![]() | This 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. |
Archive 2005 | Archive 2006 | Archive 2007 | Archive 2008 |
I removed another straw man argument, a favorite method of weakening Opus Dei's replies. The old version argued: Opus Dei also says its level of independence from the rest of the Catholic Church has been exaggerated— supporters insist that Opus Dei works in harmony with local dioceses.
But really Opus Dei never said independence is exaggerated. The idea never appears even in the note indicated. [1] By this Wikipedia is saying that Opus Dei admits to be a relatively independent body.
Instead, I wrote: Catholic officials say that contrary to criticisms of independence "the hierarchy has taken over the care of this reality by means of a prelate appointed by the Pope" and that members are "even more conscious of belonging to the Church." These are quotes not from Opus Dei but from the Francesco Monterisi, Secretary of Congregation of Bishops, man in charge of dioceses and prelatures. It is not Opus Dei who is acting defensively, in a state of denial. The Vatican itself says that Opus Dei far from being independent, improves unity with the Church.
The first strawman argument I removed was a quote taken from Fr. James Martin, S.J. which said "Opus Dei does not recruit." Walter Ching 06:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
It is a fact Monterisi stated this. It is a fact Monterisi is a Catholic official. A euphemism to suppress a categorical statement is unacceptable. "Many groups would prefer that certain facts be stated euphemistically, or only in their own terminology, or suppressed outright; such desires need not be deferred to (NPOV)" Walter Ching 07:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Strawman argument: Some argue that a certain distance or separation from family is appropriate.
Implication is (or might be): members (even supernumeraries) tend to be "off" from family affairs somehow because of their Opus Dei duties.
Improvement: To explain the celibate lifestyle of numeraries and their relationship with their blood family, supporters quote Jesus's comment that "He who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me" Walter Ching 09:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Straw man argument: For example, supporters say that Opus Dei's relative silence stems not from a secretive nature, but rather is the result of a commitment to privacy, humility, and "avoidance of self-aggrandizement".
Implication: yes, Wikipedia believes Opus Dei is relatively silent compared to other organizations. Its practices are secretive according to other standards, but Opus Dei insists they are not because it has its own views of humility.
Improvement: "For example, supporters say accusations of secrecy stem from mistakenly equating its members with monks. Instead, its lay members, like normal professionals, do not externally represent their church group. Opus Dei itself, they say, provides abundant information." Walter Ching 08:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
First time reader of this article, and I found the Hitler references surprising. On checking them, what you have is a reference to an article where the author of the article knows someone that says he heard Escriva say something. Is that level of indirection sufficient to warrant Wikipedia mention?
Old version: Similarly, Opus Dei stresses the importance of labor, and places great value on industriousness, diligence, and hard work.
Implication: This version merely repeats synonyms, takes up space, but does not add any additional information.
New version: Similarly, Opus Dei stresses the importance of work and professional competence....According to its official literature, some other main features of Opus Dei are: divine filiation, a sense of being children of God; freedom; and charity. Walter Ching 11:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
A glaring problem of this article is a suppression of the names of people who hold views. This is a direct violation of Wikipedia:NPOV in the name of "not including in the text unnecessary details" ???
In fact, names of representatives are not details but necessary information for NPOV to work as envisioned by Wikipedians:
I will endeavor to correct this glaring suppression of essential facts. Walter Ching 07:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Corollary to the above is a greater prominence that this article should afford to more prominent authors and works. As it is the present footnote system makes everyone equal vis-a-vis the clear indications from these guidelines. A listing of the major works, specially those available on line, should not be kept from being published or "suppressed." Walter Ching 08:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
You can't understand mortification as a way of masochism, In the catholic doctrine, the mortification is suposed to "hurt", if you like it, then you are not doing mortification but some thing else -- Domingo Portales 15:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I suspect that you are correct. Dr.Florence Magoo 13:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
We need to be realistic when evaluating this topic. No one engages in self-flagellation, no matter how painful, unless, at some level, they enjoy it. Most reasonable normal people will agree that if a person enjoys such activity, he has a mental disorder. My own theory is that a major factor contributing to such conduct is the Roman Catholic church's unnatural suppression of sexual desire among its clergy and the idea that even thoughts about the subject are impure. The young man, who experiencing normal emotions, but who is subjected to this thought regimen, then gets the idea that he is deserving of punishment and decides (perhaps through the example or suggestion of older clergy) that self-flagellation is a good way to accomplish that objective. The interesting thing about self-flagellation is that, for many men, despite the pain, it produces perversely pleasurable effects and is sexually stimulating. When the maximum endurance level of pain is reached, many men find release through masturbation. At this point, the young man feels extremely guilty and ashamed, but since he did not have sexual intercourse with a woman, rationalizes that he has not violated his vow of celibacy. What can he do about his guilt for the sexual activity that his self-flagellation produced? Well, that can be the "sin" for which he whips himself tomorrow. A vicious cycle.
What can I say about the Pope's decision to canonize the founder of this cult? Not much that is polite. As a Byzantine Catholic who is in communion with the Apostolic See of Rome, I suppose I am required to believe that, by virtue of the canonization, the founder is in heaven, but I am not obligated to believe anything else about him. For example, I am free to conclude that he was a hopelessly disordered mental case who lacked the free will to engage in conduct that would merit his eternal damnation. That is stretching it, but that is as close as I can come to concurring in the result reached by the Pope.
Normal Catholics do not engage in this behavior, and those who do should not be held up on a pedastal.
John Paul Parks ( talk) 18:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
i feel that the first paragraph is heavily liberally biased, also i am putting it under review to have its good article status revoked ( Jack.the.mega ( talk) 02:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC))
I feel that the last paragraph in the introduction has an odd feel, the way that the first sentence introduces a critical point of view of OD and then the next two sentences refute that claim seems;
As an editor that's neutral to this debate, I instantly felt that the article was defending OD when I read that. Master z0b 00:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Walter but I don't need to delete a sentence to fix the paragraph in question, I actually think that we need to either add another sentence explaining the controversy or remove one of the sentences about catholic journalists defending OD. Why do we need two in the introduction?
Also if you think it's appropriate to remove "specialized terminology" then please start a new topic here instead of listing it in this section. I think that would make the two issues clearer. Master z0b 02:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
That this article ever got listed as GA is extraordinary. Almost everything in it is a description of Opus Dei as its leadership would like it to be seen. It offends against the Wikipedia neutrality policy in a great many areas, but among them are the following problems:
The structure of the article does not adequately express the controversial nature of the organisation. The first mentions of controversy are well down in the article and the "Controversy" section is both incomplete and structured in a biased manner.
Arguably Opus's most prominent critic, Maria del Carmen Tapia, is not even mentioned in the article (nor are her books, or the important 2006 docudrama "Opus Dei Unveiled" based on her account of her time in Opus). Controversies relating to the alleged participation of people close to Opus Dei in recent political and judicial events have also been ignored. One particular example in this regard is the deal made in 2002 between Opus Dei sympathiser and Irish minister for education, Michael Woods, limiting the liability of the Irish Catholic Church for child abuse compensation claims in Church-run residential institutions to about €125 M (in a combination of cash and allegedly overvalued properties), when the expected cost of such claims was well (again allegedly) over ten times that amount. There are many other examples where membership of or association with Opus Dei is connected with controversial Spanish, Latin American and Irish political decisions. None of such controveries are listed.
The biographical details on the founder can only be described as hagiographical in tone and content, rather in the style of a devotional leaflet (which, I'm sure has its place) than in that of a serious encyclopedia entry.
Even writers broadly sympathetic to Opus, such as John L. Allen (whose name mentioned in the "Replies to Criticism" sub-section, have made criticisms of the some aspects of the organisation). Allen, in his book, "Opus Dei, The Truth about its Rituals, Secrets and Power" made some telling criticisms of its practices and habits of thought, none of which were mentioned in the article.
The "Controversy" ´section is clearly structured in a "set 'em up and knock 'em down" manner, where selected criticisms are mentioned in the "criticism" sub-section and then replied to in "Replies to criticism". This gives the replies an air of finality and gives the impression that serious controversy about the organisation is now closed. This is anything but the case.
Other omissions from the "Controversy" section include the following:
Alleged exploition of the financial resources of its members and cooperators; Use of "instruments of penance" (while this subject is included in other parts of the article, the criticism of this practice is dealt with preemptorarily); The alleged choleric temper of Opus's founder, Escrivá, and questions about his suitability for canonisation; Escrivá's alleged fascination with noble title; Clothing codes (especially for women); The strict separation of male and female living quarters, administrative bodies and meetings; The role and exclusively female membership of the Associate Numeraries; Criticisms shared by Opus Dei with other orthodox organisations within the Catholic Church; Accusations of elitism against Opus; Opus's documented support for continuing Franco government; The lack of internal democracy in Opus's governing structures; The lack of participation of female members in the selection of a new prelate; Arguments about alleged conflicts of interest amongst public figures in decision-making positions that are members of Opus; The Opus rivalry with the Society of Jesus and the distain displayed by many of its members to the the latter.
There are, of course, many other issues left undealt with.
Outside the "Controversy" section, there are many other imperfections in the article, such as the gratuitous mention of persecution of catholics by some republican forces during the Spanish Civil War, without mentioning the implacable opposition of Catholic forces (including Opus Dei) to the democratically elected Republican Government, and without mentioning the Church's acquiescence to the massive number of executions of republicans by nationalist forces near and after the end of the Spanish Civil War.
The name of Luis Carrero Blanco, prominent Opus member and presumed successor to Franco until his assassination by ETA in 1973 is also conspicuous by its absence.
On the whole, the article is a description of Opus Dei as they would like it to be seen - more like a marketing (or evangelising!) document than an objective view. As one of Wikipedia's most important policies is that the encyclopedia shouldn't allow itself be used for self-publicity purposes, this state of affairs is inappropriate.
In resumé, the whole article is biased in its tone and content against critics of the organisation both within and outside the Catholic Church, and would require extensive revision before it could be reclassified as GA.
I'm currently attempting to address some of the issues described above. Jaimehy 13:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC) Revised: Jaimehy ( talk) 15:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
All Jaimehy's things have been addressed, except his suggestion to include all criticisms on Opus Dei, a non-practicable and inappropriate suggestion. All the doctrines of the Opus Dei and the Catholic Church are not in the doctrine section. And we know why. All the activities of Opus Dei are not in the activities section and we know why. All bibliography on Opus Dei is not in the bibliography section and we know why.
There are now three sections in controversy section. The third sub-section "Other Views" neutralizes the other two. Even if you don't like the Supporting Views, that is what neutrality is all about. Moreso if they are prominent experts. That's non-negotiable Wikipedia:NPOV. Please read the policy. Cheers! Pradeshkava ( talk) 05:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Rather then delist the article that many have worked on without giving them any opportunity to address their concerns, I have restored this article's GA status and taken it to Good Article Reassessment. This is a much better option then simply delisting an article based on one user's opinion. I have not had any involvement in this article and from what I know have not edited it at all (correct me if I'm wrong). I am not sure if this article should be GA or not, and am not too worried either way, but do not believe this should be done without the input of more then one user. If you believe this article should be delisted, or should retain GA status, please comment at the GAR I have started. You can view the discussion there. Please do not delist the article; instead, wait for all to have their say and let a consensus be reached. You can participate/view the discussion at Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Archive_33#Opus_Dei (note: now archived so treat as read-only) Baccyak4H ( Yak!) 16:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC). Thanks. - Shudde talk 00:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Added NPOV marker I feel there is enough material on the discussion page of this article to justify putting an NPOV notice on it. Indeed the majority opinion seems to be that the article is severely biased.
I apologise if I've goofed in doing this. I simply feel that without this marker, the article is seriously misleading. Jaimehy ( talk) 14:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
There is a lot of material on Opus in the Spanish Wikipedia, including much information which, while it couldn't be counted as representing Opus Dei as it would like to be seen, certainly reflects Opus Dei as it sees itself, in that it actually explains some of the internal rules of the organisation and many of the sayings of the founder, upon which much of the controversy about the organisation is founded. I will attempt to translate some of this material into English in the next few weeks. It might prove useful in settling some of the arguments about bias in the article. Jaimehy ( talk) 15:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
While the term "fascist" should not be applied to Franco's government as a whole, it applied to a large part of the forces that won the Civil War. I therefore reinserted it somewhere else from where Túrelio removed it. I believe the sentence containing the word to be both historically accurate and relevant to the subject matter of the article. There is still some way to go before this article could be considered anything other than an advertisement for Opus Dei. Jaimehy ( talk) 16:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, I'm not happy with the edits made of my work on this site over the last few days. Practically everything I've done has been undone. I'm getting more and more pessimistic about the possibility of putting some balance into the article. I haven't had time to undo the changes and explain my reasoning, but I will in the next few days. -- Jaimehy ( talk) 16:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I felt that I ought to explain my reasoning for removing this article's GA listing.
I enjoyed reading the article, and it is in many ways very good. But the structuring of the controversys and their rebuttals made it very difficult to see a genuine attempt at providing a neutral point of view, as required by wikipedia's policy. The stumbling block here isn't the content, but just the structure of the article, and the way that it's presented. I very much hope that you will be able to consolidate the criticism and rebuttal sections into the main body of the article, or at least combine them into one controversy section, as I believe that the article is addressing a genuinely notable topic and really ought to be able to achieve a GA listing with just a little bit more good-spirited collaboration. -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 01:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
All Jaimehy's things have been addressed, except his suggestion to include all criticisms on Opus Dei, a non-practicable and inappropriate suggestion. All the doctrines of the Opus Dei and the Catholic Church are not in the doctrine section. All the activities of Opus Dei are not in the activities section. All bibliography on Opus Dei is not in the bibliography section. There is a reason why: Wikipedia is a summary of the most important things. Sub-articles can go into details.
There are now three sections in controversy section. The third sub-section "Other Views" neutralizes the other two. Even if you don't like the Supporting Views, that is what neutrality is all about. Moreso if writers are prominent experts. That's non-negotiable Wikipedia:NPOV to give importance to prominent writers. Please read the policy. Cheers! Pradeshkava ( talk) 05:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
The Dublin parish of Our Lady of Peace, Merrion Road, has been entrusted by the Archbishop to the care of Opus Dei. I didn't know that Opus Dei ran parishes, but in practice what difference does this make to the average parishioner? Millbanks ( talk) 07:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
If the main problem is a structure prone to being interpreted as a "set em up and knock em down", may I propose that we invert the order of the critical and supporting views. Please check this private fork = Opus Dei controversy section where I propose a new ordering. I hope this satisfies all parties. :) Marax ( talk) 08:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I believe an English translation of this ref is needed so the reader can decide who this person is, what he is saying, and whether it matters. Rumiton ( talk) 14:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I have just done a bit of redistribution and reclassification of content, putting together similar items, placing items in their logical place, and giving an appropriate name. See this fork. Marax ( talk) 08:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Great, well-written article. The previously discussed NPOV issues seem to have been fixed. With a few minor tweaks, you may want to consider FAC.
Congratulations, Malachirality ( talk) 22:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Boosted by the encouraging words of Malachirality and having more time today, I started copyediting and tweaking this article towards FAC, and in accordance with other points on this discussion page. Marax ( talk) 11:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
The image Image:Da-vinci-mass-market.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 19:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Undid revision by Mr. Conroy. Mr. Schaefer wants to be known as a member of the Communist Party in his own self-description, his own Wikipedia page. He feels proud to be one. Any other member of the Communist party will be proud of his Unofficial Home Page. These days are not MacCarthy days. There are many leftists nowadays and we should allow them to feel proud of their brethren who self-proclaim as members of the communist party. Lafem ( talk) 11:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
The author in his website: [6] If the emancipation of the working classes requires their fraternal concurrence, how are they to fulfill that great mission with a foreign policy in pursuit of criminal designs, playing upon national prejudices, and squandering in piratical wars the people's blood and treasure? -- Karl Marx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Procom ( talk • contribs) 06:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)
DumZiBoT ( talk) 14:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This 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. |
Archive 2005 | Archive 2006 | Archive 2007 | Archive 2008 |
I removed another straw man argument, a favorite method of weakening Opus Dei's replies. The old version argued: Opus Dei also says its level of independence from the rest of the Catholic Church has been exaggerated— supporters insist that Opus Dei works in harmony with local dioceses.
But really Opus Dei never said independence is exaggerated. The idea never appears even in the note indicated. [1] By this Wikipedia is saying that Opus Dei admits to be a relatively independent body.
Instead, I wrote: Catholic officials say that contrary to criticisms of independence "the hierarchy has taken over the care of this reality by means of a prelate appointed by the Pope" and that members are "even more conscious of belonging to the Church." These are quotes not from Opus Dei but from the Francesco Monterisi, Secretary of Congregation of Bishops, man in charge of dioceses and prelatures. It is not Opus Dei who is acting defensively, in a state of denial. The Vatican itself says that Opus Dei far from being independent, improves unity with the Church.
The first strawman argument I removed was a quote taken from Fr. James Martin, S.J. which said "Opus Dei does not recruit." Walter Ching 06:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
It is a fact Monterisi stated this. It is a fact Monterisi is a Catholic official. A euphemism to suppress a categorical statement is unacceptable. "Many groups would prefer that certain facts be stated euphemistically, or only in their own terminology, or suppressed outright; such desires need not be deferred to (NPOV)" Walter Ching 07:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Strawman argument: Some argue that a certain distance or separation from family is appropriate.
Implication is (or might be): members (even supernumeraries) tend to be "off" from family affairs somehow because of their Opus Dei duties.
Improvement: To explain the celibate lifestyle of numeraries and their relationship with their blood family, supporters quote Jesus's comment that "He who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me" Walter Ching 09:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Straw man argument: For example, supporters say that Opus Dei's relative silence stems not from a secretive nature, but rather is the result of a commitment to privacy, humility, and "avoidance of self-aggrandizement".
Implication: yes, Wikipedia believes Opus Dei is relatively silent compared to other organizations. Its practices are secretive according to other standards, but Opus Dei insists they are not because it has its own views of humility.
Improvement: "For example, supporters say accusations of secrecy stem from mistakenly equating its members with monks. Instead, its lay members, like normal professionals, do not externally represent their church group. Opus Dei itself, they say, provides abundant information." Walter Ching 08:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
First time reader of this article, and I found the Hitler references surprising. On checking them, what you have is a reference to an article where the author of the article knows someone that says he heard Escriva say something. Is that level of indirection sufficient to warrant Wikipedia mention?
Old version: Similarly, Opus Dei stresses the importance of labor, and places great value on industriousness, diligence, and hard work.
Implication: This version merely repeats synonyms, takes up space, but does not add any additional information.
New version: Similarly, Opus Dei stresses the importance of work and professional competence....According to its official literature, some other main features of Opus Dei are: divine filiation, a sense of being children of God; freedom; and charity. Walter Ching 11:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
A glaring problem of this article is a suppression of the names of people who hold views. This is a direct violation of Wikipedia:NPOV in the name of "not including in the text unnecessary details" ???
In fact, names of representatives are not details but necessary information for NPOV to work as envisioned by Wikipedians:
I will endeavor to correct this glaring suppression of essential facts. Walter Ching 07:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Corollary to the above is a greater prominence that this article should afford to more prominent authors and works. As it is the present footnote system makes everyone equal vis-a-vis the clear indications from these guidelines. A listing of the major works, specially those available on line, should not be kept from being published or "suppressed." Walter Ching 08:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
You can't understand mortification as a way of masochism, In the catholic doctrine, the mortification is suposed to "hurt", if you like it, then you are not doing mortification but some thing else -- Domingo Portales 15:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I suspect that you are correct. Dr.Florence Magoo 13:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
We need to be realistic when evaluating this topic. No one engages in self-flagellation, no matter how painful, unless, at some level, they enjoy it. Most reasonable normal people will agree that if a person enjoys such activity, he has a mental disorder. My own theory is that a major factor contributing to such conduct is the Roman Catholic church's unnatural suppression of sexual desire among its clergy and the idea that even thoughts about the subject are impure. The young man, who experiencing normal emotions, but who is subjected to this thought regimen, then gets the idea that he is deserving of punishment and decides (perhaps through the example or suggestion of older clergy) that self-flagellation is a good way to accomplish that objective. The interesting thing about self-flagellation is that, for many men, despite the pain, it produces perversely pleasurable effects and is sexually stimulating. When the maximum endurance level of pain is reached, many men find release through masturbation. At this point, the young man feels extremely guilty and ashamed, but since he did not have sexual intercourse with a woman, rationalizes that he has not violated his vow of celibacy. What can he do about his guilt for the sexual activity that his self-flagellation produced? Well, that can be the "sin" for which he whips himself tomorrow. A vicious cycle.
What can I say about the Pope's decision to canonize the founder of this cult? Not much that is polite. As a Byzantine Catholic who is in communion with the Apostolic See of Rome, I suppose I am required to believe that, by virtue of the canonization, the founder is in heaven, but I am not obligated to believe anything else about him. For example, I am free to conclude that he was a hopelessly disordered mental case who lacked the free will to engage in conduct that would merit his eternal damnation. That is stretching it, but that is as close as I can come to concurring in the result reached by the Pope.
Normal Catholics do not engage in this behavior, and those who do should not be held up on a pedastal.
John Paul Parks ( talk) 18:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
i feel that the first paragraph is heavily liberally biased, also i am putting it under review to have its good article status revoked ( Jack.the.mega ( talk) 02:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC))
I feel that the last paragraph in the introduction has an odd feel, the way that the first sentence introduces a critical point of view of OD and then the next two sentences refute that claim seems;
As an editor that's neutral to this debate, I instantly felt that the article was defending OD when I read that. Master z0b 00:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Walter but I don't need to delete a sentence to fix the paragraph in question, I actually think that we need to either add another sentence explaining the controversy or remove one of the sentences about catholic journalists defending OD. Why do we need two in the introduction?
Also if you think it's appropriate to remove "specialized terminology" then please start a new topic here instead of listing it in this section. I think that would make the two issues clearer. Master z0b 02:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
That this article ever got listed as GA is extraordinary. Almost everything in it is a description of Opus Dei as its leadership would like it to be seen. It offends against the Wikipedia neutrality policy in a great many areas, but among them are the following problems:
The structure of the article does not adequately express the controversial nature of the organisation. The first mentions of controversy are well down in the article and the "Controversy" section is both incomplete and structured in a biased manner.
Arguably Opus's most prominent critic, Maria del Carmen Tapia, is not even mentioned in the article (nor are her books, or the important 2006 docudrama "Opus Dei Unveiled" based on her account of her time in Opus). Controversies relating to the alleged participation of people close to Opus Dei in recent political and judicial events have also been ignored. One particular example in this regard is the deal made in 2002 between Opus Dei sympathiser and Irish minister for education, Michael Woods, limiting the liability of the Irish Catholic Church for child abuse compensation claims in Church-run residential institutions to about €125 M (in a combination of cash and allegedly overvalued properties), when the expected cost of such claims was well (again allegedly) over ten times that amount. There are many other examples where membership of or association with Opus Dei is connected with controversial Spanish, Latin American and Irish political decisions. None of such controveries are listed.
The biographical details on the founder can only be described as hagiographical in tone and content, rather in the style of a devotional leaflet (which, I'm sure has its place) than in that of a serious encyclopedia entry.
Even writers broadly sympathetic to Opus, such as John L. Allen (whose name mentioned in the "Replies to Criticism" sub-section, have made criticisms of the some aspects of the organisation). Allen, in his book, "Opus Dei, The Truth about its Rituals, Secrets and Power" made some telling criticisms of its practices and habits of thought, none of which were mentioned in the article.
The "Controversy" ´section is clearly structured in a "set 'em up and knock 'em down" manner, where selected criticisms are mentioned in the "criticism" sub-section and then replied to in "Replies to criticism". This gives the replies an air of finality and gives the impression that serious controversy about the organisation is now closed. This is anything but the case.
Other omissions from the "Controversy" section include the following:
Alleged exploition of the financial resources of its members and cooperators; Use of "instruments of penance" (while this subject is included in other parts of the article, the criticism of this practice is dealt with preemptorarily); The alleged choleric temper of Opus's founder, Escrivá, and questions about his suitability for canonisation; Escrivá's alleged fascination with noble title; Clothing codes (especially for women); The strict separation of male and female living quarters, administrative bodies and meetings; The role and exclusively female membership of the Associate Numeraries; Criticisms shared by Opus Dei with other orthodox organisations within the Catholic Church; Accusations of elitism against Opus; Opus's documented support for continuing Franco government; The lack of internal democracy in Opus's governing structures; The lack of participation of female members in the selection of a new prelate; Arguments about alleged conflicts of interest amongst public figures in decision-making positions that are members of Opus; The Opus rivalry with the Society of Jesus and the distain displayed by many of its members to the the latter.
There are, of course, many other issues left undealt with.
Outside the "Controversy" section, there are many other imperfections in the article, such as the gratuitous mention of persecution of catholics by some republican forces during the Spanish Civil War, without mentioning the implacable opposition of Catholic forces (including Opus Dei) to the democratically elected Republican Government, and without mentioning the Church's acquiescence to the massive number of executions of republicans by nationalist forces near and after the end of the Spanish Civil War.
The name of Luis Carrero Blanco, prominent Opus member and presumed successor to Franco until his assassination by ETA in 1973 is also conspicuous by its absence.
On the whole, the article is a description of Opus Dei as they would like it to be seen - more like a marketing (or evangelising!) document than an objective view. As one of Wikipedia's most important policies is that the encyclopedia shouldn't allow itself be used for self-publicity purposes, this state of affairs is inappropriate.
In resumé, the whole article is biased in its tone and content against critics of the organisation both within and outside the Catholic Church, and would require extensive revision before it could be reclassified as GA.
I'm currently attempting to address some of the issues described above. Jaimehy 13:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC) Revised: Jaimehy ( talk) 15:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
All Jaimehy's things have been addressed, except his suggestion to include all criticisms on Opus Dei, a non-practicable and inappropriate suggestion. All the doctrines of the Opus Dei and the Catholic Church are not in the doctrine section. And we know why. All the activities of Opus Dei are not in the activities section and we know why. All bibliography on Opus Dei is not in the bibliography section and we know why.
There are now three sections in controversy section. The third sub-section "Other Views" neutralizes the other two. Even if you don't like the Supporting Views, that is what neutrality is all about. Moreso if they are prominent experts. That's non-negotiable Wikipedia:NPOV. Please read the policy. Cheers! Pradeshkava ( talk) 05:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Rather then delist the article that many have worked on without giving them any opportunity to address their concerns, I have restored this article's GA status and taken it to Good Article Reassessment. This is a much better option then simply delisting an article based on one user's opinion. I have not had any involvement in this article and from what I know have not edited it at all (correct me if I'm wrong). I am not sure if this article should be GA or not, and am not too worried either way, but do not believe this should be done without the input of more then one user. If you believe this article should be delisted, or should retain GA status, please comment at the GAR I have started. You can view the discussion there. Please do not delist the article; instead, wait for all to have their say and let a consensus be reached. You can participate/view the discussion at Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Archive_33#Opus_Dei (note: now archived so treat as read-only) Baccyak4H ( Yak!) 16:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC). Thanks. - Shudde talk 00:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Added NPOV marker I feel there is enough material on the discussion page of this article to justify putting an NPOV notice on it. Indeed the majority opinion seems to be that the article is severely biased.
I apologise if I've goofed in doing this. I simply feel that without this marker, the article is seriously misleading. Jaimehy ( talk) 14:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
There is a lot of material on Opus in the Spanish Wikipedia, including much information which, while it couldn't be counted as representing Opus Dei as it would like to be seen, certainly reflects Opus Dei as it sees itself, in that it actually explains some of the internal rules of the organisation and many of the sayings of the founder, upon which much of the controversy about the organisation is founded. I will attempt to translate some of this material into English in the next few weeks. It might prove useful in settling some of the arguments about bias in the article. Jaimehy ( talk) 15:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
While the term "fascist" should not be applied to Franco's government as a whole, it applied to a large part of the forces that won the Civil War. I therefore reinserted it somewhere else from where Túrelio removed it. I believe the sentence containing the word to be both historically accurate and relevant to the subject matter of the article. There is still some way to go before this article could be considered anything other than an advertisement for Opus Dei. Jaimehy ( talk) 16:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, I'm not happy with the edits made of my work on this site over the last few days. Practically everything I've done has been undone. I'm getting more and more pessimistic about the possibility of putting some balance into the article. I haven't had time to undo the changes and explain my reasoning, but I will in the next few days. -- Jaimehy ( talk) 16:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I felt that I ought to explain my reasoning for removing this article's GA listing.
I enjoyed reading the article, and it is in many ways very good. But the structuring of the controversys and their rebuttals made it very difficult to see a genuine attempt at providing a neutral point of view, as required by wikipedia's policy. The stumbling block here isn't the content, but just the structure of the article, and the way that it's presented. I very much hope that you will be able to consolidate the criticism and rebuttal sections into the main body of the article, or at least combine them into one controversy section, as I believe that the article is addressing a genuinely notable topic and really ought to be able to achieve a GA listing with just a little bit more good-spirited collaboration. -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 01:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
All Jaimehy's things have been addressed, except his suggestion to include all criticisms on Opus Dei, a non-practicable and inappropriate suggestion. All the doctrines of the Opus Dei and the Catholic Church are not in the doctrine section. All the activities of Opus Dei are not in the activities section. All bibliography on Opus Dei is not in the bibliography section. There is a reason why: Wikipedia is a summary of the most important things. Sub-articles can go into details.
There are now three sections in controversy section. The third sub-section "Other Views" neutralizes the other two. Even if you don't like the Supporting Views, that is what neutrality is all about. Moreso if writers are prominent experts. That's non-negotiable Wikipedia:NPOV to give importance to prominent writers. Please read the policy. Cheers! Pradeshkava ( talk) 05:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
The Dublin parish of Our Lady of Peace, Merrion Road, has been entrusted by the Archbishop to the care of Opus Dei. I didn't know that Opus Dei ran parishes, but in practice what difference does this make to the average parishioner? Millbanks ( talk) 07:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
If the main problem is a structure prone to being interpreted as a "set em up and knock em down", may I propose that we invert the order of the critical and supporting views. Please check this private fork = Opus Dei controversy section where I propose a new ordering. I hope this satisfies all parties. :) Marax ( talk) 08:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I believe an English translation of this ref is needed so the reader can decide who this person is, what he is saying, and whether it matters. Rumiton ( talk) 14:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I have just done a bit of redistribution and reclassification of content, putting together similar items, placing items in their logical place, and giving an appropriate name. See this fork. Marax ( talk) 08:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Great, well-written article. The previously discussed NPOV issues seem to have been fixed. With a few minor tweaks, you may want to consider FAC.
Congratulations, Malachirality ( talk) 22:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Boosted by the encouraging words of Malachirality and having more time today, I started copyediting and tweaking this article towards FAC, and in accordance with other points on this discussion page. Marax ( talk) 11:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
The image Image:Da-vinci-mass-market.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 19:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Undid revision by Mr. Conroy. Mr. Schaefer wants to be known as a member of the Communist Party in his own self-description, his own Wikipedia page. He feels proud to be one. Any other member of the Communist party will be proud of his Unofficial Home Page. These days are not MacCarthy days. There are many leftists nowadays and we should allow them to feel proud of their brethren who self-proclaim as members of the communist party. Lafem ( talk) 11:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
The author in his website: [6] If the emancipation of the working classes requires their fraternal concurrence, how are they to fulfill that great mission with a foreign policy in pursuit of criminal designs, playing upon national prejudices, and squandering in piratical wars the people's blood and treasure? -- Karl Marx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Procom ( talk • contribs) 06:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)
DumZiBoT ( talk) 14:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)