related to a section should stay in that section. For example:
I read the intro and still can't say I understand what opus dei means. This needs a more concise definition.
I am integrating once again the repeated sentences and improving further the NPOV of this section. I've tried to do this several days ago but my work kept on being erased, while others kept on putting it back (Thanks to you). I am now listing down why I think we should proceed this way.
I am not even adding to my reasons Wikipedia's Guidelines on Words to Avoid. Somebody in the future might want to argue using this. Or somebody might just be more radical and bold and trim this section to the length of the Human Rights section in the US article. Lafem 04:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
The "Contents" is to far down the page. -- WikiCats 01:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Not sure if you did this Marax, but the intro para seems to contain a contradiction. It indicates first that Opus Dei was "created by the Roman Catholic Church" and then that it was "founded" by St. Escriva. It seems to me that we ought to distinguish b/t something created institutionally by the Pope or the College of Cardinals, and something created by an individual who was just a priest at the time. To that end, I think it's misleading to say that Opus Dei was "created" by the church. -- Chaser 07:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Introvigne's own page suggests he is associated with OD: "In the academic year 2005-2006 he joined the faculty at the Opus Dei affiliated Pontifical University of the Holy Cross, Rome."
He has detractors on the web, but I have had a look at some of his work and it is legitimate to call him a sociologist of religion. BrendanH 13:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry I am reverting. The truth is Introvigne wrote that statement in 1994. He became a faculty member in 2005. To put the "link" (one of the words to avoid in Wikipedia) would be to mislead people that he wrote it as a faculty member in defense of Opus Dei. I agree with Marax. Ndss 10:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Introvigne has been in contact with Opus Dei for many years, as a former member I have the name Massimo Introvigne in my memory. But if you want a more reliable source please consult the followink link Bollettino Romana (Opus Dei official bulletin) n.26. January-June 1995 the number cited recalls activities of the second semester of 1994 and mentions the participation of Mr. Introvigne in an Opus Dei activity. Sorry in 1994 there was only an italian version of the bulletin.
florindo 19:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
On the available evidence it seems more than possible that Massimo Introvigne has not joined the faculty of the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross after all, but before making any change here I am awaiting the outcome of the discussion on Massimo Introvigne's Wikipedia page, which seems to be the source. Asoane 13:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I've recently done a number of edits which separate the theological/spiritual matters of Opus Dei from the social matters. The latest and hopefully the last is the separation of the complaints of the ex-members who are Catholics, from the sect issue, which proceeds from both Catholics and non-Catholics, and thus is more properly categorized under Opus Dei and society. I've also come up with a more neutral title, "Response of Society" to encompass the "stigmatization" of Opus Dei and the positive responses of the rest of society, an aspect that was sorely lacking. I hope this somehow addresses Lafem's suggestion and florindo's observation. Marax 07:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I had to delete this because it was intensely biased and promoted the violation of civil rights by national governments. It was also posted by just an IP address, if the person in question wishes to have a valid organized debate which includes sound and valid arguments then they should at least sign up for a wikipedia account. DaBuschman 7:59 am PST, 28 Feb 2006 (UTC)
Thank you DaBuschman. As a follow through, I erased the title and some other possible remnants of it... Marax 02:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I found a good summary of Escriva and Opus Dei's mission in John Paul II's 7 October 2002 Address in Praise of St. Josemaria. I placed this in the Introduction. The old rendering somehow implied that all have a vocation to stay in the world and sanctify themselves in the middle of ordinary circumstances, which is false. Marax 06:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I placed this in the footnote, a reference to Allen's statement on the misinterpretation of Opus Dei's secularity and privacy:
Given Baumann's cogent critique, and given the fact that these recommendations take up only 11 pages in his 387 page book (2.8% of the whole), I don't think these recommendations merit more than a footnote (much less a mention in the Introduction) in this short encyclopedic article on Opus Dei. Lafem 07:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
All the photos on this article are now in the Wikimedia Commons. So if anyone wants to use them in an Opus Dei article of another language, just click on the Edit this page and copy the relevant image text or whatever you call it.
You can also find the available photos here: Images on Opus Dei in Wikimedia commons
If you need help just write to me by email. You can find it in my User Talk Page: Walter Ching English. Please use the email. I rarely visit my talk page. Walter Ching 09:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
P.S. The ones not uploaded by me have also been uploaded: The one of Antonio Fontan/Massimo Introvigne/Benedict XVI you will find here: Thomas's images (uploaded by Thomas S. Major) and the Filipino painting Cabanes' images Opus Dei
I just stumbled over Opus Dei: Responses to Cult Accusations. It's not linked from anywhere and it would be an obvious merge candidate except Opus Dei may be a bit on the long side already. There is no "See also" section, so I leave it to those working on the article to make use of this information. Rl 10:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
It has been more than a month and I don't see any attempt to merge the orphaned content. Would anybody object to deletion? -- William Pietri 01:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
The Da Vinci Code comes to mind. It seems like they are portrayed in other fictional works. Seem worth a mention to anyone else? savidan (talk) (e@) 02:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Why does this article have no discussion of the levels of membership (i.e. numenary, supernumenary, etc.)? savidan (talk) (e@) 03:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I think the article lacks the controversy between Opus dei and the Da Vinci code. the book provoked the reaction of the opus dei leaders in public for the first time. Please read time's article, "the opus dei code" it might be helpful to expand views. -- Don Quijote's Sancho 04:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
The article seems to me to explain the criticism made of it fairly well, but its main thrust is mostly a coutering of such ideas. So criticism is made, but I feel there is a predominance of counter-criticism, being content to quote a few figures to say "Opus Dei is reactionary and right-wing", quickly followed with an elucidation as to why this is not true. Thus, both views are presented, it is true, but I personally feel the article generally discredits criticism made and concentrates on the promotion of the organisation's image. -- Aquilla
For info. I reverted an attempt by 82.69.113.120 to put the NPOV tag and warned him that his edit is akin to vandalism unless he pinpoints what he's disputing. Ndss 05:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
"This entire article is an Opus Dei brown-nosing." This article is clearly written by a leading member of Opus Dei, and is surely pure propaganda, with opposing viewpoints being mentioned only to be dismissed out of hand. 70.224.48.177 01:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC) David Harley
The truth is Johann Hari, Walsh, Lernoux, Tapia, Hutchinson do not even make the grade of being "sources of comparable reputability" compared to John Paul II, Ratzinger, Allen and Messori. But they are mentioned here. By what Introvigne and O'Connor wrote about Walsh's unscientific work, it's Walsh's text that counts as propaganda. Propaganda = misleading information. Rabadur 06:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I beg to disagree with Zmbe that the comparison is altogether subjective. Please check the concrete policies of Wikipedia to make the comparison objective at NPOV_tutorial#Expertise: "What makes an expert credible? Some criteria include:
Hi Turlington. I saw your move to erase the ending statement at Opus Dei. I agree with you that the statement sounded awkward. I've been doing some work yesterday to ensure that each section which is controverted ends with a neutral statement. I checked out the former neutral ending statement of early January 2006 (see [4]) and I've been thinking of a new one. What do you think of: Due to Opus Dei's controversial nature, any approach to it, whether it is taken from a stand that it is God's revolutionary Work, a conservative political force, or something else, will have to contend with many opposing issues. What do you think? Rabadur 06:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I have added the lost link to the Opus Dei and politics Wikipedia page with the standard caption:
For a more detailed discussion, please see Opus Dei and politics.
Sometimes it disappears, accidentally, I guess .
Nice to see you again, guys! -- Uncertain 15:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Why does the comment about Johann Hari put quotes around the description of him as journalist, and then call him an antitheist? There is nothing on his wikipedia page about religion (or antireligion.) Obviously he is a published journalist; I'm removing the quotes. Any comments on the antitheist business? Zmbe 15:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
This article was formerly listed as a good article, but was removed from the listing because As i have posted above, this article looks and reads like a brochure from the church. The main article itself needs more critical analysis, and the link to Opposition to Opus Dei, which is also biased in favor of the organization (and in which i also put in a NPOV tag), need to be more prominent -- Bud 10:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I really believe that this article needs a thorough copyedit by a 3rd party to make it more NPOV. It does almost seem to read like a brochure from Opus Dei. I can't see how this could be best resolved, but it's not really NPOV. It needs to be somewhat more dispassionate, in my view. It really does appear to be just trying to show the best side of the organisation, and while that may be OK on Opus Dei's site, we are not here to make them look good, or make them look bad either. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but the article's tone sounds like critics expressing their ideas while playing doubles' advocate at the same time. Even if you disagree, it is definitely not truly NPOV, despite efforts to make it so. --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 03:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
The second paragraph, in contrast, is biased towards Opus Dei. --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 03:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
All though I agree that the author of this article is trying to keep it NPOV there is a clear bias towards opus dei.. When ever the author brings up a criticism he instantly puts it down and always using much more ink to do so,1 line on the criticism then 6 on the response.I also disagree with his definition of “best source” the pope and members of the Vatican are indeed very knowledgeable on religious issues but can they in any way be called un biased. We need counter arguments by knowledgeable and biased members against opus dei for every one that is for them.
Also I need more info on how opus day separates its members for it family and friend and way more on what types of corporal penance is imposed on its members. There membership is mostly in the first world so saying that this stuff goes on in some places in the world just doesent get it done. Ansolin 07:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
havent changed my mind sorry credible is POV and why not switch side with each point have one where opus is attacked with a 6 -10 line responce then one where a point made by opus is refuted in the same way e.g that opus is non political. Ansolin 05:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Anybody who wants to edit this page for NPOV should first read John Allen's book. According to CBS, it is "widely considered as the definitive book about Opus Dei." [5] Ndss 06:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it can be called "much debated" when its critics continue to praise him and Damian Thompson agrees with him on several counts. Please see John_L._Allen,_Jr.#Reviews_of_his_work_on_Opus_Dei. Ndss 06:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Time Magazine used "respected". His critics used derivatives of this term. Baumann: has earned a reputation for balanced, informed reporting; Thompson: Damian Thompsom, who, after saying that his "column is a byword for objectivity; McDermott: respected Rome correspondent. Peter Duffy of America Magazine: respected Vatican correspondent. Ndss 10:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Don Corleone was also respected. Dispense with your fetish for Allen's objectivity. Elucidate his arguments, elaborate his theoretical approach to history and biography, draw on the documents and evidence collated in his book, but don't expect anyone to concede authority to him purely on the opinion of a few journalists. Pvazz 12:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I'll say upfront, I have no great views one way or the other about Opus Dei-- I'm just a random reader who watched a documentary on it one fine Sunday afternoon and came to Wikipedia to learn more. This is one example where Wikipedia seems to have difficulty: topics that inspire passion.
As it currently stands, the article suffers from a lot of technical problems. The flow is hard to discern. If I want to hear about some particular sub-issue, it's almost impossible to know where to look. Large amounts of quotations give the writing a schiziophrenic feel-- Allen in particular is referenced far too much. It takes a lot of effort to figure out what is a direct quotation, what is a paraphrase of a quotation, and what totally unrelated to quotation. The section headings are troublesome-- in general, subjects should have ONE place to be discussed, rather than being interspersed throughout the text. The society's role in The Da Vinci Code should have a subsection all to it's on-- for better or for worse, it's how most people first hear about Opus Dei. The controversy and criticism should all be in one section, rather than being scattered throughout the article. I don't know what to expect to find in sections like "Call and demands: theological basis", "Mission, strategy, and characteristics", "Analysis of the message and actual practice", "Faith, novelty".
Even harder to fix is the persistent Pro-Opus Dei point of view throughout the entire article. My first opinion upon coming here was very skeptical to the allegations that Opus Dei is a "cult", and I'm still skeptical. But allow me to say, lightheartedly, that this article does remind me just a little of the kind that would be written by cultists-- by which I just mean, it's overwhelming positive. It's very obvious that that the majority of the contributers to this article feel that Opus Dei is pretty much the best thing in the world. Way too much of the article is filled up with adoring quotes from popes, bishops, authors, members, and others. They all use different phraseology, but essentially, they repeat the same message, "Opus Dei is great", over and over and over. It's fine to include a few of those, or even make a whole section for "Supporters of OD", but to intersperse so many into the body of every section of the article violates neutrality.
The most minor issue that I have is that the article comes from a very christian point of view, and seems geared towards a very christian audience. There are a lot of techinical catholic and religious terms that are going to be unfamilar to a lay audience. To some extent this is going to be unavoidable-- but all the same, the article should TRY to avoid it. For example-- at one point, readers are advised to see another sub-article "For other testimonies"-- an odd phraseology for an encyclopedia article. Terms like "the faithful", "the worldly", and the rest are similarly out of place. A lot of technical catholic terms are used that I don't know the precise meanings of. The article includes many biblical citations in order to prove specific points-- to a non-christian audience, these are of little use.
If this article is ever going to end up on the good article list or the featured article list, a lot of work is needed. My suggestions:
1. Start out by trying VERY hard to actually generate a Neutral article. Make up your mind to TRY your hardest to make an article that does not assume any opinion. Realize that if the reader comes away from the article agreeing with the point of view you hold, then you have failed. Strive to make an article that genuinely won't persuade one way or the other. Tone down opinions you agree with, using the same furvor you would use for opinions you disagree with. Put Wikipedia first, and put your own views second. (These things are, admittely, very hard to do. But if you don't try, your edits will just hurt the article in the long run).
2. Farm out a lot of the religious views to sub-pages. Try to make the main page as much "just the facts" as you can. A _brief_ _summary_ of the specific religious tenets of Opus Dei have their place, but the operative words there are "brief" and "summary".
3. Kill the quotation-mania. Instead, use the main article as a place to discuss the things everyone can agree on: the history, the types of membership, the timeline, the legal status, the existence of the controversy.
4. Give the controversy its due. Have one good section on it. Do not demonize the critics, do not psychoanalyze them, do not speculate about their motives, and do not claim that their existence proves Opus Dei's sanctity through the "sign of contradiction". Just say there are critics, here's how they feel. Balance this criticism through a section called "Support for Opus Dei", not through a section about "Criticisms of the Critics".
5. Try to be "encyclopedic". Sound like an encyclopedia. Use Society of Jesus as a model, for example.
Lastly, I'm putting up the POV tag, I'd suggest leaving it up until serious changes are made, or else people are probably going to just keep putting it up again and again.
Hope this stuff helps. Seems like a really interesting organization, and one deserving of a good strong neutral, easy-to-read article. -- Alecmconroy 22:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone who have spent time critiquing this article. I specially like alecmconroy's Putting Wikipedia first comment.
For that it is important to read first the basic guidelines of Wikipedia on controversial topics:
Please also read the FAQ above, where the long discussions on NPOV are summarized and linked to. After having read this, and you still have comments not discussed there, I'd accept the NPOV tag. Thank you for your patience. I worked hard to keep the pro-OD and the anti-OD contributors to follow Wikipedia.
Also, please keep in mind that there are passions on both side of this question. Many studies have been done on this topic, you can also see the history of this article, and you can also see Religious Homepage and the Fr. Martin article, and the work of Allen. All agree that in materials gathered about OD, the strong pro-OD stand and the strong anti-OD stand co-exist. So it is inevitable that this article makes OD look good and look bad at the same time, but given the lopsidedness of the balance in expertise, OD seems to look better. Mind you, I've studied how this article developed. There were edit wars, there were attempts to place only non-controversial points, but they don't work. The two sides will keep on bringing in points, but the way to keep the balance as the Wikipedia NPOV policy states is to divide space, and stick by the Wikipedia policy first. I can assure everyone that this Wikipedia first policy brought about the longest period of peace for this article. Thomas S. Major 01:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'd say the first sign that you defintiely have a POV problem is when you have to write a FAQ to address all the people coming to point out that you have a POV problem. The second indication is when three different people add a POV tag to your article over the course of a week and a half. If many people disagree about whether an article is neutral-- then there is a disagreement about whether or not article is neutral, and the NPOV tag has a place at the top of the page. When a super-majority consensus of people agree the page is neutral, then it seems wise to take it down. As it is-- charges of non-neutrality are being leveled against this article quite, quite frequently. Seems like that alone would suggest a dispute over the neutrality does exist. I'll put the tag back up just to signify I read your counter-arguments at the FAQ and the archives, and wasn't swayed by them-- if you take it down again, I won't put it back up and will leave that to future editors.
Your quotation from the style guide that disapproves of a separate controversy section is something I've bumped into before. I personally disagree with it-- I think that controversy sections can be very useful, particularly in articles that have a huge NPOV problem. I think the very best articles do manage to integrate controversies into the larger narratives, but those articles are very difficult to acheive. The "He Said - She Said" style of writing may not be as graceful, but it's easier to do, and it has it's merits. But, it's a stylistic choice, and many people do despise the "He said - She said" style. In any case, I think it's certainly possible to achieve neutrality without a controversy section, but you might think about using one for a while, lest your attempt to "fold the controversy into the narrative" result in the controversy being utterly obscured by the narrative.
Next, let me say that there's a lot of talk of using the "opinions of experts" as a justification for having a pro-OD slant. The logic, layed out in the FAQ and elsewhere, goes as follows: Most reputable experts agree OD is wonderful thing, while only a small minority say it's a cult. Therefore, we are allowed to have ten sentences about how OD is great for every sentence we have that criticizes OD.
For me, this argument doesn't hold a lot of water, and I think it seriously misinterprets the NPOV_tutorial#Expertise. The expertise proportion rule is a way to justify not giving equal discussion time to extreme minority views on factual issues-- holocaust denyers or flat earthers, for example. In these cases, the minorities are EXTREME minorities-- you will never, for example, see a major news show discuss whether the earth is genuinely flat or not. Secondly, these are all issues of scientific facts, not opinions.
But with OD controveries, the minority view (critical of OD) is not an extreme minority. Nearly ever news show on OD gives serious screen time to interviewing ODAN members and considering the possibility that OD might have problems (I watched two such programs just today). Most of all, whether OD is "good" or "cultlike" is a question of pure opinion, not of scientific fact. NPOV_tutorial#Expertise explicitly singles out religious topics as an instance where the expertise proportion rule is invalid. The simple fact is there is no such thing as an expert on whether or not OD is a good thing or not. Benedict, Allen, and Escrivá are no more "experts" on whether OD is good, bad, or a cult than ODAN is. It's like the abortion issue-- there isn't any "expert" on whether abortion is or is not immoral. The expertise rule is utterly inapplicable here.
Now certainly, the expertise rule applies to matters of history-- If you want to claim that OD is employing albino monks as part of some international conspiracy, then you can bring the expertise rule in to point out that no one seriously believes that. But as to whether or not OD qualifies as cultish-- expertise doesn't apply.
The controversial commments are introduced in a forumalic way. 1. Most people love OD. 2. Someone out there claims OD is somehow bad. 3. Everyone else disagrees with that person. 4. Experts point out that person is somehow bad (e.g. just hates christians, has a psychological motivation, etc). 5. Experts point out that this PROVES OD is good, via the sign of contradiction.
This sort of style is never going to reach NPOV. Much better is: 1. OD is controversial. 2. Many, many people love OD, and here's a few reasons why. 3. Some people dislike OD, and here are the reasons they give for that. The end. Don't give into the temptations to critique the critics-- if you do that, then the critics have the right to critique your critiques, and so on, on and on and on.
However, the big NPOV problem isn't just the discussion of the controversy. There's a persistent pro-OD slant infused through the whole article. To give you an idea of how far we've gotten from neutrality, let me remind you-- it is not a neutral fact to even say there IS a God. It is not neutral to say that there are Sacred Scriptures, or faithful individuals, or a holy call, or anything like that. Even referring to Jesus by the name "Jesus Christ" is pushing the envelope. Sanctity seems to be a critical word of OD, but to even describe anyone or anything as "sanctified" is to admit as fact a huge portion of things-- like the existence of a sacred God, for example. Whenever the encyclopedic voice is speaking (that is, outside of direct quotations), you cannot just talk about God in an everyday fashion as if it's obvious he exists. "God's mercy", "God's grace", "sanctification", etc. A "real article" written in an encyclopedic fashion does not throw these terms around.
So, consider just the section "Message and spirituality: an overview"-- almost every single sentence is POV. And simply finding a source to quote that says the same things will NOT solve the problem. This is an encyclopedia, not a theological publication. Think: "What would an atheistic historian want to know about this organization?" Things that are verifiable, things like history of the organization, it's demographics, it's legal stance within the catholic church, the types of its membership. And lastly, a very brief summary of it's unique spiritual views, all cached in terms of a neutral, historian's point of view.
The United States and Islam are excellent examples of good, encyclopedic tone. Islam's "encyclopedia voice" never asserts Allah even exists. It doesn't contain large quotes about how wonderful Islam is. It doesn't seem like it was written by Muslims-- it seems like it was written by historians. Almost every sentence is verifiable and factual, not opinion. I don't think you're getting what people have meant by "brochure" if you think these two articles also exhibit the property. I suppose the other two articles may sound like travel brochures-- but this article sounds like a membership brocure. In the other two articles, they never say "The United States is great" or "Islam is wonderful". This article is almost nothing but quotes from people emphasizing their support for OD, along with sentences that carry many, many theological assumptions.
To be sure, neither US nor Islam talk alot about controversy, but then, neither of those as as controversial as OD-- at least not in the English-speaking world.
Summary:
1. Way too much space is given to an exposition of the theology of OD. Focus on factual and verifiable information, not on a sermon. As much as possible, confine "What OD believes" to a single section, and leave the rest of the article as very encyclopedic.
2. Imagine the 'encyclopedia voice' as a very boring, uninspired, atheistic historian. "Mr. Encyclopedia" has no passion, no position, he just conveys facts. He doesn't believe in God, "the faithful", "sanctity", or anything like that-- and he doesn't disbelieve in them either. He's interested in who founded OD, how many members, the legalities, the demographics, etc. He is vaguely interested in what people believe, but just give him a quick summary. He's vaguely interested in the reasons people have given for liking OD, but not too much. He's vaguely interested in the reasons people have given for disliking OD, but not too much.
3. As it is, this article has no "Mr. Encyclopedia"-- it has no encyclopedic tone. Most of this article is saying positive things about OD-- sometimes through direct quotes, sometimes through paraphrased quotes, sometimes just by saying it outright. These sorts of value-laden statements should be purged, with only a tiny minority kept in a few specific sub-sections.
4. It might be fruitful to contact someone from Mediation-- perhaps their expertise could convey what needs to be done to this article better than I have.
5. Ya gotta put Da Vinci Code back in-- if only to debunk it. If you're American, you never heard of OD until the Da Vinci Code brought it up. Sad, but true.
6. Believe me when I say the article needs serious attention. To the extent that you might want to throw the whole thing out, archive it, and start again, being very careful to only add in sentences that come from a very neutral point of view, a very encyclopedic tone, and that every word is verifiable as a 100% fact that you would find in every single history book, no matter who wrote it. Get a very "just the facts" article, where anyone at all could easily agree as to the validity of every word. And then, once you have the strong neutral foundation, very gingerly add in the theological summary, the positive quotes about OD, and the negative quotes about OD.
6. Don't give up-- purging your writing of viewpoint is incredibly hard. We can see the mote in someone else's eye, but we can never see the beam in our own. If you looked at stuff I wrote that I care deeply about, you'd probably see ten million biases that I have that I'm blind to. So, let me re-iterate, for all the criticisms I level as this current article, I don't doubt your good faith in writing it. Just keep soliciting comments, keep listening to all the people who have criticisms, keep working on developing an encyclopedia tone, and eventually you'll find the article has evolved into one no one objects to.
-- Alecmconroy 06:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Ndss,
I should clarify that I didn't meant to imply that encyclopedia tone must be "atheistic"-- a sentence declaring "God does not exist" would be a horrible NPOV problem. A better term would be "non-theistic", or perhaps just "religiously neutral". The point I'm trying to make is you just can't assume God exists, that he is the Christian god, that he is the Catholic god, and that he approves of Opus Dei-- to have sentence that speak this way is to speak from a very specific non-neutral point of view.
Consider just a few sentences, of which there are countless other examples:
These sorts of theological comments are not verifiable-- does baptism really make someone a member of God's family, or is it just getting wet? Should Christians really like freedom, or should they desire servitude? on and on and on. The statements aren't verifiable. The sheer frequency of these statements, along with similarly quotations, constitutes a violation of NPOV. Very little of the article is encyclopedic tone.
It's hard for me to understand the logic in removing the NPOV tag. I'd remind you that the tag does not mean this article DOES violate NPOV-- it simply means there is an on-going dispute about whether or not the article violates NPOV. That we're having this discussion is proof that such a dispute exists. That many other people have put the tag up is further proof. All the NPOV discussions on the talk pages is even further proof.
Lastly, I feel you're really wrong on this expertise issue. For one, verfiability, encyclopedic tone, and NPOV trump the style guide suggestions about proportionality. For two, the style guide explicitly mentions religion as an area where there is less scientific expertise. For three-- who should we count as an expert? If just experts who specialize only in Opus Dei, then most of the experts will be pro-OD, because that's the type of person interested in studying OD. If we use Catholicism experts, many more are going to be anti-OD. If we use general christianity experts, the number drops more. If we use experts in religion, most people are going to anti-OD. If we include scientists, then it seems the proportion rule should dictate we dedicate a lot of space to saying that OD is silly (after all, less than 1% of the population is a OD member-- all the rest of the population agrees that OD is not something they want). Clearly, this is silliness.
Perhaps you'll say we should include only those experts who specialize just in Opus Dei. But this would be like the Abortion article insisting we include only the expertise of doctors who perform abortions-- because they are the true experts. That too is silliness. It's a controversy of opinion and morality, not of fact. An abortion doctor is no more an "expert" on the morality of the subject than a rabbi or a lama or a janitor.
-- Alecmconroy 10:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a million, Alecmconroy! First, for your patience. Second, for your persistence. And above all, for your good faith and for trusting in ours. And thanks another million to Ndss and Lafem. Fine arguments, indeed.
Yes, there is a misunderstanding of Wikipedia:NPOV that is inherent in Alec's arguments.
Here are the facts of Wikipedia:NPOV, the non-negotiable policy.
I find this type of misunderstanding common among Wikipedians. Many think neutrality means not attributing opinions to anybody who says positive things. Many Wikipedians also think that NPOV means not attributing opinions to anybody who talks about God. The "simple formulation" disproves both of these misunderstandings. Since you also are not in favor of attribution ("Kill the quotation-mania" as against Wikipedia's "The more at variance from commonly accepted notions an assertion is, the more rigorously it should be documented."), this adds up to the misunderstanding.
The summary of Message and spirituality is introduced by the statement: "The following are the main features of Escrivá's spiritual teachings, the core message of Opus Dei."
Another thing re "not demonizing the critics": From guidelines on controversial issues: "Identify the possible bias of the source (including organizational, financing, and/or personal ties with interested parties.)"
I was the one who made the FAQ. I confess it was a mistake to call it such, because the NPOV tag was raised 13 Sept 2005 (the article was called POVish 4 Sept 2005) and raised again 17 May 2006 (was said to be not biased by favouring OD 17 April 2006). I've renamed it Q and A, and will later add the insights of this discussion.
Thanks, Alecmconroy. Your feedback is appreciated. I promise to continue working on the article. Of course, the Wikipedia-way. :-) Thomas S. Major 02:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
This article suffers from a common wikipedian malady. The article's creators, the vast majority of its editors, are strongly in favour of its object. Hence, it has evolved into a long melange of highly POV tracts pock-marked by an excessive amount of 'iconic' Opus Dei images. All the political arguments against Opus Dei remain relatively undisputed, and yet by using non-sequiturs, and 'reputable' sources in the Catholic Church, the Wikipedia article neutralizes the effect of these political arguments. This is an encyclopedia not a piece of journalism. Opinion or 'doxa' as Plato would have called it should be treated cautiously. Sources, links, and journalistic opinion already cloud this article's points. Even if we could arrange every document, published work, academic opinion, internet polemic on Opus Dei it would not necessarily alter the non-neutral POV of the article. For NPOV this is what must be done:
Pvazz 10:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi to all. I am surprised and shocked at the authority displayed by Pvazz. He speaks in terms of should and must without any mention of any Wikipedia policy to back him up. Is this part of a new dictatorship? a new dogmatism? I thought the only monarch in Wikipedia is Jimbo Wales whose NPOV policy is the rule?
This is indeed an encyclopedia whose beloved rule includes Wikipedia:NOR.
Pvazz wants to remove the tone of Opus Dei. But most of the writers cited here are non-Opus Dei members!
He wants a purge -- a rather Hitlerian comment, I would say-- of "non-sequiturs which attempt to refute political criticism". What? I can't believe I found myself in an Orwellian nightmare!! Allen is not allowed to speak? Messori? Introvigne? Crozier?
This is Wikipedia, my friend. And Wikipedia has its own rules. If you want to write an essay a la Estruch, solely based on "subjective, arbitrary" sociological analysis (Schall), then write one. But not here, sir. Not in Wikipedia.
The Wikipedia method is to determine importance of the writers which we must cite (NOR again).
This rule, my friend, is for all topics, religion, and otherwise.
This demands hard work, man, and not some wishful, dreamy effusions of opinion. Well, here is my preliminary listing:
One more thing. They tend to agree with one another. I'd await other opinions of importance and the basis of their reputability. The criteria for reputabiity for experts can be applied (a) strictly because Opus Dei is also a social science issue; (2) non strictly but as a valuable guide, because the tutorial states: less expertise and more opinion, but does not invalidate it, as Ndss very well expressed. Lafem 09:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
WIKIPEDIA is not a soap box . If wikipedia was it would make sence to put forth a premice and then prove it by using the most credable sources.Heres the problem Catholics believe that when a pope speaks about religion he is speaking with the word of god so when pope Benedict XVI says that opus die is a great thing for all time then any good cathlic would find it hard to argue. But the world is not made up of just catholics and some of them object to some things that opus does. I suggest keeping the religion only in opus dei belief section every where else focus on what opus does there lots of good stuff building school helping the poor equal rights for women many more but not hidding the fact that self flagellation is endorsed something that very few catholic agree with and has other problem that although are mention in the article only in a very brief way and always show as resolved . The world has not resolved these issues and so wikipedia cannot. Ansolin 20:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
he opus dei alert by a traditionalist -- is not a good site to link to. It's main criticism of
Opus Dei is that it is supported by a Pope who is illigitimate because he wanted to reconcile the Church with the Jews. It is a run by an anti-semite and isn't really honestly critical of Opus Dei. It is more hateful towards Jews and Pope John Paul II's call for reconcilliation with them.
I have re-written the first paragraph of the introduction. I tried to bring a logical development to the sentence order. I would also like to add a sentence on Opus Dei's governing structure before 1982. Still think we can condense the introduction into two paragraphs, and that the views of Allen et al. should be moved below where they can be given proper treatment. Pvazz 09:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I find the constant use of allan for a source a little weak make it sound like the author of this article has only read one book I know he hasn’t but that’s how it sound’s lots of times allen says thing that have been said by many sources why not use them.
There is no way you can say in the opening that all issue have been resolved the fact that this page is so often re write is a clue to the contrary .
I edit out your statement that mortification of the flesh was common I know allan said it was but that doesn’t make it so if u really think it true why not use statistic .
The percentage of catholic who believe mortification is good how many practice it on a regular basis what parentage of them are lay people .should be noted that most priest don’t do it.
Ansolin 13:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I rewrote the last two paragraphs of the introduction. Besides changes aimed to give a consistent style to the arguments, I added a sentence about early Jesuit criticism, one on the growth of interest in Opus Dei after 1982, moved the sentence on the uniqueness of the Prelature structure to the first paragraph, and re-wrote the setences on Allen's 'myth of Opus Dei. I also restored the list of criticisms which had been deleted. Next I will begin with the main sections of the article. If any one from the Opus side wants to collaborate with me, I would appreciate it, as we will need consensus to make sure the article reaches an appropriate standard.
Yes Walter, I know, Allen gives all Catholic supporters of Opus an intellectual orgasm; using 'reputable', 'respectable', 'highly respectable' ten times in a sentence won't convince me that he is anything more than an insider catholic journalist, aligned politcally to the Vatican, who cherishes his own expedient reputation for objectivity. Nevertheless, I agree his book is important.
Ansolin, can you give a bit of warning before you delete entire paragraphs.
Yes, Thomas, I will take it easy. Thanks for your advice on the article. Pvazz 05:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
i edited the da vinvi section figue people wonted to know what brown said and how (or if) it wrong more then the source he used.
Ansolin 03:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Anonimus sent me a note saying quots wosent pov hmmm... like dan brown quoting holy blood holy grail. Ansolin 22:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Anonimus, I reverted some of the sentences you changed back to their previous form. In the second paragraph, it is Opus Dei which has emphasized these teachings, which is why they are included. Writing 'after one year of research' before Allens thoughts is an irrelelvant, unverifiable clause. In addition, I thought that the previous formulation of Allens myth/reality position was too feeble. To say that he aims to demystify the views of certain Opus critics gives a more precise account of his position. Lastly, the the locution 'according to' need not be followed by direct quotation marks.
Pvazz 08:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
if you really need an allenisum how about "the defects and virtues of Opus Dei tend to become wildly exaggerated" . Ansolin 23:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Marax, your point was well made. Now, I also think 'catholic teaching' is acceptable and appropriate. I will have to think more about Allen's reality/myth methodology. As I wrote above, I think the current formulation is feeble. Maybe a re-write in which 'myth' and 'reality' are conserved as key terms...
Ndss, how is the prohibition on original research relevant to my point? Don Corleone was 'respected' by his colleagues, similarily, Allen is 'respected' by certain mainstream US journalists and other Catholic Vaticanistas. You wrote that Allen was respected in some absolute sense. I think we should refrain from using this term for Allen as it is vague, all-purpose, and opinionated. Allen gets nearly four sentences in this introduction to an article on Opus Dei. I suggest you footnote Allen's commendations: 'respected' 'renowned' 'reputable' etc. Afterall, the second paragraph shouldn't read like the blurb of Allen's book.
Alec, I agree. As I wrote above, most of the superfluous images should be removed, especially the photos of supernumearies with fifty children and other assorted images of random members. I also think that Allen, Introvigne, Balthasar and every other Opus commentator should be removed from the introduction. Their views should be summarized and footnoted. I have only restored Balthasar because, in my view, he belongs there until it is decided to remove Allen, Introvigne. If anyone thinks his later views are relelvant, I suggest you put them in the footnotes. 'Fundamentalism' has not been quoted, and any detailed examination of Balthasar's postion should be undertaken in the article's body.
I have re-added the sentence on Opus membership. As it stands, the opening paragraph summarizes Opus' place in the Catholic church, its membership structure, and also includes an estimate of the number of its members. I don't think any of this information is superfluous, nor out of place in an introduction. To whoever (ansolin?) wrote that people come to Opus Dei for enlightenment concerning the Da Vinci Code, Wikipedia already has an article Da Vinci Code. Pvazz 11:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Proposed revision on sentence dealing with Opus Dei's membership in opening paragraph:
Any comments on changing it to the following?
MrsPam. Celibacy may be practised by both men and women, it refers to the status of being unmarried. As it stands, the sentence lists the different categories of membership, and introduces them in their historical order. This is sufficient for an introduction. Pvazz 03:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
MrsPam 21:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Your edit is twice as long, adds little relevant information, and is confusing, almost misleading. Many lay members are numeraries; placing 'supernumeraries' in brackets implies that all lay members are supernumeraries, which is not the case. Further, only 70% of members are supernumeraries. Lastly, your edit removes two important pieces of information: a. at the time of its foundation only celibate numerary members could join; b. assistant-numeraries are all women. Pvazz 03:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
MrsPam 01:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
It is an accurate and succinct statement. A more detailed explanation is given below in the membership section. The words numerary and supernumerary are derived from latin supernumerarius. In Latin the term referred to members of a legion who exceeded the standard number. Numerary was also used in the Church to denote those who lived according to canonical law, or simply canons. Given that at least some of this is explained below, it shouldn't be included in the introduction. See above, 'celibacy' simply means unmarried. Celibacy is what distinguishes numeraries from supernumeraries; the grounds for that celibacy, whether canonical, theological, should be explained below. I think the membership sentence should be in the first paragraph. It does form a minor break with the preceding sentence, but overall it continues the central idea of the opening paragraph. I will reunite them. MrsPam, I hope you now see the reasoning behind the current form of this sentence. Pvazz 03:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi Alec. I noticed your edit after having posted above. I disagree. You've bloated the introduction and not added any relevant information. I will add 'Associates' to the original formulation, and then reunite it with the first paragraph. Pvazz 04:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello everyone. I agree that the introduction ought not to be bloated with unnecessary information. Why not link the terms "numerary", supernumerary", etc. to the section which explains them (3.3)? This would 'fill out' the paragraph without enlarging it.
MrsPam 15:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Re-reading the introduction, I notice 'everyone is called to become a saint' is in quotation marks as a Catholic belief. In the next sentence, Opus Dei's innovation is praised by JPII and others. Marax, if their central teaching is innovative why have you argued that it should be classified as Catholic teaching and not Opus Dei teaching. Surely, whether 'everone is called to become a saint' is a novel interpretation of Catholic teaching, or pre-emption of what has now become Catholic teaching, the quoted statements should be attributable to Opus and not the Catholic Church. What do you think? Pvazz 04:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I think it is a Catholic teaching that "everyone is called to become a saint". See the Catechism of the Catholic Church sections 2013-4 and 2028: "All are called to holiness: 'Be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.'"
MrsPam 01:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
1. Been slowing going through trying to organize things logically and moving a few things around. In a few cases I found quotes that didn't seem directly relevant to the sections they were in, but I didn't want to just delete them outright either, so I've moved them to a new section called "Support and Endorsements For OD". Perhaps if we can start to pull away all the commentaries (both For and Against) from the historical sections and pull them into the Commentaries (Support and Criticism) sections, we may find it easier to focus on things that are missing. (For example, it turns out the section on "Name" didn't included the translation of Opus Dei-- granted, it's in intro, but if there's going to be a section on name, we should explain what the name means. I put it in.). This would also help shorten the article, since several of the Pro- and Con- arguments are repeated three, even four times in the article. At the least, let's try to pull the criticism and support statements to the end of the section they reside in, so that the reader can get a good understanding of what exactly is being supported or critiqued.
2. What's the source for "Message and spirituality: an overview"? A source is listed that has very similar subject headings [8], but the text has been completely re-written. I guess I'm still confused about what this section is. Is it one large block quote we got directly from an OD source, or is it our (wikipedians) own summary of what we think OD's message is?
3. Do we have a good quote where Escriva talks about why he chose that name? I know we have a Ratzinger/Benedict source that conveys the gist and that'll work, but it be even better if we had a direct quote from him on why he chose that name. (I'm assuming, here, that he felt he chose it and could explain his reasoning, though perhaps he felt he 'experienced' the name in the initial vision and couldn't explain why that name. But the things I've read seem to suggest it was a later choice with a specific motivation behind it). In any case, this is a small point-- the secondhand summation of Escriva's name choice gets the job done.
4. Am I correct in thinking that being a personal prelature is an honor? I found a couple of sources talking about OD's status as the only personal prelature being a sign of honor and a sort of thumbs up from the vatican. Is it correct to list this as an honor, or is it more just a matter of pure bureaucractic expedience?
5. In general, this article is really really long. The long article warning starts to kick in at 32kb, and we're now at 83kb. Not a hard and fast rule, but something to be aware of. Perhaps we could make a "Theology of Opus Dei" page that could handle the extensive, highly-technical theological discussion that's currently on the main page.
6. Do we really need all these pictures? Obviously we have to have a picture of Escriva, and the pictures of OD's Our Lady of Peace and of the Prelate Javier Echevarria both seem apropriate. Pictures of John Paul II and Benedict XVI could certainly be seen as relevant. But most of the pictures don't seem notable-- a lot just belong in a snapshot album somewhere: the Perrottet family picture tells me nothing (other than the fact that there is at least one family somewhere on earth that is a member of OD, which is something we all knew), and a picture of some random youth group doesn't seem notable. Four random women from Latin America, three random women at a conference. There's a picture of a conference center, presumably where OD members sometimes have conferences, but the text doesn't say. There's even a picture of the cover of an italian book on religion that happens to talk some about Opus Dei. I understand wanting to have a few pictures to break up the text, but wouldn't it be better with not quite so many?
5. I really have to take issue with the repeated removal of the NPOV dispute tag. Within the past two weeks I ( Alecmconroy), 82.69.113.120, Bud, 70.224.48.177, Ta bu shi da yu, member, and Pvazz have all made posts that dispute the neutrality of the current page. Meanwhile, Thomas S. Major, Walter Ching, Lafem, and several others have all weighed in at length on their views that the current article does do a good job on neutrality. There's a name for this sort of dispute, it's called an NPOV dispute. It means that there are people who are disputing the neutrality of this article, and another group of people who support the neutrality of the article. These people exist, and so Template:POV should be allowed to remain on the page. All the arguments FOR the neutrality of this page can not disprove the existence of many other people who are disputing that the page is neutral. Rather, all the arguments that have been put forth arguing for the neutrality are just further proof that there is indeed an on-going dispute about the issue. The NPOV dispute tag should be put back up.
-- Alecmconroy 16:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
The current structure of the article makes neutrality an impossibility. Not just difficult, but unobtainable. What we have here is a speach on the part of a defence lawyer addressing points that have been raised by an absent prosecution.
If the structure were reversed it would be no more acceptable.
The article needs to take the position of a third and neutral party that introduces to the table a point for consideration and then presents the opposing view points on the issue; making a point of alternating their presentation.
Opus Dei is controvercial within the Roman Catholic Church... why?... Why do some Catholics have concerns about Opus Dei? What are their concerns? Why did I read an article on Opus Dei only to be left asking this question at the end?
What about former members? What's the controversy there?
Why from another encyclopaedia did I read that 10 out of 19 cabinet members of the Spanish government up until 1975 belong to Opus Dei.... what other aspects of politics have they been involved in?
This article does not belong in an encyclopaedia any more that an article that read... Mr. X says Opus Dei are bad. Mr. Y says Opus Dei kill puppies. Mr. Z said the world is a worse place for having Opus Dei in it.
This is a brochure piece. Moreso, I can see you're getting a lot of feedback telling you that this article isn't even close to being neutral.
When an issue is very controvertial, with a large number of conflicting and polarised views all you can do is present the different views. This article does not do that.
-- Carnagh
Hey fellows! I found this in NPOV Tutorial. "Often an author presents one POV because it's the only one that he or she knows well. The remedy is to add to the article — not to subtract from it." If this article's critics believe there should be more anti-OD texts, why not try this? I just added one, while taking care not to go beyond 30-40% of space in disputed territory. I don't think the pro-OD would mind. They still have 60-70%! Anonimus 08:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I removed an entry initiating a discussion. Please remember what Wikipedia is not: not a discussion forum, not a personal essay, not a place for personal opinions.
I copied parts of Wikiquette for everyone. Have fun reading it! Walter Ching 03:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Alec! I am in favor of all the images in the article, those uploaded by Walter and of course, those I uploaded. The Q and A addition is fine, Walter! It's not mine, you know. It's more of our summary of discussions.
Yes, those images help explain the text and they show OD's international character. That's the character of Opus Dei that's beyond dispute: an international prelature.
They show the different regions of the world: Slovenian Pot (East Europe), Hacsa image and Philippine painting (Asia), Participants Escriva Congress (Africa), Condoray women (Latin America), Perrottet (Australia), Fontan (Spain, where it is strongest), youthclub and Zweifel (Western Europe), Arnold Hall (US).
In this age of visuals, images convey much information. The image of Arnold Hall show how things are set up in OD, for example. Those images do support the views of majority of experts and, as has been repeated ad nauseam here, those sources of greater reputability. Of course, the anti-OD will not like them. But until they get some highly credible sources, they can't overturn the proportions. And until there is a social scientist more important than Introvigne who studied OD and the anti-cult movement, his insights will have to stay in the Intro. Let's all put Wikipedia first. :) Thomas S. Major 23:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I have re-edited the introductory section of the article re: the issue of Opus Dei being a personal prelature of the Catholic Church. Please check www.opusdei.us, the very first answer on the FAQ page describes the organisation thusly.
I removed several different sentence from the article. Here are the changes and the justifications. Please talk, rather than just reverting them.
Unsourced opinion. Are these really the three things that make Popes and church leaders support OD, or is there a fourth thing, or some completely different set of things? The way to get in why people some people support OD is through direct quotations, and ideally not in the introduction. Precisely why people support OD is a complex and probably debated subject, and I think it's best to get into it in a later section, not in the intro.
I cleaned up the Da Vinci Code section a tad, and removed the sentence "Moreover, Opus Dei encourages its lay members to avoid practices that are perceived as fundamentalist to the outside world". This is an unsourced opinion that is debatable. Many critics have accused OD of being fundamentalist. OD encourages mortification, which many in the outside world see as fundamentalist. We can't say OD doesn't encourage any fundamentalist practices: The best we could do is to say that OD _says_ that it doesn't. Then we have to include the opinons of people who disagree and feel that OD _does_ encourage fundamentalist practices. And then we have a debate that is about theology and has nothing to do with The Da Vinci Code. We just don't need to get into that. There are plenty of things wrong with the Da Vinci Code we can talk about without having to get into a huge debate about what is and is not fundamentalist.
In "Foundation, Mission, Name":
I added a reference to the "vision of life"-- just saying he "saw" Opus Dei in a way that had a supernatural character really doesn't get across Escriva's description of a supernatural experience.
"In Escriva' own words..." strikes me as a bit overly admirable of Escriva-- as if we're saying "He _himself_ said this! His _VERY OWN_ words. It also implies that these particular words are the "Official Mission Statement" of OD-- really, they're one specific very brief summary of OD's mission I changed it to: Escrivá's summarized the Opus Dei's mission by writing"
I removed the sentence "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." from the quote. When you look at the reference, this sentence was not actually part of the same paragraph as the sentence after it-- there's quite of lot of text in between. The sentence is a little hard to understand-- "the very texture of civil society", and the word "apostolate" are probably a little unclear to readers. Better to skip this sentence and jump straight to the sentence in which Escriva says "The mission of Opus Dei is..."
We gave a quote from Cardinal Ratzinger talking about the name "Opus Dei". This is complicated, because the sentence does several things: it presumably explains why Escriva chose the name, and it convey's Ratzinger's own belief that OD was indeed "God's work". Since this is a historical section about events in the 1940s, I have tried to focus on what Ratzinger's quote tells us about what Escriva thought, rather than what the quote tells us about what Ratzinger thought. There's definitely a place for what the current Pope feels about OD, but I don't think that place is a historical paragraph about the 1940s. The change to the sentence is actually small, but I wanted to explain why I changed it.
Lastly, there is a paragraph which says Escriva's vision was confirmed by John Paul II, who stated the founding was divinely inspired. But John Paul II is not able to confirm or deny the existence of this vision. All we can do is state John Paul's own opinions. And if we state his opinions, then we also have to get into all the people who disagree with John Paul's opinions. So we wind up with a huge three-paragraph long theological debate.
It would be much better to create a seperate section in which we can include the opinions of many different people. We can include John Paul's opinions, other supporters' opinions, and all the critics' opinons. As it is, we're interspersing opinions into every single part of the text. We're talking about the founding, so let's throw in the opinons of whether or not the founding was divine. We're talking about the personal prelature, so let's throw in opinons about whether that is a good thing or a bad thing.
We can do it this way if we really want, but I think it's a horrendous choice. It blurs the line between what is universally accepted and what is just commentary. The debate, commentary, criticism, and controversy have gotten so out of hand that they've started to take over the whole article, to the point that we can't even have one section that gives a historical outline of the early history of OD without getting into a huge theological debate about the existence of divine inspiration.
I moved all these opinions to a separate section later in the article. If we insists intermixing opinion and debate into every section, we're never going to get this article down Neutral, Encyclopedic Tone, or down to a manageable size.
-- Alecmconroy 01:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I have some serous problem with the pro opus dei slant in this article . First of all let me say that I have no axes to grind about opus I readed a lot mostly fiction and use wikipedia to fact check (know what your thinking da vinci but no it was the templar conspiracy ) . Anyway I found the article loaded down with weasel speak tying to hide and/or minimize any anti opus facts.lets be clear "it just read that way to me" I didn’t and to a large extent still don’t know much about opus dei this was just a conclusion I made from how the article was put together. I will go through the article and my points . First the intro it is much better now then it was when I first read it a week or so ago, now it ends “Ultimately Opus Dei remains the subject of much political criticism both inside and outside the Catholic Church” which imply that opus is contraveral which is true.Another part of the article I like is the new addition of Institutional structure membership .
I don’t like the allen quote
--In his 2005 research, Catholic Vaticanologist John L. Allen, Jr. stated that there are two Opus Deis, an Opus Dei of reality and an Opus Dei of myth.--
Maybe a case can be made that these claim happend only in the past but to suggest that all criticism is a fantasy is wrong .
The rest need to be deleted and a complete rewrite done.
Here my problems there is way to much info on the theological beliefs of opus dei so much so that there isn’t room for a section on opus dei good works there are lots or a section on members of opus dei you have to go to a different article to read that.
There are some serious claims made about opus in my reading on the web.
1 opus dei cult-like recruitment regime Newly added to the intro wasent there when I first read it but still, right after we have the allen quot saying that it’s a myth.it is mentioned later not in controversy over opus dei but in spiritual life
--Ex-members also report of aggressive recruitment whereby members initially hide their links to Opus Dei, persuade recruits not to tell their families, or maintain contact with their families, forbiding phone calls, and use threats of condemnation. While there were indeed mistakes committed during the early years of Opus Dei, Allen says "Opus Dei is not the voracious recruiting machine of myth." --
This is an example of the tone of this article hard to find the criticisms, the critics are marginalised and the issue has been resolved maybe it has but only maybe and there are lots of critics of opud dei recruting practices e.g
In December 1981 Cardinal Basil Hume, O.S.B., issued public guidelines for Opus Dei in his diocese. He instructed Opus Dei not to recruit anyone under 18, to ensure that parents were informed, not to exert pressure on people to join, to respect the freedom of members to leave and to allow members to freely choose spiritual directors. He also required Opus Dei’s activities to carry a “clear indication of their sponsorship and management.”
2 lot of people ex members and other claim that opus is overly controlling in regarded to the life’s of it members… reading there mail , what to watch on tv what books to read even who to be friends with going so far as to have members shun anti opus family members. This is covered in the article. In Spiritual practice again
--Opus Dei is also accused of high control of members through tight schedules and internal confessors. Allen states: "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 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.after making the point that opus is accused of high control of members.--
I see a lot of feel good stuff with hardly any response to the claim maybe "running there own lives”
And in regard to shunning family members
--Regarding complaints on separation from parents and friends, Richard John Neuhaus writes that this is about an "intergenerational conflict that has been around from the beginning of time," a conflict that involves "innumerable young people, including recognized saints." The Catechism teaches: "Parents must remember and teach that the first vocation of the Christian is to follow Jesus: 'He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me.--
So you must pick between god and your family? Notice all the quotes, heard in discussion that quotes aren’t POV find that hard to believe the author only picked quotes that supported his case
Where you would think you would get criticisms of opus dei in Controversy over Opus Dei
There really isent any it a list of critics and how there misinformed and anti Catholic
There is some in Revolutionary or conservative?
--neoconservative or fundamentalist moral and political beliefs," "extremely traditionalist," and "pre-enlightenment" messages for society .--
The author used a pro choice group to make the claim and included many other religious groups to dilute the criticism but if you read the article that the quote came from you will see it was only about opus in regard to abortion.Most readers would think that because it was a pro choice group criticizing a religious group the arguments can be dismissed they shouldent be.
The whole article need to be re write
Ansolin 04:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC) (formatting edited to improve readibiliy -Alecmconroy)
I have added this page to Request for Comments, with an eye towards getting a member of the Mediation Committee to help out afterwards if needed. Here are the questions I think that need comments and mediation:
Hi Alec! I am in favor of all the images in the article, those uploaded by Walter and of course, those I uploaded. The Q and A addition is fine, Walter! It's not mine, you know. It's more of our summary of discussions.
Yes, those images help explain the text and they show OD's international character. That's the character of Opus Dei that's beyond dispute: an international prelature.
They show the different regions of the world: Slovenian Pot (East Europe), Hacsa image and Philippine painting (Asia), Participants Escriva Congress (Africa), Condoray women (Latin America), Perrottet (Australia), Fontan (Spain, where it is strongest), youthclub and Zweifel (Western Europe), Arnold Hall (US).
In this age of visuals, images convey much information. The image of Arnold Hall show how things are set up in OD, for example. Those images do support the views of majority of experts and, as has been repeated ad nauseam here, those sources of greater reputability. Of course, the anti-OD will not like them. But until they get some highly credible sources, they can't overturn the proportions. And until there is a social scientist more important than Introvigne who studied OD and the anti-cult movement, his insights will have to stay in the Intro. Let's all put Wikipedia first. :) Thomas S. Major 23:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Anyone who wants to (and in particular anyone who would want to participate in a future medation), feel free to post your own lists of issues if you feel I've left some out (or that my phrasing doesn't correctly capture the issue).
Anyone who comes to read this from the Request for Comment-- by all means, Comment :) - Alecmconroy 10:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I am new to Wikipedia and have been browsing this discussion with interest and amusement. The NPOV debate reminds me a bit of an old Monty Python skit, where two characters are arguing about whether they are having an argument...that there is a question of NPOV would seem self-evident :-). In any case, I think there are a few issues that came across to me immediately when reading the article that might warrant addressing.
(1) Jargon: As a lay person, I found the prolific use of Christian jargon, phraseology, and context made much of the article impenetrable to me. think it was written for, and by, someone who has been trained in Christian doctrine, which doesn't include me. I'd like someone to explain to me in common language what Opus Dei is, and what the controversies surrounding it are. It doesn't need to be a book, just an overview.
(2) Quotations: The excessive use of quotations apparently is an attempt to add strength to the assertions in the article, but actually has the opposite effect. Some quotes from established experts can do that, but in this case there are so many that it feels like the author is using them as clubs to fend off an expected onslaught of criticism. I don't know enough about OD to know what is controversial and what is not, but when I read the article I became wary. I believe if the article were truly neutral, there wouldn't be an expectation by the author of an attack, because if it were truly neutral, there would be little to attack. It also reads like a bible commentary, not an encyclopedia article.
(3) Scale: some social systems are so large that you can find an awful lot of people who participate in them, and become experts in them. In such a system it is easier to find a lot of people who write, and support each others views. That doesn't automatically make them right, or wrong, or non-controversial, it just means the system is large. Opus Dei and Christianity are examples of large systems that are represented in the article. Beyond the first few, quoting lots of experts who are all part of the same system doesn't add anything to the article, it detracts from it by creating suspicion in the reader. I'd like to see more references to people who are not part of those systems, but who represent significant other systems of belief.
(4) Unbalanced rebuttals: there are lots of paragraphs written in support of OD, and they are not followed by rebuttals, but the few mentions of problems and controversies with OD are all followed by rebuttals. It isn't fair to rebut selectively in an article that purports to be neutral. 70.88.254.65 22:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Ndss please do not mistake my lack of response to your comments as agreement, saying that you have heard my complains (and the dozen or so I have seen since I have started watching this page) before and feel that you have conformed to weki rule and are happy with the structure of the article (it has structure?) is really more of a demonstration of the problem then an answer to it.See most people who keep on getting the same complaints over and over again would think of changing things not writing a FAQ section. Ansolin 00:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Pvazz 08:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
i like the new section keep up the good work alic maybe it should be mentioned that most Catholics practice suffering by helping the poor and down trodden. Ansolin 12:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree needed to click on the picture before i could see the spikes. Ansolin 12:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
All this talk of who is most "luminary" makes me wonder how one compares luminosity in experts. Should we assign them a candlepower? But in particular, isn't it possible that the quiet knowledge of one could be stronger than the loudly proclaimed knowledge of many others? Galileo didn't have a lot of experts on his side in the 1600s. If Wikipedia had existed then, with a sincere attempt to be neutral, should it have given Galileo's views any space on the subject of planetary motion, given that practically the entire church strongly disagreed with him?
But battling generalities does not result in specific progress. To see if these issues could be resolved at a smaller level, I started looking at some of the specific quotes and references in the article to see if they truly buttress the point being made. I haven't analyzed the article exhaustively, but I looked at some cases. For example, I noticed the following.
In the section Controversy over Opus Dei, it says Introvigne "stated that secularists, liberal Catholics and anti-Catholics use the term 'cult' in order to attach a social stigma against Opus Dei which has been their 'prime target for years.'" Does this sentence contribute to a neutral description of OD? It doesn't say anything about OD, or its merits, and it doesn't say anything about the arguments against it, and how they are valid or invalid.
Instead, it attacks the people who argue against OD, rather than their arguments. It does it without data, but with hearsay, insinuation and association. It insinuates that if use the term "cult" you will be assumed to be chummy with "secularists, liberal Catholics and anti-Catholics", and do you really want to be associated with THEM? It then goes onto impune all those people by implication, stating with absolute certainty that their motives are to attach a social stigma to Opus Dei, and furthermore, that they have been doing it for years! And not only that but Opus Dei is their number one target! My God! How could you possible give any credence to what one of THOSE people has to say! None of that is verifiable or relevant, and it certainly isn't neutral. And wrapping it in quotes and attributing it to an expert doesn't excuse it.
Then, as if this kind of smear on the detractors isn't enough, the article goes on to say that "Secularist groups fight Opus Dei, he says, because "they cannot tolerate 'the return to religion'" of the secularized society." This further narrows the group of detractors to just secularists, because it would be hard to attribute the pursuent motive to the aforementioned liberal Catholics, and states unequivocally what this group, of which the writer is not a member, cannot tolerate. And what can't they tolerate? That secularized society is returning to religion. Is this itself an undisputed fact? Hardly. But saying it in this sideways fashion is just another technique to force the reader into taking sides by association and implication. Of course none of that is at all arguing the merits of OD. It is just a sophisticated way of slurring the detractors.
Then in the next paragraph, the articles goes on to state "Since secularists deny truth exists,..." What does this even mean? I don't think that secularists would deny that 2+2=4, and that certainly is truth. Unless you want to get into a whole other argument about what truth is, and who believes in it, this is not the place to makes such a weird statement. And once again, putting it in quotes does not make it any more relevant to the article.
There are many more of these kinds of inappropriate tracts in this article. This is why, when I, a neutral newcomer, with no bones to pick with OD, read the article, I come away thinking I need to go somewhere else, somewhere neutral, to really find out what is going on with OD. I think Wikipedia deserves better. 70.88.254.65 00:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your patience, 70 etc, or whoever you are!! Check out the first sentence of this article. OD is controversial org. Oxford dictionary: controversial -- causing controversy. controversy -- public debate about a matter which arouses strongly opposing opinions. If this is an encyclopedia worth its salt, it should uncover, analyze and synthesize why people are opposing OD, (and why people support it) and rely on reputable sources to analyze and synthesize it for us. I copy the entire NOR rule:
"the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources which provide information that is directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say."
"Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position."
Introvigne published his ideas, his analysis on OD and the anti-cult movement. What can we do? If people don't like his opinion, don't find it satisfying, they can try to write in 13 scientific journals, then publish their opinion on OD. Wikipedia will then be forced to replace Introvigne's statements. Ndss 03:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi Pvazz! Wikipedia refers to NPOV, NOR, Verifiability as non-negotiable policies. Suppose you know the difference between guideline and policies. No evading Wikipedia directions and standards!
Hi Alec! Am not pro-OD. Am pro-Wiki. Well, pro-Allen, you can say.
Take note: Wikipedia:NPOV--NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority). We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.
Take note: The core of the NPOV policy is to let competing approaches of the same topic exist on the same page: work for balance, that is: divide space describing the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources.
Take note: For an entry in an encyclopedia, ideas also need to be important. The amount of space they deserve depends on their importance and how many interesting things can be said about them.
Take note: in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject I read your comments and always felt you share Pvazz's "luminaries" statement. Am sure you too see the obvious disparity of reputability between John Paul II and DiNicola, Ratzinger and James Martin, Introvigne and Estruch, Allen and Walsh.
Take note: there is a difference in Wikipedia between significant minority and tiny (or extreme) minority. Thomas accepted the minority as significant minority.
The key word is proportion.
Therefore, your feeling does not hold: “I feel that the NPOV rule allowing unbalanced presentation exists only for cases of extreme minority viewpoints-- things like flat-earthers. I think that "neutral, unbiased, and equitable" is the general rule that should only be deviated from in extreme cases. In general, we should strive to persuade readers neither Pro- nor Con-.”
Take note: 84% of the world is religious. Moslems, the next biggest religion, side with the Catholic Church in contraception, divorce, etc. John Paul II who supported OD, is a world hero. He’s respected everywhere, isn’t he? His funeral saw the greatest gathering of statesmen in history. Countries all over the world had their flags at half mast. He gathered the greatest crowds in history. Take note: Allen's research shows that some people revile Escriva and millions venerate him. In doing homework, data is necessary. Allen did his homework. But I digress. Wikipedia correlates space to importance, expertise and reputability of sources and not other factors. Isn't it obvious that John Paul, Ratzinger have greater importance, expertise and reputability than Tammy DiNicola, Fr. James Martin, and Estruch? Dictionary: reputable --Having a good reputation; honorable. Thesaurus: Deserving honor, respect, or admiration: admirable, commendable, creditable, deserving, estimable, exemplary, honorable, laudable, meritorious, praiseworthy, respectable, worthy.
Take note: Allen's book was tagged by a prominent television network as "widely considered as the definitive book about Opus Dei." Is there any other book reputed to be a definitive book? We can't close our eyes to this. Wikipedians in a referendum won't close their eyes to this.
90:10 is the right proportion. Ndss 05:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
could you give a link to these anti cathlic articles that allen did. Ansolin 05:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
How about a second list of experts and scholars on this topic, Pvazz and Alec? And their claim to fame and "reputability" in the field of Catholic organizations, Catholic spituality, Catholic prelatures?
You can try your hand at analysis using Wikipedia parameters a la Lafem at Talk:Opus_Dei#Policy_on_credibility:_The_most_credible_experts_support_each_other.27s_claims
In reference 59, I don't know where the "Samuel Edgerton" reference was supposed to link, but I happened to notice it duplicates the succeeding Guenther Risse link instead. Art LaPella 03:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
For follow up work on Feature Article Candidacy, please see:
Talk:Opus Dei/FAC nomination September 2005 with additions
Although I had no part in writing the article, I would like to respond to the question on using Allen's book. I have reviewed Allen's book for a major national newspaper in Canada. I would argue that it is quite appropriate to rely on his work. I think it is a helpful point of reference because the author is an acclaimed reporter well versed in Catholic issues with no ties to Opus Dei. His research is far more thorough than any other book on the topic, and he had much greater access to information than anyone not a member of Opus Dei has had before. The problem with so many of the sources on this topic is that they have vested interests in the dispute. I don't think you would find any experts at least writing in English of Allen's stature who are not also engaged in a polemic on one side or the other. Allen is unique in this respect. So I think it is important to consider not primarily the diversity of the sources, but their relation to the dispute.
Finally as to the testimony of critics there is a section on this which cites Walsh, whose book is probably the most influential source of criticism, which many mainstream journalists seem to have used until quite recently. Also there is a Wikipedia article on Opposition to Opus Dei which is linked and which does go into this in significant detail, I'm not sure that it is necessary to repeat this in the present article.
(Unsigned edit by Jlawest as of 20:38, 6 June 2006. -- Túrelio 20:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC))
This is my first time commenting on Wikipedia. I read the article with great interest, and seems fairly reasonable. However, John Allen is quoted and referred to constantly and repeatedly in such a way that one is left wondering if we shouldn't simply be posting a summary of his book up here! Perhaps there are few other "good" sources or "experts" on this issue, but is it appropriate for a single "expert" to be referenced on virtually every single controversial point of the article. It seems that for every criticism or implied criticism of Opus Dei, Allen has an answer, and the writers of this article are very keen for us to see it. I don't know about others, but I'd rather read opinions from more diverse sources.
I find it a little strange, too, that none of the ex-members however "non-credible" are directly quoted, nor are some of the "racier" allegations of certain practices by Opus Dei members mentioned, even when they've been mentioned by the more reputable organs of the mainstream press.
Still, the frequency with which Allen is quoted and cited is the only problem I have with the article. It seems inappropriate to rely on a single journalist so heavily.
(Unsigned edit by Eurhetemec as of 21:20, 23 May 2006. -- Túrelio 20:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC))
Let's strive to keep order in the article, i.e. portions related to a section should stay in that section. For example:
I read the intro and still can't say I understand what opus dei means. This needs a more concise definition.
I am integrating once again the repeated sentences and improving further the NPOV of this section. I've tried to do this several days ago but my work kept on being erased, while others kept on putting it back (Thanks to you). I am now listing down why I think we should proceed this way.
I am not even adding to my reasons Wikipedia's Guidelines on Words to Avoid. Somebody in the future might want to argue using this. Or somebody might just be more radical and bold and trim this section to the length of the Human Rights section in the US article. Lafem 04:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
The "Contents" is to far down the page. -- WikiCats 01:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Not sure if you did this Marax, but the intro para seems to contain a contradiction. It indicates first that Opus Dei was "created by the Roman Catholic Church" and then that it was "founded" by St. Escriva. It seems to me that we ought to distinguish b/t something created institutionally by the Pope or the College of Cardinals, and something created by an individual who was just a priest at the time. To that end, I think it's misleading to say that Opus Dei was "created" by the church. -- Chaser 07:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Introvigne's own page suggests he is associated with OD: "In the academic year 2005-2006 he joined the faculty at the Opus Dei affiliated Pontifical University of the Holy Cross, Rome."
He has detractors on the web, but I have had a look at some of his work and it is legitimate to call him a sociologist of religion. BrendanH 13:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry I am reverting. The truth is Introvigne wrote that statement in 1994. He became a faculty member in 2005. To put the "link" (one of the words to avoid in Wikipedia) would be to mislead people that he wrote it as a faculty member in defense of Opus Dei. I agree with Marax. Ndss 10:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Introvigne has been in contact with Opus Dei for many years, as a former member I have the name Massimo Introvigne in my memory. But if you want a more reliable source please consult the followink link Bollettino Romana (Opus Dei official bulletin) n.26. January-June 1995 the number cited recalls activities of the second semester of 1994 and mentions the participation of Mr. Introvigne in an Opus Dei activity. Sorry in 1994 there was only an italian version of the bulletin.
florindo 19:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
On the available evidence it seems more than possible that Massimo Introvigne has not joined the faculty of the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross after all, but before making any change here I am awaiting the outcome of the discussion on Massimo Introvigne's Wikipedia page, which seems to be the source. Asoane 13:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I've recently done a number of edits which separate the theological/spiritual matters of Opus Dei from the social matters. The latest and hopefully the last is the separation of the complaints of the ex-members who are Catholics, from the sect issue, which proceeds from both Catholics and non-Catholics, and thus is more properly categorized under Opus Dei and society. I've also come up with a more neutral title, "Response of Society" to encompass the "stigmatization" of Opus Dei and the positive responses of the rest of society, an aspect that was sorely lacking. I hope this somehow addresses Lafem's suggestion and florindo's observation. Marax 07:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I had to delete this because it was intensely biased and promoted the violation of civil rights by national governments. It was also posted by just an IP address, if the person in question wishes to have a valid organized debate which includes sound and valid arguments then they should at least sign up for a wikipedia account. DaBuschman 7:59 am PST, 28 Feb 2006 (UTC)
Thank you DaBuschman. As a follow through, I erased the title and some other possible remnants of it... Marax 02:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I found a good summary of Escriva and Opus Dei's mission in John Paul II's 7 October 2002 Address in Praise of St. Josemaria. I placed this in the Introduction. The old rendering somehow implied that all have a vocation to stay in the world and sanctify themselves in the middle of ordinary circumstances, which is false. Marax 06:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I placed this in the footnote, a reference to Allen's statement on the misinterpretation of Opus Dei's secularity and privacy:
Given Baumann's cogent critique, and given the fact that these recommendations take up only 11 pages in his 387 page book (2.8% of the whole), I don't think these recommendations merit more than a footnote (much less a mention in the Introduction) in this short encyclopedic article on Opus Dei. Lafem 07:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
All the photos on this article are now in the Wikimedia Commons. So if anyone wants to use them in an Opus Dei article of another language, just click on the Edit this page and copy the relevant image text or whatever you call it.
You can also find the available photos here: Images on Opus Dei in Wikimedia commons
If you need help just write to me by email. You can find it in my User Talk Page: Walter Ching English. Please use the email. I rarely visit my talk page. Walter Ching 09:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
P.S. The ones not uploaded by me have also been uploaded: The one of Antonio Fontan/Massimo Introvigne/Benedict XVI you will find here: Thomas's images (uploaded by Thomas S. Major) and the Filipino painting Cabanes' images Opus Dei
I just stumbled over Opus Dei: Responses to Cult Accusations. It's not linked from anywhere and it would be an obvious merge candidate except Opus Dei may be a bit on the long side already. There is no "See also" section, so I leave it to those working on the article to make use of this information. Rl 10:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
It has been more than a month and I don't see any attempt to merge the orphaned content. Would anybody object to deletion? -- William Pietri 01:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
The Da Vinci Code comes to mind. It seems like they are portrayed in other fictional works. Seem worth a mention to anyone else? savidan (talk) (e@) 02:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Why does this article have no discussion of the levels of membership (i.e. numenary, supernumenary, etc.)? savidan (talk) (e@) 03:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I think the article lacks the controversy between Opus dei and the Da Vinci code. the book provoked the reaction of the opus dei leaders in public for the first time. Please read time's article, "the opus dei code" it might be helpful to expand views. -- Don Quijote's Sancho 04:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
The article seems to me to explain the criticism made of it fairly well, but its main thrust is mostly a coutering of such ideas. So criticism is made, but I feel there is a predominance of counter-criticism, being content to quote a few figures to say "Opus Dei is reactionary and right-wing", quickly followed with an elucidation as to why this is not true. Thus, both views are presented, it is true, but I personally feel the article generally discredits criticism made and concentrates on the promotion of the organisation's image. -- Aquilla
For info. I reverted an attempt by 82.69.113.120 to put the NPOV tag and warned him that his edit is akin to vandalism unless he pinpoints what he's disputing. Ndss 05:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
"This entire article is an Opus Dei brown-nosing." This article is clearly written by a leading member of Opus Dei, and is surely pure propaganda, with opposing viewpoints being mentioned only to be dismissed out of hand. 70.224.48.177 01:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC) David Harley
The truth is Johann Hari, Walsh, Lernoux, Tapia, Hutchinson do not even make the grade of being "sources of comparable reputability" compared to John Paul II, Ratzinger, Allen and Messori. But they are mentioned here. By what Introvigne and O'Connor wrote about Walsh's unscientific work, it's Walsh's text that counts as propaganda. Propaganda = misleading information. Rabadur 06:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I beg to disagree with Zmbe that the comparison is altogether subjective. Please check the concrete policies of Wikipedia to make the comparison objective at NPOV_tutorial#Expertise: "What makes an expert credible? Some criteria include:
Hi Turlington. I saw your move to erase the ending statement at Opus Dei. I agree with you that the statement sounded awkward. I've been doing some work yesterday to ensure that each section which is controverted ends with a neutral statement. I checked out the former neutral ending statement of early January 2006 (see [4]) and I've been thinking of a new one. What do you think of: Due to Opus Dei's controversial nature, any approach to it, whether it is taken from a stand that it is God's revolutionary Work, a conservative political force, or something else, will have to contend with many opposing issues. What do you think? Rabadur 06:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I have added the lost link to the Opus Dei and politics Wikipedia page with the standard caption:
For a more detailed discussion, please see Opus Dei and politics.
Sometimes it disappears, accidentally, I guess .
Nice to see you again, guys! -- Uncertain 15:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Why does the comment about Johann Hari put quotes around the description of him as journalist, and then call him an antitheist? There is nothing on his wikipedia page about religion (or antireligion.) Obviously he is a published journalist; I'm removing the quotes. Any comments on the antitheist business? Zmbe 15:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
This article was formerly listed as a good article, but was removed from the listing because As i have posted above, this article looks and reads like a brochure from the church. The main article itself needs more critical analysis, and the link to Opposition to Opus Dei, which is also biased in favor of the organization (and in which i also put in a NPOV tag), need to be more prominent -- Bud 10:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I really believe that this article needs a thorough copyedit by a 3rd party to make it more NPOV. It does almost seem to read like a brochure from Opus Dei. I can't see how this could be best resolved, but it's not really NPOV. It needs to be somewhat more dispassionate, in my view. It really does appear to be just trying to show the best side of the organisation, and while that may be OK on Opus Dei's site, we are not here to make them look good, or make them look bad either. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but the article's tone sounds like critics expressing their ideas while playing doubles' advocate at the same time. Even if you disagree, it is definitely not truly NPOV, despite efforts to make it so. --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 03:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
The second paragraph, in contrast, is biased towards Opus Dei. --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 03:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
All though I agree that the author of this article is trying to keep it NPOV there is a clear bias towards opus dei.. When ever the author brings up a criticism he instantly puts it down and always using much more ink to do so,1 line on the criticism then 6 on the response.I also disagree with his definition of “best source” the pope and members of the Vatican are indeed very knowledgeable on religious issues but can they in any way be called un biased. We need counter arguments by knowledgeable and biased members against opus dei for every one that is for them.
Also I need more info on how opus day separates its members for it family and friend and way more on what types of corporal penance is imposed on its members. There membership is mostly in the first world so saying that this stuff goes on in some places in the world just doesent get it done. Ansolin 07:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
havent changed my mind sorry credible is POV and why not switch side with each point have one where opus is attacked with a 6 -10 line responce then one where a point made by opus is refuted in the same way e.g that opus is non political. Ansolin 05:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Anybody who wants to edit this page for NPOV should first read John Allen's book. According to CBS, it is "widely considered as the definitive book about Opus Dei." [5] Ndss 06:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it can be called "much debated" when its critics continue to praise him and Damian Thompson agrees with him on several counts. Please see John_L._Allen,_Jr.#Reviews_of_his_work_on_Opus_Dei. Ndss 06:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Time Magazine used "respected". His critics used derivatives of this term. Baumann: has earned a reputation for balanced, informed reporting; Thompson: Damian Thompsom, who, after saying that his "column is a byword for objectivity; McDermott: respected Rome correspondent. Peter Duffy of America Magazine: respected Vatican correspondent. Ndss 10:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Don Corleone was also respected. Dispense with your fetish for Allen's objectivity. Elucidate his arguments, elaborate his theoretical approach to history and biography, draw on the documents and evidence collated in his book, but don't expect anyone to concede authority to him purely on the opinion of a few journalists. Pvazz 12:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I'll say upfront, I have no great views one way or the other about Opus Dei-- I'm just a random reader who watched a documentary on it one fine Sunday afternoon and came to Wikipedia to learn more. This is one example where Wikipedia seems to have difficulty: topics that inspire passion.
As it currently stands, the article suffers from a lot of technical problems. The flow is hard to discern. If I want to hear about some particular sub-issue, it's almost impossible to know where to look. Large amounts of quotations give the writing a schiziophrenic feel-- Allen in particular is referenced far too much. It takes a lot of effort to figure out what is a direct quotation, what is a paraphrase of a quotation, and what totally unrelated to quotation. The section headings are troublesome-- in general, subjects should have ONE place to be discussed, rather than being interspersed throughout the text. The society's role in The Da Vinci Code should have a subsection all to it's on-- for better or for worse, it's how most people first hear about Opus Dei. The controversy and criticism should all be in one section, rather than being scattered throughout the article. I don't know what to expect to find in sections like "Call and demands: theological basis", "Mission, strategy, and characteristics", "Analysis of the message and actual practice", "Faith, novelty".
Even harder to fix is the persistent Pro-Opus Dei point of view throughout the entire article. My first opinion upon coming here was very skeptical to the allegations that Opus Dei is a "cult", and I'm still skeptical. But allow me to say, lightheartedly, that this article does remind me just a little of the kind that would be written by cultists-- by which I just mean, it's overwhelming positive. It's very obvious that that the majority of the contributers to this article feel that Opus Dei is pretty much the best thing in the world. Way too much of the article is filled up with adoring quotes from popes, bishops, authors, members, and others. They all use different phraseology, but essentially, they repeat the same message, "Opus Dei is great", over and over and over. It's fine to include a few of those, or even make a whole section for "Supporters of OD", but to intersperse so many into the body of every section of the article violates neutrality.
The most minor issue that I have is that the article comes from a very christian point of view, and seems geared towards a very christian audience. There are a lot of techinical catholic and religious terms that are going to be unfamilar to a lay audience. To some extent this is going to be unavoidable-- but all the same, the article should TRY to avoid it. For example-- at one point, readers are advised to see another sub-article "For other testimonies"-- an odd phraseology for an encyclopedia article. Terms like "the faithful", "the worldly", and the rest are similarly out of place. A lot of technical catholic terms are used that I don't know the precise meanings of. The article includes many biblical citations in order to prove specific points-- to a non-christian audience, these are of little use.
If this article is ever going to end up on the good article list or the featured article list, a lot of work is needed. My suggestions:
1. Start out by trying VERY hard to actually generate a Neutral article. Make up your mind to TRY your hardest to make an article that does not assume any opinion. Realize that if the reader comes away from the article agreeing with the point of view you hold, then you have failed. Strive to make an article that genuinely won't persuade one way or the other. Tone down opinions you agree with, using the same furvor you would use for opinions you disagree with. Put Wikipedia first, and put your own views second. (These things are, admittely, very hard to do. But if you don't try, your edits will just hurt the article in the long run).
2. Farm out a lot of the religious views to sub-pages. Try to make the main page as much "just the facts" as you can. A _brief_ _summary_ of the specific religious tenets of Opus Dei have their place, but the operative words there are "brief" and "summary".
3. Kill the quotation-mania. Instead, use the main article as a place to discuss the things everyone can agree on: the history, the types of membership, the timeline, the legal status, the existence of the controversy.
4. Give the controversy its due. Have one good section on it. Do not demonize the critics, do not psychoanalyze them, do not speculate about their motives, and do not claim that their existence proves Opus Dei's sanctity through the "sign of contradiction". Just say there are critics, here's how they feel. Balance this criticism through a section called "Support for Opus Dei", not through a section about "Criticisms of the Critics".
5. Try to be "encyclopedic". Sound like an encyclopedia. Use Society of Jesus as a model, for example.
Lastly, I'm putting up the POV tag, I'd suggest leaving it up until serious changes are made, or else people are probably going to just keep putting it up again and again.
Hope this stuff helps. Seems like a really interesting organization, and one deserving of a good strong neutral, easy-to-read article. -- Alecmconroy 22:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone who have spent time critiquing this article. I specially like alecmconroy's Putting Wikipedia first comment.
For that it is important to read first the basic guidelines of Wikipedia on controversial topics:
Please also read the FAQ above, where the long discussions on NPOV are summarized and linked to. After having read this, and you still have comments not discussed there, I'd accept the NPOV tag. Thank you for your patience. I worked hard to keep the pro-OD and the anti-OD contributors to follow Wikipedia.
Also, please keep in mind that there are passions on both side of this question. Many studies have been done on this topic, you can also see the history of this article, and you can also see Religious Homepage and the Fr. Martin article, and the work of Allen. All agree that in materials gathered about OD, the strong pro-OD stand and the strong anti-OD stand co-exist. So it is inevitable that this article makes OD look good and look bad at the same time, but given the lopsidedness of the balance in expertise, OD seems to look better. Mind you, I've studied how this article developed. There were edit wars, there were attempts to place only non-controversial points, but they don't work. The two sides will keep on bringing in points, but the way to keep the balance as the Wikipedia NPOV policy states is to divide space, and stick by the Wikipedia policy first. I can assure everyone that this Wikipedia first policy brought about the longest period of peace for this article. Thomas S. Major 01:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'd say the first sign that you defintiely have a POV problem is when you have to write a FAQ to address all the people coming to point out that you have a POV problem. The second indication is when three different people add a POV tag to your article over the course of a week and a half. If many people disagree about whether an article is neutral-- then there is a disagreement about whether or not article is neutral, and the NPOV tag has a place at the top of the page. When a super-majority consensus of people agree the page is neutral, then it seems wise to take it down. As it is-- charges of non-neutrality are being leveled against this article quite, quite frequently. Seems like that alone would suggest a dispute over the neutrality does exist. I'll put the tag back up just to signify I read your counter-arguments at the FAQ and the archives, and wasn't swayed by them-- if you take it down again, I won't put it back up and will leave that to future editors.
Your quotation from the style guide that disapproves of a separate controversy section is something I've bumped into before. I personally disagree with it-- I think that controversy sections can be very useful, particularly in articles that have a huge NPOV problem. I think the very best articles do manage to integrate controversies into the larger narratives, but those articles are very difficult to acheive. The "He Said - She Said" style of writing may not be as graceful, but it's easier to do, and it has it's merits. But, it's a stylistic choice, and many people do despise the "He said - She said" style. In any case, I think it's certainly possible to achieve neutrality without a controversy section, but you might think about using one for a while, lest your attempt to "fold the controversy into the narrative" result in the controversy being utterly obscured by the narrative.
Next, let me say that there's a lot of talk of using the "opinions of experts" as a justification for having a pro-OD slant. The logic, layed out in the FAQ and elsewhere, goes as follows: Most reputable experts agree OD is wonderful thing, while only a small minority say it's a cult. Therefore, we are allowed to have ten sentences about how OD is great for every sentence we have that criticizes OD.
For me, this argument doesn't hold a lot of water, and I think it seriously misinterprets the NPOV_tutorial#Expertise. The expertise proportion rule is a way to justify not giving equal discussion time to extreme minority views on factual issues-- holocaust denyers or flat earthers, for example. In these cases, the minorities are EXTREME minorities-- you will never, for example, see a major news show discuss whether the earth is genuinely flat or not. Secondly, these are all issues of scientific facts, not opinions.
But with OD controveries, the minority view (critical of OD) is not an extreme minority. Nearly ever news show on OD gives serious screen time to interviewing ODAN members and considering the possibility that OD might have problems (I watched two such programs just today). Most of all, whether OD is "good" or "cultlike" is a question of pure opinion, not of scientific fact. NPOV_tutorial#Expertise explicitly singles out religious topics as an instance where the expertise proportion rule is invalid. The simple fact is there is no such thing as an expert on whether or not OD is a good thing or not. Benedict, Allen, and Escrivá are no more "experts" on whether OD is good, bad, or a cult than ODAN is. It's like the abortion issue-- there isn't any "expert" on whether abortion is or is not immoral. The expertise rule is utterly inapplicable here.
Now certainly, the expertise rule applies to matters of history-- If you want to claim that OD is employing albino monks as part of some international conspiracy, then you can bring the expertise rule in to point out that no one seriously believes that. But as to whether or not OD qualifies as cultish-- expertise doesn't apply.
The controversial commments are introduced in a forumalic way. 1. Most people love OD. 2. Someone out there claims OD is somehow bad. 3. Everyone else disagrees with that person. 4. Experts point out that person is somehow bad (e.g. just hates christians, has a psychological motivation, etc). 5. Experts point out that this PROVES OD is good, via the sign of contradiction.
This sort of style is never going to reach NPOV. Much better is: 1. OD is controversial. 2. Many, many people love OD, and here's a few reasons why. 3. Some people dislike OD, and here are the reasons they give for that. The end. Don't give into the temptations to critique the critics-- if you do that, then the critics have the right to critique your critiques, and so on, on and on and on.
However, the big NPOV problem isn't just the discussion of the controversy. There's a persistent pro-OD slant infused through the whole article. To give you an idea of how far we've gotten from neutrality, let me remind you-- it is not a neutral fact to even say there IS a God. It is not neutral to say that there are Sacred Scriptures, or faithful individuals, or a holy call, or anything like that. Even referring to Jesus by the name "Jesus Christ" is pushing the envelope. Sanctity seems to be a critical word of OD, but to even describe anyone or anything as "sanctified" is to admit as fact a huge portion of things-- like the existence of a sacred God, for example. Whenever the encyclopedic voice is speaking (that is, outside of direct quotations), you cannot just talk about God in an everyday fashion as if it's obvious he exists. "God's mercy", "God's grace", "sanctification", etc. A "real article" written in an encyclopedic fashion does not throw these terms around.
So, consider just the section "Message and spirituality: an overview"-- almost every single sentence is POV. And simply finding a source to quote that says the same things will NOT solve the problem. This is an encyclopedia, not a theological publication. Think: "What would an atheistic historian want to know about this organization?" Things that are verifiable, things like history of the organization, it's demographics, it's legal stance within the catholic church, the types of its membership. And lastly, a very brief summary of it's unique spiritual views, all cached in terms of a neutral, historian's point of view.
The United States and Islam are excellent examples of good, encyclopedic tone. Islam's "encyclopedia voice" never asserts Allah even exists. It doesn't contain large quotes about how wonderful Islam is. It doesn't seem like it was written by Muslims-- it seems like it was written by historians. Almost every sentence is verifiable and factual, not opinion. I don't think you're getting what people have meant by "brochure" if you think these two articles also exhibit the property. I suppose the other two articles may sound like travel brochures-- but this article sounds like a membership brocure. In the other two articles, they never say "The United States is great" or "Islam is wonderful". This article is almost nothing but quotes from people emphasizing their support for OD, along with sentences that carry many, many theological assumptions.
To be sure, neither US nor Islam talk alot about controversy, but then, neither of those as as controversial as OD-- at least not in the English-speaking world.
Summary:
1. Way too much space is given to an exposition of the theology of OD. Focus on factual and verifiable information, not on a sermon. As much as possible, confine "What OD believes" to a single section, and leave the rest of the article as very encyclopedic.
2. Imagine the 'encyclopedia voice' as a very boring, uninspired, atheistic historian. "Mr. Encyclopedia" has no passion, no position, he just conveys facts. He doesn't believe in God, "the faithful", "sanctity", or anything like that-- and he doesn't disbelieve in them either. He's interested in who founded OD, how many members, the legalities, the demographics, etc. He is vaguely interested in what people believe, but just give him a quick summary. He's vaguely interested in the reasons people have given for liking OD, but not too much. He's vaguely interested in the reasons people have given for disliking OD, but not too much.
3. As it is, this article has no "Mr. Encyclopedia"-- it has no encyclopedic tone. Most of this article is saying positive things about OD-- sometimes through direct quotes, sometimes through paraphrased quotes, sometimes just by saying it outright. These sorts of value-laden statements should be purged, with only a tiny minority kept in a few specific sub-sections.
4. It might be fruitful to contact someone from Mediation-- perhaps their expertise could convey what needs to be done to this article better than I have.
5. Ya gotta put Da Vinci Code back in-- if only to debunk it. If you're American, you never heard of OD until the Da Vinci Code brought it up. Sad, but true.
6. Believe me when I say the article needs serious attention. To the extent that you might want to throw the whole thing out, archive it, and start again, being very careful to only add in sentences that come from a very neutral point of view, a very encyclopedic tone, and that every word is verifiable as a 100% fact that you would find in every single history book, no matter who wrote it. Get a very "just the facts" article, where anyone at all could easily agree as to the validity of every word. And then, once you have the strong neutral foundation, very gingerly add in the theological summary, the positive quotes about OD, and the negative quotes about OD.
6. Don't give up-- purging your writing of viewpoint is incredibly hard. We can see the mote in someone else's eye, but we can never see the beam in our own. If you looked at stuff I wrote that I care deeply about, you'd probably see ten million biases that I have that I'm blind to. So, let me re-iterate, for all the criticisms I level as this current article, I don't doubt your good faith in writing it. Just keep soliciting comments, keep listening to all the people who have criticisms, keep working on developing an encyclopedia tone, and eventually you'll find the article has evolved into one no one objects to.
-- Alecmconroy 06:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Ndss,
I should clarify that I didn't meant to imply that encyclopedia tone must be "atheistic"-- a sentence declaring "God does not exist" would be a horrible NPOV problem. A better term would be "non-theistic", or perhaps just "religiously neutral". The point I'm trying to make is you just can't assume God exists, that he is the Christian god, that he is the Catholic god, and that he approves of Opus Dei-- to have sentence that speak this way is to speak from a very specific non-neutral point of view.
Consider just a few sentences, of which there are countless other examples:
These sorts of theological comments are not verifiable-- does baptism really make someone a member of God's family, or is it just getting wet? Should Christians really like freedom, or should they desire servitude? on and on and on. The statements aren't verifiable. The sheer frequency of these statements, along with similarly quotations, constitutes a violation of NPOV. Very little of the article is encyclopedic tone.
It's hard for me to understand the logic in removing the NPOV tag. I'd remind you that the tag does not mean this article DOES violate NPOV-- it simply means there is an on-going dispute about whether or not the article violates NPOV. That we're having this discussion is proof that such a dispute exists. That many other people have put the tag up is further proof. All the NPOV discussions on the talk pages is even further proof.
Lastly, I feel you're really wrong on this expertise issue. For one, verfiability, encyclopedic tone, and NPOV trump the style guide suggestions about proportionality. For two, the style guide explicitly mentions religion as an area where there is less scientific expertise. For three-- who should we count as an expert? If just experts who specialize only in Opus Dei, then most of the experts will be pro-OD, because that's the type of person interested in studying OD. If we use Catholicism experts, many more are going to be anti-OD. If we use general christianity experts, the number drops more. If we use experts in religion, most people are going to anti-OD. If we include scientists, then it seems the proportion rule should dictate we dedicate a lot of space to saying that OD is silly (after all, less than 1% of the population is a OD member-- all the rest of the population agrees that OD is not something they want). Clearly, this is silliness.
Perhaps you'll say we should include only those experts who specialize just in Opus Dei. But this would be like the Abortion article insisting we include only the expertise of doctors who perform abortions-- because they are the true experts. That too is silliness. It's a controversy of opinion and morality, not of fact. An abortion doctor is no more an "expert" on the morality of the subject than a rabbi or a lama or a janitor.
-- Alecmconroy 10:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a million, Alecmconroy! First, for your patience. Second, for your persistence. And above all, for your good faith and for trusting in ours. And thanks another million to Ndss and Lafem. Fine arguments, indeed.
Yes, there is a misunderstanding of Wikipedia:NPOV that is inherent in Alec's arguments.
Here are the facts of Wikipedia:NPOV, the non-negotiable policy.
I find this type of misunderstanding common among Wikipedians. Many think neutrality means not attributing opinions to anybody who says positive things. Many Wikipedians also think that NPOV means not attributing opinions to anybody who talks about God. The "simple formulation" disproves both of these misunderstandings. Since you also are not in favor of attribution ("Kill the quotation-mania" as against Wikipedia's "The more at variance from commonly accepted notions an assertion is, the more rigorously it should be documented."), this adds up to the misunderstanding.
The summary of Message and spirituality is introduced by the statement: "The following are the main features of Escrivá's spiritual teachings, the core message of Opus Dei."
Another thing re "not demonizing the critics": From guidelines on controversial issues: "Identify the possible bias of the source (including organizational, financing, and/or personal ties with interested parties.)"
I was the one who made the FAQ. I confess it was a mistake to call it such, because the NPOV tag was raised 13 Sept 2005 (the article was called POVish 4 Sept 2005) and raised again 17 May 2006 (was said to be not biased by favouring OD 17 April 2006). I've renamed it Q and A, and will later add the insights of this discussion.
Thanks, Alecmconroy. Your feedback is appreciated. I promise to continue working on the article. Of course, the Wikipedia-way. :-) Thomas S. Major 02:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
This article suffers from a common wikipedian malady. The article's creators, the vast majority of its editors, are strongly in favour of its object. Hence, it has evolved into a long melange of highly POV tracts pock-marked by an excessive amount of 'iconic' Opus Dei images. All the political arguments against Opus Dei remain relatively undisputed, and yet by using non-sequiturs, and 'reputable' sources in the Catholic Church, the Wikipedia article neutralizes the effect of these political arguments. This is an encyclopedia not a piece of journalism. Opinion or 'doxa' as Plato would have called it should be treated cautiously. Sources, links, and journalistic opinion already cloud this article's points. Even if we could arrange every document, published work, academic opinion, internet polemic on Opus Dei it would not necessarily alter the non-neutral POV of the article. For NPOV this is what must be done:
Pvazz 10:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi to all. I am surprised and shocked at the authority displayed by Pvazz. He speaks in terms of should and must without any mention of any Wikipedia policy to back him up. Is this part of a new dictatorship? a new dogmatism? I thought the only monarch in Wikipedia is Jimbo Wales whose NPOV policy is the rule?
This is indeed an encyclopedia whose beloved rule includes Wikipedia:NOR.
Pvazz wants to remove the tone of Opus Dei. But most of the writers cited here are non-Opus Dei members!
He wants a purge -- a rather Hitlerian comment, I would say-- of "non-sequiturs which attempt to refute political criticism". What? I can't believe I found myself in an Orwellian nightmare!! Allen is not allowed to speak? Messori? Introvigne? Crozier?
This is Wikipedia, my friend. And Wikipedia has its own rules. If you want to write an essay a la Estruch, solely based on "subjective, arbitrary" sociological analysis (Schall), then write one. But not here, sir. Not in Wikipedia.
The Wikipedia method is to determine importance of the writers which we must cite (NOR again).
This rule, my friend, is for all topics, religion, and otherwise.
This demands hard work, man, and not some wishful, dreamy effusions of opinion. Well, here is my preliminary listing:
One more thing. They tend to agree with one another. I'd await other opinions of importance and the basis of their reputability. The criteria for reputabiity for experts can be applied (a) strictly because Opus Dei is also a social science issue; (2) non strictly but as a valuable guide, because the tutorial states: less expertise and more opinion, but does not invalidate it, as Ndss very well expressed. Lafem 09:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
WIKIPEDIA is not a soap box . If wikipedia was it would make sence to put forth a premice and then prove it by using the most credable sources.Heres the problem Catholics believe that when a pope speaks about religion he is speaking with the word of god so when pope Benedict XVI says that opus die is a great thing for all time then any good cathlic would find it hard to argue. But the world is not made up of just catholics and some of them object to some things that opus does. I suggest keeping the religion only in opus dei belief section every where else focus on what opus does there lots of good stuff building school helping the poor equal rights for women many more but not hidding the fact that self flagellation is endorsed something that very few catholic agree with and has other problem that although are mention in the article only in a very brief way and always show as resolved . The world has not resolved these issues and so wikipedia cannot. Ansolin 20:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
he opus dei alert by a traditionalist -- is not a good site to link to. It's main criticism of
Opus Dei is that it is supported by a Pope who is illigitimate because he wanted to reconcile the Church with the Jews. It is a run by an anti-semite and isn't really honestly critical of Opus Dei. It is more hateful towards Jews and Pope John Paul II's call for reconcilliation with them.
I have re-written the first paragraph of the introduction. I tried to bring a logical development to the sentence order. I would also like to add a sentence on Opus Dei's governing structure before 1982. Still think we can condense the introduction into two paragraphs, and that the views of Allen et al. should be moved below where they can be given proper treatment. Pvazz 09:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I find the constant use of allan for a source a little weak make it sound like the author of this article has only read one book I know he hasn’t but that’s how it sound’s lots of times allen says thing that have been said by many sources why not use them.
There is no way you can say in the opening that all issue have been resolved the fact that this page is so often re write is a clue to the contrary .
I edit out your statement that mortification of the flesh was common I know allan said it was but that doesn’t make it so if u really think it true why not use statistic .
The percentage of catholic who believe mortification is good how many practice it on a regular basis what parentage of them are lay people .should be noted that most priest don’t do it.
Ansolin 13:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I rewrote the last two paragraphs of the introduction. Besides changes aimed to give a consistent style to the arguments, I added a sentence about early Jesuit criticism, one on the growth of interest in Opus Dei after 1982, moved the sentence on the uniqueness of the Prelature structure to the first paragraph, and re-wrote the setences on Allen's 'myth of Opus Dei. I also restored the list of criticisms which had been deleted. Next I will begin with the main sections of the article. If any one from the Opus side wants to collaborate with me, I would appreciate it, as we will need consensus to make sure the article reaches an appropriate standard.
Yes Walter, I know, Allen gives all Catholic supporters of Opus an intellectual orgasm; using 'reputable', 'respectable', 'highly respectable' ten times in a sentence won't convince me that he is anything more than an insider catholic journalist, aligned politcally to the Vatican, who cherishes his own expedient reputation for objectivity. Nevertheless, I agree his book is important.
Ansolin, can you give a bit of warning before you delete entire paragraphs.
Yes, Thomas, I will take it easy. Thanks for your advice on the article. Pvazz 05:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
i edited the da vinvi section figue people wonted to know what brown said and how (or if) it wrong more then the source he used.
Ansolin 03:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Anonimus sent me a note saying quots wosent pov hmmm... like dan brown quoting holy blood holy grail. Ansolin 22:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Anonimus, I reverted some of the sentences you changed back to their previous form. In the second paragraph, it is Opus Dei which has emphasized these teachings, which is why they are included. Writing 'after one year of research' before Allens thoughts is an irrelelvant, unverifiable clause. In addition, I thought that the previous formulation of Allens myth/reality position was too feeble. To say that he aims to demystify the views of certain Opus critics gives a more precise account of his position. Lastly, the the locution 'according to' need not be followed by direct quotation marks.
Pvazz 08:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
if you really need an allenisum how about "the defects and virtues of Opus Dei tend to become wildly exaggerated" . Ansolin 23:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Marax, your point was well made. Now, I also think 'catholic teaching' is acceptable and appropriate. I will have to think more about Allen's reality/myth methodology. As I wrote above, I think the current formulation is feeble. Maybe a re-write in which 'myth' and 'reality' are conserved as key terms...
Ndss, how is the prohibition on original research relevant to my point? Don Corleone was 'respected' by his colleagues, similarily, Allen is 'respected' by certain mainstream US journalists and other Catholic Vaticanistas. You wrote that Allen was respected in some absolute sense. I think we should refrain from using this term for Allen as it is vague, all-purpose, and opinionated. Allen gets nearly four sentences in this introduction to an article on Opus Dei. I suggest you footnote Allen's commendations: 'respected' 'renowned' 'reputable' etc. Afterall, the second paragraph shouldn't read like the blurb of Allen's book.
Alec, I agree. As I wrote above, most of the superfluous images should be removed, especially the photos of supernumearies with fifty children and other assorted images of random members. I also think that Allen, Introvigne, Balthasar and every other Opus commentator should be removed from the introduction. Their views should be summarized and footnoted. I have only restored Balthasar because, in my view, he belongs there until it is decided to remove Allen, Introvigne. If anyone thinks his later views are relelvant, I suggest you put them in the footnotes. 'Fundamentalism' has not been quoted, and any detailed examination of Balthasar's postion should be undertaken in the article's body.
I have re-added the sentence on Opus membership. As it stands, the opening paragraph summarizes Opus' place in the Catholic church, its membership structure, and also includes an estimate of the number of its members. I don't think any of this information is superfluous, nor out of place in an introduction. To whoever (ansolin?) wrote that people come to Opus Dei for enlightenment concerning the Da Vinci Code, Wikipedia already has an article Da Vinci Code. Pvazz 11:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Proposed revision on sentence dealing with Opus Dei's membership in opening paragraph:
Any comments on changing it to the following?
MrsPam. Celibacy may be practised by both men and women, it refers to the status of being unmarried. As it stands, the sentence lists the different categories of membership, and introduces them in their historical order. This is sufficient for an introduction. Pvazz 03:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
MrsPam 21:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Your edit is twice as long, adds little relevant information, and is confusing, almost misleading. Many lay members are numeraries; placing 'supernumeraries' in brackets implies that all lay members are supernumeraries, which is not the case. Further, only 70% of members are supernumeraries. Lastly, your edit removes two important pieces of information: a. at the time of its foundation only celibate numerary members could join; b. assistant-numeraries are all women. Pvazz 03:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
MrsPam 01:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
It is an accurate and succinct statement. A more detailed explanation is given below in the membership section. The words numerary and supernumerary are derived from latin supernumerarius. In Latin the term referred to members of a legion who exceeded the standard number. Numerary was also used in the Church to denote those who lived according to canonical law, or simply canons. Given that at least some of this is explained below, it shouldn't be included in the introduction. See above, 'celibacy' simply means unmarried. Celibacy is what distinguishes numeraries from supernumeraries; the grounds for that celibacy, whether canonical, theological, should be explained below. I think the membership sentence should be in the first paragraph. It does form a minor break with the preceding sentence, but overall it continues the central idea of the opening paragraph. I will reunite them. MrsPam, I hope you now see the reasoning behind the current form of this sentence. Pvazz 03:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi Alec. I noticed your edit after having posted above. I disagree. You've bloated the introduction and not added any relevant information. I will add 'Associates' to the original formulation, and then reunite it with the first paragraph. Pvazz 04:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello everyone. I agree that the introduction ought not to be bloated with unnecessary information. Why not link the terms "numerary", supernumerary", etc. to the section which explains them (3.3)? This would 'fill out' the paragraph without enlarging it.
MrsPam 15:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Re-reading the introduction, I notice 'everyone is called to become a saint' is in quotation marks as a Catholic belief. In the next sentence, Opus Dei's innovation is praised by JPII and others. Marax, if their central teaching is innovative why have you argued that it should be classified as Catholic teaching and not Opus Dei teaching. Surely, whether 'everone is called to become a saint' is a novel interpretation of Catholic teaching, or pre-emption of what has now become Catholic teaching, the quoted statements should be attributable to Opus and not the Catholic Church. What do you think? Pvazz 04:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I think it is a Catholic teaching that "everyone is called to become a saint". See the Catechism of the Catholic Church sections 2013-4 and 2028: "All are called to holiness: 'Be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.'"
MrsPam 01:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
1. Been slowing going through trying to organize things logically and moving a few things around. In a few cases I found quotes that didn't seem directly relevant to the sections they were in, but I didn't want to just delete them outright either, so I've moved them to a new section called "Support and Endorsements For OD". Perhaps if we can start to pull away all the commentaries (both For and Against) from the historical sections and pull them into the Commentaries (Support and Criticism) sections, we may find it easier to focus on things that are missing. (For example, it turns out the section on "Name" didn't included the translation of Opus Dei-- granted, it's in intro, but if there's going to be a section on name, we should explain what the name means. I put it in.). This would also help shorten the article, since several of the Pro- and Con- arguments are repeated three, even four times in the article. At the least, let's try to pull the criticism and support statements to the end of the section they reside in, so that the reader can get a good understanding of what exactly is being supported or critiqued.
2. What's the source for "Message and spirituality: an overview"? A source is listed that has very similar subject headings [8], but the text has been completely re-written. I guess I'm still confused about what this section is. Is it one large block quote we got directly from an OD source, or is it our (wikipedians) own summary of what we think OD's message is?
3. Do we have a good quote where Escriva talks about why he chose that name? I know we have a Ratzinger/Benedict source that conveys the gist and that'll work, but it be even better if we had a direct quote from him on why he chose that name. (I'm assuming, here, that he felt he chose it and could explain his reasoning, though perhaps he felt he 'experienced' the name in the initial vision and couldn't explain why that name. But the things I've read seem to suggest it was a later choice with a specific motivation behind it). In any case, this is a small point-- the secondhand summation of Escriva's name choice gets the job done.
4. Am I correct in thinking that being a personal prelature is an honor? I found a couple of sources talking about OD's status as the only personal prelature being a sign of honor and a sort of thumbs up from the vatican. Is it correct to list this as an honor, or is it more just a matter of pure bureaucractic expedience?
5. In general, this article is really really long. The long article warning starts to kick in at 32kb, and we're now at 83kb. Not a hard and fast rule, but something to be aware of. Perhaps we could make a "Theology of Opus Dei" page that could handle the extensive, highly-technical theological discussion that's currently on the main page.
6. Do we really need all these pictures? Obviously we have to have a picture of Escriva, and the pictures of OD's Our Lady of Peace and of the Prelate Javier Echevarria both seem apropriate. Pictures of John Paul II and Benedict XVI could certainly be seen as relevant. But most of the pictures don't seem notable-- a lot just belong in a snapshot album somewhere: the Perrottet family picture tells me nothing (other than the fact that there is at least one family somewhere on earth that is a member of OD, which is something we all knew), and a picture of some random youth group doesn't seem notable. Four random women from Latin America, three random women at a conference. There's a picture of a conference center, presumably where OD members sometimes have conferences, but the text doesn't say. There's even a picture of the cover of an italian book on religion that happens to talk some about Opus Dei. I understand wanting to have a few pictures to break up the text, but wouldn't it be better with not quite so many?
5. I really have to take issue with the repeated removal of the NPOV dispute tag. Within the past two weeks I ( Alecmconroy), 82.69.113.120, Bud, 70.224.48.177, Ta bu shi da yu, member, and Pvazz have all made posts that dispute the neutrality of the current page. Meanwhile, Thomas S. Major, Walter Ching, Lafem, and several others have all weighed in at length on their views that the current article does do a good job on neutrality. There's a name for this sort of dispute, it's called an NPOV dispute. It means that there are people who are disputing the neutrality of this article, and another group of people who support the neutrality of the article. These people exist, and so Template:POV should be allowed to remain on the page. All the arguments FOR the neutrality of this page can not disprove the existence of many other people who are disputing that the page is neutral. Rather, all the arguments that have been put forth arguing for the neutrality are just further proof that there is indeed an on-going dispute about the issue. The NPOV dispute tag should be put back up.
-- Alecmconroy 16:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
The current structure of the article makes neutrality an impossibility. Not just difficult, but unobtainable. What we have here is a speach on the part of a defence lawyer addressing points that have been raised by an absent prosecution.
If the structure were reversed it would be no more acceptable.
The article needs to take the position of a third and neutral party that introduces to the table a point for consideration and then presents the opposing view points on the issue; making a point of alternating their presentation.
Opus Dei is controvercial within the Roman Catholic Church... why?... Why do some Catholics have concerns about Opus Dei? What are their concerns? Why did I read an article on Opus Dei only to be left asking this question at the end?
What about former members? What's the controversy there?
Why from another encyclopaedia did I read that 10 out of 19 cabinet members of the Spanish government up until 1975 belong to Opus Dei.... what other aspects of politics have they been involved in?
This article does not belong in an encyclopaedia any more that an article that read... Mr. X says Opus Dei are bad. Mr. Y says Opus Dei kill puppies. Mr. Z said the world is a worse place for having Opus Dei in it.
This is a brochure piece. Moreso, I can see you're getting a lot of feedback telling you that this article isn't even close to being neutral.
When an issue is very controvertial, with a large number of conflicting and polarised views all you can do is present the different views. This article does not do that.
-- Carnagh
Hey fellows! I found this in NPOV Tutorial. "Often an author presents one POV because it's the only one that he or she knows well. The remedy is to add to the article — not to subtract from it." If this article's critics believe there should be more anti-OD texts, why not try this? I just added one, while taking care not to go beyond 30-40% of space in disputed territory. I don't think the pro-OD would mind. They still have 60-70%! Anonimus 08:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I removed an entry initiating a discussion. Please remember what Wikipedia is not: not a discussion forum, not a personal essay, not a place for personal opinions.
I copied parts of Wikiquette for everyone. Have fun reading it! Walter Ching 03:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Alec! I am in favor of all the images in the article, those uploaded by Walter and of course, those I uploaded. The Q and A addition is fine, Walter! It's not mine, you know. It's more of our summary of discussions.
Yes, those images help explain the text and they show OD's international character. That's the character of Opus Dei that's beyond dispute: an international prelature.
They show the different regions of the world: Slovenian Pot (East Europe), Hacsa image and Philippine painting (Asia), Participants Escriva Congress (Africa), Condoray women (Latin America), Perrottet (Australia), Fontan (Spain, where it is strongest), youthclub and Zweifel (Western Europe), Arnold Hall (US).
In this age of visuals, images convey much information. The image of Arnold Hall show how things are set up in OD, for example. Those images do support the views of majority of experts and, as has been repeated ad nauseam here, those sources of greater reputability. Of course, the anti-OD will not like them. But until they get some highly credible sources, they can't overturn the proportions. And until there is a social scientist more important than Introvigne who studied OD and the anti-cult movement, his insights will have to stay in the Intro. Let's all put Wikipedia first. :) Thomas S. Major 23:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I have re-edited the introductory section of the article re: the issue of Opus Dei being a personal prelature of the Catholic Church. Please check www.opusdei.us, the very first answer on the FAQ page describes the organisation thusly.
I removed several different sentence from the article. Here are the changes and the justifications. Please talk, rather than just reverting them.
Unsourced opinion. Are these really the three things that make Popes and church leaders support OD, or is there a fourth thing, or some completely different set of things? The way to get in why people some people support OD is through direct quotations, and ideally not in the introduction. Precisely why people support OD is a complex and probably debated subject, and I think it's best to get into it in a later section, not in the intro.
I cleaned up the Da Vinci Code section a tad, and removed the sentence "Moreover, Opus Dei encourages its lay members to avoid practices that are perceived as fundamentalist to the outside world". This is an unsourced opinion that is debatable. Many critics have accused OD of being fundamentalist. OD encourages mortification, which many in the outside world see as fundamentalist. We can't say OD doesn't encourage any fundamentalist practices: The best we could do is to say that OD _says_ that it doesn't. Then we have to include the opinons of people who disagree and feel that OD _does_ encourage fundamentalist practices. And then we have a debate that is about theology and has nothing to do with The Da Vinci Code. We just don't need to get into that. There are plenty of things wrong with the Da Vinci Code we can talk about without having to get into a huge debate about what is and is not fundamentalist.
In "Foundation, Mission, Name":
I added a reference to the "vision of life"-- just saying he "saw" Opus Dei in a way that had a supernatural character really doesn't get across Escriva's description of a supernatural experience.
"In Escriva' own words..." strikes me as a bit overly admirable of Escriva-- as if we're saying "He _himself_ said this! His _VERY OWN_ words. It also implies that these particular words are the "Official Mission Statement" of OD-- really, they're one specific very brief summary of OD's mission I changed it to: Escrivá's summarized the Opus Dei's mission by writing"
I removed the sentence "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." from the quote. When you look at the reference, this sentence was not actually part of the same paragraph as the sentence after it-- there's quite of lot of text in between. The sentence is a little hard to understand-- "the very texture of civil society", and the word "apostolate" are probably a little unclear to readers. Better to skip this sentence and jump straight to the sentence in which Escriva says "The mission of Opus Dei is..."
We gave a quote from Cardinal Ratzinger talking about the name "Opus Dei". This is complicated, because the sentence does several things: it presumably explains why Escriva chose the name, and it convey's Ratzinger's own belief that OD was indeed "God's work". Since this is a historical section about events in the 1940s, I have tried to focus on what Ratzinger's quote tells us about what Escriva thought, rather than what the quote tells us about what Ratzinger thought. There's definitely a place for what the current Pope feels about OD, but I don't think that place is a historical paragraph about the 1940s. The change to the sentence is actually small, but I wanted to explain why I changed it.
Lastly, there is a paragraph which says Escriva's vision was confirmed by John Paul II, who stated the founding was divinely inspired. But John Paul II is not able to confirm or deny the existence of this vision. All we can do is state John Paul's own opinions. And if we state his opinions, then we also have to get into all the people who disagree with John Paul's opinions. So we wind up with a huge three-paragraph long theological debate.
It would be much better to create a seperate section in which we can include the opinions of many different people. We can include John Paul's opinions, other supporters' opinions, and all the critics' opinons. As it is, we're interspersing opinions into every single part of the text. We're talking about the founding, so let's throw in the opinons of whether or not the founding was divine. We're talking about the personal prelature, so let's throw in opinons about whether that is a good thing or a bad thing.
We can do it this way if we really want, but I think it's a horrendous choice. It blurs the line between what is universally accepted and what is just commentary. The debate, commentary, criticism, and controversy have gotten so out of hand that they've started to take over the whole article, to the point that we can't even have one section that gives a historical outline of the early history of OD without getting into a huge theological debate about the existence of divine inspiration.
I moved all these opinions to a separate section later in the article. If we insists intermixing opinion and debate into every section, we're never going to get this article down Neutral, Encyclopedic Tone, or down to a manageable size.
-- Alecmconroy 01:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I have some serous problem with the pro opus dei slant in this article . First of all let me say that I have no axes to grind about opus I readed a lot mostly fiction and use wikipedia to fact check (know what your thinking da vinci but no it was the templar conspiracy ) . Anyway I found the article loaded down with weasel speak tying to hide and/or minimize any anti opus facts.lets be clear "it just read that way to me" I didn’t and to a large extent still don’t know much about opus dei this was just a conclusion I made from how the article was put together. I will go through the article and my points . First the intro it is much better now then it was when I first read it a week or so ago, now it ends “Ultimately Opus Dei remains the subject of much political criticism both inside and outside the Catholic Church” which imply that opus is contraveral which is true.Another part of the article I like is the new addition of Institutional structure membership .
I don’t like the allen quote
--In his 2005 research, Catholic Vaticanologist John L. Allen, Jr. stated that there are two Opus Deis, an Opus Dei of reality and an Opus Dei of myth.--
Maybe a case can be made that these claim happend only in the past but to suggest that all criticism is a fantasy is wrong .
The rest need to be deleted and a complete rewrite done.
Here my problems there is way to much info on the theological beliefs of opus dei so much so that there isn’t room for a section on opus dei good works there are lots or a section on members of opus dei you have to go to a different article to read that.
There are some serious claims made about opus in my reading on the web.
1 opus dei cult-like recruitment regime Newly added to the intro wasent there when I first read it but still, right after we have the allen quot saying that it’s a myth.it is mentioned later not in controversy over opus dei but in spiritual life
--Ex-members also report of aggressive recruitment whereby members initially hide their links to Opus Dei, persuade recruits not to tell their families, or maintain contact with their families, forbiding phone calls, and use threats of condemnation. While there were indeed mistakes committed during the early years of Opus Dei, Allen says "Opus Dei is not the voracious recruiting machine of myth." --
This is an example of the tone of this article hard to find the criticisms, the critics are marginalised and the issue has been resolved maybe it has but only maybe and there are lots of critics of opud dei recruting practices e.g
In December 1981 Cardinal Basil Hume, O.S.B., issued public guidelines for Opus Dei in his diocese. He instructed Opus Dei not to recruit anyone under 18, to ensure that parents were informed, not to exert pressure on people to join, to respect the freedom of members to leave and to allow members to freely choose spiritual directors. He also required Opus Dei’s activities to carry a “clear indication of their sponsorship and management.”
2 lot of people ex members and other claim that opus is overly controlling in regarded to the life’s of it members… reading there mail , what to watch on tv what books to read even who to be friends with going so far as to have members shun anti opus family members. This is covered in the article. In Spiritual practice again
--Opus Dei is also accused of high control of members through tight schedules and internal confessors. Allen states: "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 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.after making the point that opus is accused of high control of members.--
I see a lot of feel good stuff with hardly any response to the claim maybe "running there own lives”
And in regard to shunning family members
--Regarding complaints on separation from parents and friends, Richard John Neuhaus writes that this is about an "intergenerational conflict that has been around from the beginning of time," a conflict that involves "innumerable young people, including recognized saints." The Catechism teaches: "Parents must remember and teach that the first vocation of the Christian is to follow Jesus: 'He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me.--
So you must pick between god and your family? Notice all the quotes, heard in discussion that quotes aren’t POV find that hard to believe the author only picked quotes that supported his case
Where you would think you would get criticisms of opus dei in Controversy over Opus Dei
There really isent any it a list of critics and how there misinformed and anti Catholic
There is some in Revolutionary or conservative?
--neoconservative or fundamentalist moral and political beliefs," "extremely traditionalist," and "pre-enlightenment" messages for society .--
The author used a pro choice group to make the claim and included many other religious groups to dilute the criticism but if you read the article that the quote came from you will see it was only about opus in regard to abortion.Most readers would think that because it was a pro choice group criticizing a religious group the arguments can be dismissed they shouldent be.
The whole article need to be re write
Ansolin 04:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC) (formatting edited to improve readibiliy -Alecmconroy)
I have added this page to Request for Comments, with an eye towards getting a member of the Mediation Committee to help out afterwards if needed. Here are the questions I think that need comments and mediation:
Hi Alec! I am in favor of all the images in the article, those uploaded by Walter and of course, those I uploaded. The Q and A addition is fine, Walter! It's not mine, you know. It's more of our summary of discussions.
Yes, those images help explain the text and they show OD's international character. That's the character of Opus Dei that's beyond dispute: an international prelature.
They show the different regions of the world: Slovenian Pot (East Europe), Hacsa image and Philippine painting (Asia), Participants Escriva Congress (Africa), Condoray women (Latin America), Perrottet (Australia), Fontan (Spain, where it is strongest), youthclub and Zweifel (Western Europe), Arnold Hall (US).
In this age of visuals, images convey much information. The image of Arnold Hall show how things are set up in OD, for example. Those images do support the views of majority of experts and, as has been repeated ad nauseam here, those sources of greater reputability. Of course, the anti-OD will not like them. But until they get some highly credible sources, they can't overturn the proportions. And until there is a social scientist more important than Introvigne who studied OD and the anti-cult movement, his insights will have to stay in the Intro. Let's all put Wikipedia first. :) Thomas S. Major 23:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Anyone who wants to (and in particular anyone who would want to participate in a future medation), feel free to post your own lists of issues if you feel I've left some out (or that my phrasing doesn't correctly capture the issue).
Anyone who comes to read this from the Request for Comment-- by all means, Comment :) - Alecmconroy 10:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I am new to Wikipedia and have been browsing this discussion with interest and amusement. The NPOV debate reminds me a bit of an old Monty Python skit, where two characters are arguing about whether they are having an argument...that there is a question of NPOV would seem self-evident :-). In any case, I think there are a few issues that came across to me immediately when reading the article that might warrant addressing.
(1) Jargon: As a lay person, I found the prolific use of Christian jargon, phraseology, and context made much of the article impenetrable to me. think it was written for, and by, someone who has been trained in Christian doctrine, which doesn't include me. I'd like someone to explain to me in common language what Opus Dei is, and what the controversies surrounding it are. It doesn't need to be a book, just an overview.
(2) Quotations: The excessive use of quotations apparently is an attempt to add strength to the assertions in the article, but actually has the opposite effect. Some quotes from established experts can do that, but in this case there are so many that it feels like the author is using them as clubs to fend off an expected onslaught of criticism. I don't know enough about OD to know what is controversial and what is not, but when I read the article I became wary. I believe if the article were truly neutral, there wouldn't be an expectation by the author of an attack, because if it were truly neutral, there would be little to attack. It also reads like a bible commentary, not an encyclopedia article.
(3) Scale: some social systems are so large that you can find an awful lot of people who participate in them, and become experts in them. In such a system it is easier to find a lot of people who write, and support each others views. That doesn't automatically make them right, or wrong, or non-controversial, it just means the system is large. Opus Dei and Christianity are examples of large systems that are represented in the article. Beyond the first few, quoting lots of experts who are all part of the same system doesn't add anything to the article, it detracts from it by creating suspicion in the reader. I'd like to see more references to people who are not part of those systems, but who represent significant other systems of belief.
(4) Unbalanced rebuttals: there are lots of paragraphs written in support of OD, and they are not followed by rebuttals, but the few mentions of problems and controversies with OD are all followed by rebuttals. It isn't fair to rebut selectively in an article that purports to be neutral. 70.88.254.65 22:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Ndss please do not mistake my lack of response to your comments as agreement, saying that you have heard my complains (and the dozen or so I have seen since I have started watching this page) before and feel that you have conformed to weki rule and are happy with the structure of the article (it has structure?) is really more of a demonstration of the problem then an answer to it.See most people who keep on getting the same complaints over and over again would think of changing things not writing a FAQ section. Ansolin 00:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Pvazz 08:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
i like the new section keep up the good work alic maybe it should be mentioned that most Catholics practice suffering by helping the poor and down trodden. Ansolin 12:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree needed to click on the picture before i could see the spikes. Ansolin 12:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
All this talk of who is most "luminary" makes me wonder how one compares luminosity in experts. Should we assign them a candlepower? But in particular, isn't it possible that the quiet knowledge of one could be stronger than the loudly proclaimed knowledge of many others? Galileo didn't have a lot of experts on his side in the 1600s. If Wikipedia had existed then, with a sincere attempt to be neutral, should it have given Galileo's views any space on the subject of planetary motion, given that practically the entire church strongly disagreed with him?
But battling generalities does not result in specific progress. To see if these issues could be resolved at a smaller level, I started looking at some of the specific quotes and references in the article to see if they truly buttress the point being made. I haven't analyzed the article exhaustively, but I looked at some cases. For example, I noticed the following.
In the section Controversy over Opus Dei, it says Introvigne "stated that secularists, liberal Catholics and anti-Catholics use the term 'cult' in order to attach a social stigma against Opus Dei which has been their 'prime target for years.'" Does this sentence contribute to a neutral description of OD? It doesn't say anything about OD, or its merits, and it doesn't say anything about the arguments against it, and how they are valid or invalid.
Instead, it attacks the people who argue against OD, rather than their arguments. It does it without data, but with hearsay, insinuation and association. It insinuates that if use the term "cult" you will be assumed to be chummy with "secularists, liberal Catholics and anti-Catholics", and do you really want to be associated with THEM? It then goes onto impune all those people by implication, stating with absolute certainty that their motives are to attach a social stigma to Opus Dei, and furthermore, that they have been doing it for years! And not only that but Opus Dei is their number one target! My God! How could you possible give any credence to what one of THOSE people has to say! None of that is verifiable or relevant, and it certainly isn't neutral. And wrapping it in quotes and attributing it to an expert doesn't excuse it.
Then, as if this kind of smear on the detractors isn't enough, the article goes on to say that "Secularist groups fight Opus Dei, he says, because "they cannot tolerate 'the return to religion'" of the secularized society." This further narrows the group of detractors to just secularists, because it would be hard to attribute the pursuent motive to the aforementioned liberal Catholics, and states unequivocally what this group, of which the writer is not a member, cannot tolerate. And what can't they tolerate? That secularized society is returning to religion. Is this itself an undisputed fact? Hardly. But saying it in this sideways fashion is just another technique to force the reader into taking sides by association and implication. Of course none of that is at all arguing the merits of OD. It is just a sophisticated way of slurring the detractors.
Then in the next paragraph, the articles goes on to state "Since secularists deny truth exists,..." What does this even mean? I don't think that secularists would deny that 2+2=4, and that certainly is truth. Unless you want to get into a whole other argument about what truth is, and who believes in it, this is not the place to makes such a weird statement. And once again, putting it in quotes does not make it any more relevant to the article.
There are many more of these kinds of inappropriate tracts in this article. This is why, when I, a neutral newcomer, with no bones to pick with OD, read the article, I come away thinking I need to go somewhere else, somewhere neutral, to really find out what is going on with OD. I think Wikipedia deserves better. 70.88.254.65 00:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your patience, 70 etc, or whoever you are!! Check out the first sentence of this article. OD is controversial org. Oxford dictionary: controversial -- causing controversy. controversy -- public debate about a matter which arouses strongly opposing opinions. If this is an encyclopedia worth its salt, it should uncover, analyze and synthesize why people are opposing OD, (and why people support it) and rely on reputable sources to analyze and synthesize it for us. I copy the entire NOR rule:
"the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources which provide information that is directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say."
"Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position."
Introvigne published his ideas, his analysis on OD and the anti-cult movement. What can we do? If people don't like his opinion, don't find it satisfying, they can try to write in 13 scientific journals, then publish their opinion on OD. Wikipedia will then be forced to replace Introvigne's statements. Ndss 03:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi Pvazz! Wikipedia refers to NPOV, NOR, Verifiability as non-negotiable policies. Suppose you know the difference between guideline and policies. No evading Wikipedia directions and standards!
Hi Alec! Am not pro-OD. Am pro-Wiki. Well, pro-Allen, you can say.
Take note: Wikipedia:NPOV--NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority). We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.
Take note: The core of the NPOV policy is to let competing approaches of the same topic exist on the same page: work for balance, that is: divide space describing the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources.
Take note: For an entry in an encyclopedia, ideas also need to be important. The amount of space they deserve depends on their importance and how many interesting things can be said about them.
Take note: in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject I read your comments and always felt you share Pvazz's "luminaries" statement. Am sure you too see the obvious disparity of reputability between John Paul II and DiNicola, Ratzinger and James Martin, Introvigne and Estruch, Allen and Walsh.
Take note: there is a difference in Wikipedia between significant minority and tiny (or extreme) minority. Thomas accepted the minority as significant minority.
The key word is proportion.
Therefore, your feeling does not hold: “I feel that the NPOV rule allowing unbalanced presentation exists only for cases of extreme minority viewpoints-- things like flat-earthers. I think that "neutral, unbiased, and equitable" is the general rule that should only be deviated from in extreme cases. In general, we should strive to persuade readers neither Pro- nor Con-.”
Take note: 84% of the world is religious. Moslems, the next biggest religion, side with the Catholic Church in contraception, divorce, etc. John Paul II who supported OD, is a world hero. He’s respected everywhere, isn’t he? His funeral saw the greatest gathering of statesmen in history. Countries all over the world had their flags at half mast. He gathered the greatest crowds in history. Take note: Allen's research shows that some people revile Escriva and millions venerate him. In doing homework, data is necessary. Allen did his homework. But I digress. Wikipedia correlates space to importance, expertise and reputability of sources and not other factors. Isn't it obvious that John Paul, Ratzinger have greater importance, expertise and reputability than Tammy DiNicola, Fr. James Martin, and Estruch? Dictionary: reputable --Having a good reputation; honorable. Thesaurus: Deserving honor, respect, or admiration: admirable, commendable, creditable, deserving, estimable, exemplary, honorable, laudable, meritorious, praiseworthy, respectable, worthy.
Take note: Allen's book was tagged by a prominent television network as "widely considered as the definitive book about Opus Dei." Is there any other book reputed to be a definitive book? We can't close our eyes to this. Wikipedians in a referendum won't close their eyes to this.
90:10 is the right proportion. Ndss 05:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
could you give a link to these anti cathlic articles that allen did. Ansolin 05:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
How about a second list of experts and scholars on this topic, Pvazz and Alec? And their claim to fame and "reputability" in the field of Catholic organizations, Catholic spituality, Catholic prelatures?
You can try your hand at analysis using Wikipedia parameters a la Lafem at Talk:Opus_Dei#Policy_on_credibility:_The_most_credible_experts_support_each_other.27s_claims
In reference 59, I don't know where the "Samuel Edgerton" reference was supposed to link, but I happened to notice it duplicates the succeeding Guenther Risse link instead. Art LaPella 03:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)