This article was nominated for deletion on 16 December 2022. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have written an introduction summarizing the content of this page and I have renewed the link in the main page -as it was wrong and did not send anywhere. -- Uncertain 17:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
I reverted Lafem's reversion because it was not explained enough. He, as anyone else in Wikipedia, should discuss his insights before he changes anything in a topic as controversial as this one. Most of history schoolbooks in Spain, both in the highschool and in the university, explain the strong relationships Opus Dei had with the Franco's dictatorship. This is not fair to dismiss it saying it is "new research". Maybe OD does not want to have such an involvement with any government now. But this is part of its history which cannot deny. Which cannot hide. -- Uncertain 20:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
I removed the disputed sign. I think the solution to this problem is easy. I just moved Uncertain's contributions on Franco to the Franco section and kept his excellent introduction. And then I added what should be added to make this piece neutral: the other side. Please keep the following guideline in mind and hopefully there won't be any further problems: Wikipedia:Wikiquette ;-) Rabadur 08:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Some of the books that cite Opus Dei's involvement in Franco's politics. Most of them portray OD as a secretive organization deeply involved in francoism from its very beggining--One of the so-called "families" of the Regime's "Movement". On the positive side, most of them portray OD ministers after 1956 as some of the builders of economic development. Most of those books have been written for prominent international scholars [Preston, Payne, carr, etc.] or have been published by well-known international presses or universitites [Longman, Prentice-Hall, HarperCollins, etc.]. I have found both old and new prints. I have just added one from an Spanish printing house, one of the largest and more reputable [Planeta]. I hope this will be usefull for all the students of Spain, Francoism, Fascism, and Opus Dei. -- Uncertain 18:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
...on the idea that Historians of Spanish twentieth century agree that Opus Dei was part of thre regime, although a minority within it.
This page has yet to be unified & his obviously biased. It is undeniable that Catholic Church and, of course, Opus Dei which is widely considered (ask catholics people !) as a right-wing organization inside the Church (opposed to the Second Vatican Council), supported Franco. I have difficulties to understand why a supporter of Opus Dei would even think to deny this, since mainstream Church wouldn't even think in such attempt of Historical revisionism. I wonder why a conservative movement would try to deny its link to conservative Franco's Spain? Is someone here trying to insinuate Opus Dei supported Republicans during Spanish Civil War ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaliz ( talk • contribs) 02:48, 19 November 2005
Good point, Kaliz. I understand your point. In fact I proposed something similar in the talk page of the main article. I quote my own proposal:
With what you have written here, I will now post this specific paragraph.
We are about to wrap up a long discussion on specific issues related to Franco and Opus Dei. We had to analyze the credentials of the experts.
I also saw the new category on Christianity and controversy and the Books critical of Christianity which is one of its sub-categories. The one book there is "Fascists in Christian Clothing : The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" by Richard Weisman. I suppose you placed all these. I'm not sure if what you wrote here is based on that book. You know that Wikipedia policy states that:
So may ask the credentials of Richard Weisman (if he is your basis for your contributions); or are there other experts you want to put forward. Thanks. Thomas S. Major 05:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
This article is a mess guys! So much repetition and then contradiction, sometimes within a single paragraph. The article needs a major clean-up! - 62.158.79.130 15:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Agree This article is a work of apologetics, not of history. It doesn't even attempt to give two sides of the story. There are also massive inconsistencies in it. The fact that it seems some words to avoid were removed from it doesn't make it any more balanced if the "wrong" side of the argument is either omitted or misrepresented. Jaimehy ( talk) 16:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
... seems more aimed at giving extra credibility to the theories denying Opus Dei's ultraconservatism than to paying attention to the facts proper. There is a gap between academics might say and the truth, and this gap is given by the fact that the few "non-Fascist" Opus representatives who are given credit in this article (Fontán among them) actually supported the Civil War in the first place, even if they delved into political subtleties later on while trying to pass for democrats. The gap is also given by the fact that someone with an excellent academic record and a proficient performance in his job (be it journalism in the case of Fontán, architecture in the case of Miguel Fisac or law in the case of López Rodó) is by no means representative of the vast majority of Opus members.
It only takes a visit with a hidden camera to an Opus-run elementary school, to see what all the students have to say on feminism, homosexuality, democracy or immigration.
Synecdoche is a very ugly thing to bring into such a debate. Saying that Opus was not formed by people who despised culture, progress and at times even intelligence, only because there sporadically were intelligent or educated members among them, is as false and disingenuous, and perhaps as stupid, as saying that ALL Nazis were as intelligent and creative as Josef Goebbels.
Even a fool could understand that.
Walter Sobchak0 ( talk) 13:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree wholeheartedly with the past critiques of this article. Each section begins with vague references to "critics" with valid connections between Opus Dei and Nazi/fascist groups and then goes on to enumerate responses from members of the group intended to debunk these connections. This is not information, it's pure bias. 140.177.245.169 ( talk) 04:15, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Update: I've reworded some of the very biased content in the "Hitler and Nazism" section. Changing phrases like the allegations being "negated" to "disputed" as little to none of the evidence refuting Escriva's opinions on the Holocaust have been provided by individuals outside the Opus Dei organization. Furthermore, I'll be keeping a very close eye on this page as I suspect it's the subject of targeted editing by Opus Dei members. 140.177.245.169 ( talk) 04:59, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
I think Allen is overused in this article, we should pick two or three places to use him and can the rest. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 22:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Many experts are of the opinion that this article contains Weasel Words. It also suffers from very poor formatting, for instance there are APA-like citations, some references in the bibliography occur twice, the bibliography is not generated using Template:Reflist. Not to mention the incessant political apologia. Overall this reads like a college paper written at a secondary school level by an uninterested sophomore concerned with things more important than whatever seminary class this might have been written for. How this has managed to exist since 2005, and how it has not been marked for deletion as a result of being so obviously deficient for so long boggles the mind. HighPriestDuncan ( talk) 07:10, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on 16 December 2022. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have written an introduction summarizing the content of this page and I have renewed the link in the main page -as it was wrong and did not send anywhere. -- Uncertain 17:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
I reverted Lafem's reversion because it was not explained enough. He, as anyone else in Wikipedia, should discuss his insights before he changes anything in a topic as controversial as this one. Most of history schoolbooks in Spain, both in the highschool and in the university, explain the strong relationships Opus Dei had with the Franco's dictatorship. This is not fair to dismiss it saying it is "new research". Maybe OD does not want to have such an involvement with any government now. But this is part of its history which cannot deny. Which cannot hide. -- Uncertain 20:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
I removed the disputed sign. I think the solution to this problem is easy. I just moved Uncertain's contributions on Franco to the Franco section and kept his excellent introduction. And then I added what should be added to make this piece neutral: the other side. Please keep the following guideline in mind and hopefully there won't be any further problems: Wikipedia:Wikiquette ;-) Rabadur 08:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Some of the books that cite Opus Dei's involvement in Franco's politics. Most of them portray OD as a secretive organization deeply involved in francoism from its very beggining--One of the so-called "families" of the Regime's "Movement". On the positive side, most of them portray OD ministers after 1956 as some of the builders of economic development. Most of those books have been written for prominent international scholars [Preston, Payne, carr, etc.] or have been published by well-known international presses or universitites [Longman, Prentice-Hall, HarperCollins, etc.]. I have found both old and new prints. I have just added one from an Spanish printing house, one of the largest and more reputable [Planeta]. I hope this will be usefull for all the students of Spain, Francoism, Fascism, and Opus Dei. -- Uncertain 18:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
...on the idea that Historians of Spanish twentieth century agree that Opus Dei was part of thre regime, although a minority within it.
This page has yet to be unified & his obviously biased. It is undeniable that Catholic Church and, of course, Opus Dei which is widely considered (ask catholics people !) as a right-wing organization inside the Church (opposed to the Second Vatican Council), supported Franco. I have difficulties to understand why a supporter of Opus Dei would even think to deny this, since mainstream Church wouldn't even think in such attempt of Historical revisionism. I wonder why a conservative movement would try to deny its link to conservative Franco's Spain? Is someone here trying to insinuate Opus Dei supported Republicans during Spanish Civil War ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaliz ( talk • contribs) 02:48, 19 November 2005
Good point, Kaliz. I understand your point. In fact I proposed something similar in the talk page of the main article. I quote my own proposal:
With what you have written here, I will now post this specific paragraph.
We are about to wrap up a long discussion on specific issues related to Franco and Opus Dei. We had to analyze the credentials of the experts.
I also saw the new category on Christianity and controversy and the Books critical of Christianity which is one of its sub-categories. The one book there is "Fascists in Christian Clothing : The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" by Richard Weisman. I suppose you placed all these. I'm not sure if what you wrote here is based on that book. You know that Wikipedia policy states that:
So may ask the credentials of Richard Weisman (if he is your basis for your contributions); or are there other experts you want to put forward. Thanks. Thomas S. Major 05:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
This article is a mess guys! So much repetition and then contradiction, sometimes within a single paragraph. The article needs a major clean-up! - 62.158.79.130 15:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Agree This article is a work of apologetics, not of history. It doesn't even attempt to give two sides of the story. There are also massive inconsistencies in it. The fact that it seems some words to avoid were removed from it doesn't make it any more balanced if the "wrong" side of the argument is either omitted or misrepresented. Jaimehy ( talk) 16:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
... seems more aimed at giving extra credibility to the theories denying Opus Dei's ultraconservatism than to paying attention to the facts proper. There is a gap between academics might say and the truth, and this gap is given by the fact that the few "non-Fascist" Opus representatives who are given credit in this article (Fontán among them) actually supported the Civil War in the first place, even if they delved into political subtleties later on while trying to pass for democrats. The gap is also given by the fact that someone with an excellent academic record and a proficient performance in his job (be it journalism in the case of Fontán, architecture in the case of Miguel Fisac or law in the case of López Rodó) is by no means representative of the vast majority of Opus members.
It only takes a visit with a hidden camera to an Opus-run elementary school, to see what all the students have to say on feminism, homosexuality, democracy or immigration.
Synecdoche is a very ugly thing to bring into such a debate. Saying that Opus was not formed by people who despised culture, progress and at times even intelligence, only because there sporadically were intelligent or educated members among them, is as false and disingenuous, and perhaps as stupid, as saying that ALL Nazis were as intelligent and creative as Josef Goebbels.
Even a fool could understand that.
Walter Sobchak0 ( talk) 13:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree wholeheartedly with the past critiques of this article. Each section begins with vague references to "critics" with valid connections between Opus Dei and Nazi/fascist groups and then goes on to enumerate responses from members of the group intended to debunk these connections. This is not information, it's pure bias. 140.177.245.169 ( talk) 04:15, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Update: I've reworded some of the very biased content in the "Hitler and Nazism" section. Changing phrases like the allegations being "negated" to "disputed" as little to none of the evidence refuting Escriva's opinions on the Holocaust have been provided by individuals outside the Opus Dei organization. Furthermore, I'll be keeping a very close eye on this page as I suspect it's the subject of targeted editing by Opus Dei members. 140.177.245.169 ( talk) 04:59, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
I think Allen is overused in this article, we should pick two or three places to use him and can the rest. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 22:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Many experts are of the opinion that this article contains Weasel Words. It also suffers from very poor formatting, for instance there are APA-like citations, some references in the bibliography occur twice, the bibliography is not generated using Template:Reflist. Not to mention the incessant political apologia. Overall this reads like a college paper written at a secondary school level by an uninterested sophomore concerned with things more important than whatever seminary class this might have been written for. How this has managed to exist since 2005, and how it has not been marked for deletion as a result of being so obviously deficient for so long boggles the mind. HighPriestDuncan ( talk) 07:10, 10 December 2022 (UTC)