Talk:Opus Dei/Archive 2006-2

This is an archive of past discussions about Opus Dei. 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.

Featured Article Candidacy: Additional Improvements and Comments

For follow up work on Feature Article Candidacy, please see:

Talk:Opus Dei/FAC nomination September 2005 with additions

Appropriateness of using Allen?

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))

Reliance on a single source - Appropriate?

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))

Keep on improving: Need for order

Let's strive to keep order in the article, i.e. portions related to a section should stay in that section. For example:

(1) Put things in their proper place. Criticism on recruitment is for sect section, while criticism on teachings should go to the teaching section. In this way we also keep the status of Good Article.

(2) Keep the proportions of space according to the credibility of experts, according to the NPOV policy:

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. If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject

Also please see NOR policy, which is connected to NPOV ("The policies are complementary, jointly determining the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. They should therefore not be interpreted in isolation from each other, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three.")

"It is an obligation of Wikipedia to its readers that the information they read here be reliable and reputable, and so we rely only on credible or reputable published sources"

"Relying on citable sources helps clarify what points of view are represented in an article, and thus helps us comply with our NPOV policy."

Let's keep on improving the article towards FAC. For this it is also important not to backslide. Thanks. Lafem 03:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Good point, Lafem. As always. Some work has to be done also with the sub-articles for FAC. Hope more people come in to help fix them up for FAC. :) Thomas S. Major 05:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I've just expanded on the views of George Weigel and on the works of Thomas Woods with his long list of top modern historians and experts on the influence of Catholicism on the West -- science, economics, arts, etc. Marax 05:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

(3) Maintain consistency in section structure: Statement/fact--criticism--response. I am glad, Walter, for your contribution to improve the neutrality of the statement on ductus divina inspiratione but the ending statement on Mission, strategy and characteristics should end with a clear response from the majority point of view (the most credible experts). The "goodness" of this article will depend on how consistent the article is in following this structure. Thanks. Lafem 03:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Good point, Lafem. Following this structure, I've combined then the two sections on "Novelty and Controversies" and "Opus Dei and Faith" into two. Marax 06:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with what you say Lafem! Walter Ching 06:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest that the structure be statement/fact--minority pov--majority pov--neutral ending statement for those sections whose contents are disputed. Rabadur 08:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I read the intro and still can't say I understand what opus dei means. This needs a more concise definition.

Sect or prime target of secularists: integrate repeated sentences; maintain NPOV due proportions between experts

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.

Aside from not repeating statements, the responses are usually best placed right after the accusation.
This section is the perhaps the longest section in the article. Compare this to the former featured article on the United States of America. It's a much-loved nation it is true (I am one of its fans), but also one of the most vilified and attacked in the world today-- in Europe, in moslem countries around the world, in Latin America, etc. It's "criticism section" on human rights is one of the shortest sections.
NPOV due proportion among representative experts. There is much lopsidedness between the experts/writers belonging to the two sides of the debate. Pro-sect writers: Brown (fiction writer), Moncada, Tapia and ODAN (exes, who do not have much credibility to be experts for a serious encyclopedia). These do not have the great qualifications of Wilson ("doyen of sociologist of religion"), Introvigne (prolific scholar), Allen (journalist who has received wide acclaim for his objectivity). Perhaps the most prominent writers of the pro-sect group are Penny Lernoux and Michael Walsh, but as Introvigne states their work has "very poor scientific quality." I just added their names in this section and placed the other writers in the footnote. I don't think I am exagerrating when I say that the due proportion should in fact be 100:0, or 99:1. The agreement here is 90:10 in general but the present proportion for this section is 75:25. What I have just done is to bring the proportion to around 80:20.

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)

Intro: "created"/"founded"

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)

Hi. Thanks for your comment. I based the principles behind the wording on Pedro Rodriguez, et al,'s work Opus Dei in the Church 1994. He said there that Opus Dei is a "self-development" of the Church, a theological or ecclesiological statement referring to the church as a whole, i.e. hierarchy and laypeople...the communion. So the word "created" refers, broadly and theologically, to all the Catholics have done to set it up-- from Escriva (Catholic priest who "founded" it, a term confirmed by the Pope John Paul II), his followers (Catholics), the hierarchy who supported him (Catholic bishops), up to John Paul II (Pope representing the entire Church) who gave the legal "dress", the prelature. Thus, after the statement on being "created", there is another statement specifying the meaning of the general term "created": that is was "founded" by Escriva and "established" by JP II. Now, from a more canonical viewpoint, the term "created" can also refer more strictly to the "erection" of Opus Dei as personal prelature done by John Paul II. The word "creation" is more understandable in the English-speaking world. I hope this helps. Marax 07:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I understand that "created" might have broad meaning, but to the casual visitor of the page (those simply reading the introduction) who doesn't understand how broadly that term is being used, it conveys that the church founded Opus Dei with a top-down approach. I suggest that we move "created" out of the introduction to some other part of the article where its broad use there can be conveyed to the reader. I'm open to the possibility that "created" has a broader meaning among lay Catholics than I interpret it here, but I am ignorant of its usage by Catholics generally. --Chaser 02:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes to your point, Chaser. I saw your comments just now. Some other people fixed it. I think its now alright. Marax 06:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Introvigne's affiliations

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)

Thank you. I placed this fact of his joining the faculty in a relevant footnote. This is a detail which might not be proper for an introduction. I hope you are satisfied with this move. Marax 03:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that it's "not proper". The rhetorical function of the sentence is to suggest "neutral and authoritative third parties think they're not so bad", so absent a statement to the contrary it represents an implicit claim that Introvigne is neutral. Given that he has associations with Opus, it is dishonest not to mark them there. BrendanH 09:28, 22 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)

Ndss, when he made the statement is not so relevant, unless you are arguing that he was objective then, but is no longer. He is not a neutral third party, and it is dishonest to imply that he is. I have changed my wording slightly to accommodate your view on the timing, but I think the original ("a sociologist with affiliations") is better. BrendanH 11:17, 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.

"PAMPLONA (Spagna)

Studi sui nuovi movimenti religiosi all’Università di Navarra

Lo specialista italiano Massimo Introvigne ha partecipato a un seminario con professori della Facoltà di Teologia dell’Università di Navarra sulle sette religiose, affrontando vari aspetti del problema: dalle differenze tipologiche alla quantificazione numerica dei membri, dal fenomeno dei suicidi collettivi ai movimenti anti-sette. Oltre a mostrare che quello delle sette non è un fenomeno solo recente, egli ha illustrato come sia contraddittorio parlare di “sette cattoliche”."

florindo 19:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

BrendanH and florindo, I appreciate your points. That he is not a "neutral third party" when he wrote that has to be proven and not merely asserted. Kindly read the following piece: Introvigne answers his critics who accused him of having hidden links with Opus Dei. This article is unanswered, which makes him even more believable. Please see Basis for expertise. I also understand that he was invited to the university a year after he wrote Opus Dei and the Anti-cult movement, or even during the time he was writing it for word goes around. That does not imply he was "associated" with Opus Dei when he wrote that statement, as you can read from his own authoritative denial of any links. In the same manner, John Paul II was not "associated" with Cuba when he visited the place and gave speeches by invitation of Castro, although Castro later wanted to be more associated with John Paul II. I don't want to say more things about this. Controversies are not my cup of tea, but I just want to say I am not convinced and I feel very bad that the word "dishonesty" is even being used here. Bye-bye and good luck. Ndss 02:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I am trying out this statement which can serve as a compromise: A prolific sociologist of religion, Dr. Massimo Introvigne, who recently joined the faculty of Opus Dei's Pontifical University of the Holy Cross, stated in 1994 that Opus Dei has been for many years the prime target of secularists. They stigmatize it, he said, because "they cannot tolerate 'the return to religion'" of the secularized society.

Let's see if this is alright. In fact, I would like to thank you for inspiring me to write an article about my alma mater, the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross. Thank you, BrendanH. Marax 09:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no objections to Marax's formulation (apart from its length, but Wikipedia has no page limitations). Ndss, I don't mean to upset anyone, but I persist in the view that to present Introvigne (if only implicitly) as a neutral third party would be dishonest (particularly if this involved repeated reversion of mention of his affiliations). Non-neutrality does not, of course, mean that I think he is dishonest or unreliable, but does affect the rhetorical import of his quote to readers! Hopefully Marax's compromise will satisfy everyone. BrendanH 09:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

To be sincere, I am not very well documented of Dr Introvigne works, the fallacy that I find in his argument (or at least in the way that his ideas are presented in the article) is that it appears that the opposition to Opus Dei is only from non-believers, secularists or anti-religion activists. And I think that many ex-members and people that have been in contact with them have not a very positive opinion of the institution and some of them are people that have strong religious beliefs or at least have respect for the religion in general and for the Catholic Church in particular. This fact is ignored by Prof Introvigne and I think that his ignorance about the ex-members situation makes him a non neutral source.

Of course you are more active participants of the wikipedia and you are free to place the opinion of Mr introvigne as you desire. This do not change the real facts about the true nature of some oppositors to Opus Dei: not all of them are uninformed or mendacious people. Excuse me for not having too much estusiasm for Opus Dei. Thanks for your attention. florindo 21:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

All's well that ends well. I didn't want to enter this discussion because I might be viewed as a non-neutral party. But I see things turned out well. Dear florindo, Introvigne's opinion is included in the article, most specially in the introduction, because he fits Wikipedia's criteria as the most scientifically qualified to discuss the sociological aspects of Opus Dei. But I also like your feedback about the lack of mention of other oppositors in the introduction such as ex-members, other Catholics, believers. After identifying their most prominent representatives (a la Wikipedia), Introvigne does discuss them quite thoroughly in his article "Opus Dei and the Anti-cult Movement", citing their works, analyzing them up to their footnotes, spelling, etc. A summary of his ideas are in the section Sects or prime target of secularists? I'll add something to the intro to do justice to what you say re these. Thank you too for your attention. Lafem 01:02, 24 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)

Wonderful sleuthing, Asoane! Given the rules of newspaper editing, your two pieces of evidence are sufficient. The burden of proof lies on the other side. The one who wrote that Introvigne is a faculty member is an anonymous editor whose contributions to Wikipedia span 8 minutes: Contributions of 194.153.187.141

I've also been realizing that BernardH has been using argumentation techniques against Ndss: (1) he evades Ndss' strong arguments that Introvigne was neutral in 1994 by saying this: "when (Introvigne) made the statement is not so relevant, unless you are arguing that he was objective then, but is no longer.") But the present state of objectivity of Introvigne is not relevant to this issue and is not relevant in scholarly work: (See Harvard's author-year referencing. [1]which is referred to in Wikipedia's policy on citing sources) and (2) he uses ad hominem arguments ("dishonesty") against Ndss, Marax and Asoane. Yes, I agree with him that the background of the author should be given but according to the citation criteria and the date he wrote his statements. Sorry, BernardH, that's how I see your arguments. What I am saying merely looks at your arguments and not your values or your person to whom I give full respect. Lafem 08:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I added the term "conservative Catholic scholar" after Introvigne. That's his background in 1994 and, given my arguments above, I would presume this is enough even if he is presently a faculty member or an occasional lecturer. Lafem 08:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm rather ambivalent about this outcome. It is clearly better than the status quo ante but it does suppress any suggestion of particular sympathy or affiliation to OD. This might be fair but would be inadequate to the extent that such sympathy could be documented. As for ad hominem arguments, it is ad hominem to say "we can ignore that argument because X is dishonest". To make the point that it is dishonest to suppress true information is not ad hominem.

I'll think about the issue for a while, and see if I can think of a way of improving it consistent with NPOV. For instance, it may be worth quoting the critics that Introvigne is talking about. In the meantime I will leave things as they are. BrendanH 14:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi BrendanH. Thanks for acknowledging the fairness of my proposal. You are right about the ad hominem issue. I am sorry for my misreading.

Introvigne does give a course in the university, [2] although not as part of the “claustro” or the faculty itself, according to the secretary of the Pontifical University, Pablo Perez Rubio. I wrote him an email and he responded.

To examine this issue together, it is important that you respond to my first point on the relevance of his present state of objectivity to his objectivity in 1994 (as per Harvard author-year referencing). It is similar to Ndss' point: "I also understand that he was invited to the university a year after he wrote Opus Dei and the Anti-cult movement, or even during the time he was writing it for word goes around. That does not imply he was "associated" with Opus Dei when he wrote that statement, as you can read from his own authoritative denial of any links. In the same manner, John Paul II was not "associated" with Cuba when he visited the place and gave speeches by invitation of Castro, although Castro later wanted to be more associated with John Paul II."

In view of the above, this is my second point: wouldn't it be more dishonest to weaken the objectivity of Introvigne's 1994 study by sheer juxtaposition by talking about his 2005 "affiliations" or connections, which actually did not exist in 1994, and IMO cannot be called such at present? I can't find a reductio ad absurdum argument right now, but I am sure there is one. ;-)

Please also keep in mind the amount of work done here to keep the introduction as a short summary/abstract of the article based on the rule on Non-equal validity: #12, #18 and #26. I see that this is also Marax's point. Thanks for your suggestions, BrendanH. Please do not misconstrue my acting as a gadfly. I have a good record of integrating criticisms into this article in consonance with Wikipedia policy. You can see #23 above, as the latest example. Lafem 05:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Distinction of theological/spiritual and social matters

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)

Nice work Marax! This is turning out so well, so encyclopedic. Thanks for all your work! Walter Ching 06:41, 8 March 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)

Intro: John Paul II's summary of Opus Dei and Escriva's mission

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)

Allen's recommendations

I placed this in the footnote, a reference to Allen's statement on the misinterpretation of Opus Dei's secularity and privacy:

^ In his review of Allen's work, "Let There be Light" (Commonweal Oct-Nov 2005), Paul Baumann says that Allen's recommendations to Opus Dei (transparency, collaboration with liberals, institutional self-criticism) are still based on a liberal and Anglosaxon cultural misinterpretation of Opus Dei.

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)

Sensible suggestion. Took the liberty to Npovize the statement and broke it into two. Rabadur 04:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Images on Opus Dei at the Wikimedia Commons

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)

Sorry, William. I made it a part of Opposition to Opus Dei. Thanks a lot William! Marax 08:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

In fiction

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)

No discussion of the levels of membership?

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)

Why didn't you read the article? (Sorry, couldn't resist.) See section "Vocation and membership" in [3]. Also, there are separate entries for supernumerary, numerary and associates. Túrelio 08:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Da Vinci Code controversy

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)

Van Biema of Time exaggerated quite a bit. Escriva had been granting interviews and talking quite a lot during his time, just see this link for example: Why Opus Dei?, Interview with Peter Forbarth (Time). R Davidson 08:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Not biased, but favoured, perhaps?

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

A lot of "ink" has been expended on this issue. You might want to check the relevant discussions in archive 05-3 to specify where exactly is the problem. R Davidson 09:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

This entire article is an Opus Dei brown-nosing.

Unless you specify your objections, the NPOV template is not acceptable. I will try to remove some phrases which can possibly appear promotional. Rabadur 01:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I've also added a number of neutral endings for certain sections. Rabadur 03:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but it's not so much the specific phrases that make the difference here, it's the structure. When one follows the traditional dialectic of thesis and antithesis, postulating that Opus Dei is 'X' then offering counter-evidence to refute it, the latter is is generally considered the more convincing, and argumentatively carries the most weight. So just by countering each claim as it comes, one has the feeling the second argument is the stronger. It may be that in this case it is correct, and in any case it's not really worth the monumental effort it would take to reformat the discussion or find other pieces of evidence. Maybe if someone finds a really convincing work, it could be integrated, much as the work of John L. Allen, Jr. has, in order to balance things out. Aquilla

More space and last say for most credible experts, e.g. Allen

I see your point, Aquilla. It's been discussed a number of times in the past. In a nutshell, Allen's work in fact confirmed what the editors see as the majority pov, the pov of the most credible experts, which Wikipedia says should be given more space. For this article, it also meant giving it the last say, as Allen did in all his "question marks." I agree that it would take another monumental effort of research to overturn the structure. I'd say it would demand research work surpassing Allen's 300 hours of interviews, done by someone whose reputation for objectivity at least equals that of Allen, for it to be convincing enough to disprove Allen's conclusions. Until that comes along, this article will just have to accept its fate of always being suspected of favouring OD (which also happened to Allen). Anyway, thanks for your feedback. It's been helpful. Rabadur 02:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Sanctity per se may sound promotional; experts talked highly of OD

The problem with this topic is this: it is about an organization that sells sanctity, so to speak. And sanctity is about being good, values, virtues. These are things that sound promotional per se. And coupled with this, the reputable experts (Allen, Introvigne, John Paul II, Ratzinger, Messori, John Paul I, many Cardinals, etc.) have spoken highly of the organization. So when one suppresses points from these experts, it might also be viewed as non-neutral or favouring the critics. It’s damn if you do, damn if you don't. That's the problem. However, let me say, I agree with the moves of Rabadur. They're a fine balancing act. Lafem 09:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV tag without explanation is akin to vandalism

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

This is based on NPOV policy; Messori like Allen was also suspected of being pro-OD

The Italian press accused Vittorio Messori of being an apologist of Opus Dei, of doing propaganda for Opus Dei. His fault was to say in fewer words what John L. Allen, Jr. explained in a volume packed with details and facts. Allen's exhaustive and painstaking research showed that people use terms such as "propaganda", "cult", "right-wing," without careful assessments. BTW, "propaganda" is all about information which deceives the reader. In contrast this article continuously cites reputable sources.

This article strictly follows Wikipedia:NPOV policy: "A good way to help building a neutral point of view is to find a reputable source for the piece of information you want to add to wikipedia, and then cite that source. This is an easy way to characterize a side of a debate without excluding that the debate has other sides. The trick is to find the best and most reputable sources you can....The only other important consideration is that sources of comparable reputability might contradict. In that case 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."

Please be fair to the people who worked on this. To call their work propaganda is simply unjust. Thomas S. Major 02:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Proganda = misleading information

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)

Interesting that you say, first of all, 'truth' rather than 'fact,' as truth philisophically has little to do with fact. Secondly, reputability (especially 'comparable' reputability) is entirely subjective, and therefore your argument is entirely subjective. Zmbe 15:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Policy on credibility: The most credible experts support each other's claims

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:

The reputation of the expert, the reputation of the tradition within which he or she works, the reputation of the group or institution for which the expert works

John Allen has the reputation of having a "maddening objectivity", a highly respected Vaticanista, whose work on Opus Dei has been called "definitive" by many; John Paul II was hailed by world leaders upon his death; Benedict XVI was an accomplished theologian before becoming Pope, "brilliant" is a common description of his work (a google of ratzinger and brilliant will do the trick); the Catholic Church, the institution where these two worked for, is now seen by non-Catholic scholars as a major contributor to modern science, economics and international law; it established many of Europe's universities; Introvigne has written in 12 scientific journals; Messori is the most translated Catholic author in the world.

Whether the expert uses the common methods of the field or completely different ones

This is in the field of Catholic religion (Allen, John Paul II, Ratzinger are undoubtedly experts here); and the field of sociology of religion and Introvigne is an expert, one who wrote an entire encyclopedia of religion!

Whether the expert has or has not failed to respond to criticisms

Introvigne responded to his critics here: Introvigne answers his critics; Escriva responded to his critics here: Conversations; Allen responded to questions here: Q and A

Whether the expert has reputable supporters of his or her claims"

All of them support each other, together with many cardinals, bishops, civil leaders, academicians, etc. (See Opus Dei and Catholic Church leaders, Opus Dei and civil leaders, and Opus Dei: Bibliography). This is the most important of all objective arguments on their credibility. Lafem 07:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Ending statement for Opus Dei

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)

Opus Dei and politics

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)

It was in one of the footnotes to the section on Relation to politics. Now that you added this, I removed the said footnote. Ndss 06:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Johann Hari

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)

That's a good move, Zmbe! The quotes were surely placed by a pro-OD newbie who does not understand neutrality and "writing for the enemy". The antitheist business is dealt on here in the section on Politics: Johann_Hari#Politics. I'll bring back the old description "award-winning."

BTW, somebody also removed criticism against the Catholic Church. Whoever removes criticisms here or dilutes them, please explain your self thoroughly. Thanks. Thomas S. Major 01:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Article removed from Wikipedia:Good articles

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 would agree to a large extent. The following statements (and many more) have issues:

"Recent studies meanwhile have done much to counter these claims" - the POV here is that the studies do a lot to counter the claims. I would say we can't say this as this is holding a position.
"In the work of spreading a message that to many seems new, Opus Dei faced challenges, misunderstandings and controversies, leading some Catholic leaders like John Cardinal Heenan to see Opus Dei as a sign of contradiction, a "sign that is spoken against" (Lk 2:34). [23] This term, John Paul II suggests, is "a distinctive definition of Christ and of his Church."" - this really seems to be holding a position.
"In the 1940s, some Jesuits led by Fr. Angel Carrillo de Albornoz, who later left the Society of Jesus, denounced Opus Dei's teachings as "a new heresy." It is not orthodox, they said, to teach that the laity can be holy without public vows and distinctive clothing. Also, these critics were concerned that Opus Dei would take away vocations from the religious orders" - can we rephrase this?
"Always at work in the world, waiting as a Merciful Father in the Sacrament of Reconciliation and personally present in the Eucharistic bread, God makes himself "totally available" to nourish the Christian so as to become "one single thing with him." [4] With the gift of this "divinization" in grace, "a new principle of energy," and with the support of "Christ's family," the Church, the difficult ideal of becoming a saint, another Christ, is "also easy," Escrivá states. "It is within our reach": [5] "My yoke is easy," says Christ, "and my burden light." (Mt 11:30) Becoming a saint is shunned, according to Ratzinger (2002), when there is a "mistaken concept of holiness...as something reserved for some 'greats'...who are completely different from us ordinary sinners. But this is a wrong perception which has been corrected precisely by Josemaría Escrivá." Even if he "can be very weak, with many mistakes in his life," a saint has heroic virtue "because he has been transparent and available for the work of God. In other words, a saint is nothing other than to speak with God as a friend speaks with a friend...the Only One who can really make the world both good and happy." [6]" this seems far too sympathetic, and almost seems like a defense or apologetics. It needs to be rephrased.

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)

I always had the same suspicions you have. I was the one who put most of the criticisms on this page some months ago, but the sympathetic tone put in by some editors just doesn't go away. The tricky thing is that the problems you cited (from John Paul II, from Benedict and Escriva) are direct quotes. It's not NPOV strictly speaking. ""A good way to help building a neutral point of view is to find a reputable source for the piece of information you want to add to wikipedia, and then cite that source. This is an easy way to characterize a side of a debate without excluding that the debate has other sides. The trick is to find the best and most reputable sources you can." I've done some changes to make the theological statements more objective, scholarly and matter of fact. But perhaps you have new ideas to improve this.

I also did some work on what Bud saw, the sub-articles on Opposition to Opus Dei, and on your comment on "have done much to counter these claims". You might want to try your hand on the other points. BTW, I counted 798 words related to criticism. Just on that count, Bud's "lack of critical analysis" as basis of the NPOV tag won't hold as far as I see it. R Davidson 02:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is with tone, unfortunately. I still don't think it is NPOV, though your edits were a definite start. I might add this to peer review. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Tone

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)

Kindly read the FAQ I prepared. If the ratio you see is 1:6 that is even a concession because the appropriate ratio is 1:10, given that Messori, Allen, Introvigne, Wilson, who are not popes, but who agree with the popes, are much more credible than Moncada and Tapia. Thomas S. Major 02:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Huh? --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 03:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, I was rushing. I just placed the right commas. Thomas S. Major 03:35, 23 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)

Read John Allen: "widely considered as the definitive book about Opus Dei"

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)

Do you believe everything you see on television? CBS News is not a reliable source on the consensus of scholars. When liberal and conservative catholics agree a book is objective, it doesn't mean that the book is widely considered to be definitive. Important, maybe, definitve no. How can a book which hardly mentions Opus Dei's involvement in extreme right-wing politics in South America be considered definitive? I suggest you watch Jean de Certeau's documentary. Catholics are not the only authority on the catholic church. Allen doesn't 'counter' Opus Dei's espousal of ultraconservatism in society, its aggressive recruitment regime, its secretive, complex and clandestine financial struture, its exploitative treatment of 'numerary assistants', its support and involvement in totalitarian and corrupt regimes in South America. Allen has already admitted he wasn't interested in the non-developed world, viz. South America. So again, how can that book be definitive? It can't. I think my edit which read 'Considered by many Catholics the most important book on Opus Dei thus far...' as reasonable. I am changing it back.

Secondly, I was shocked by the original state of the introductory paragraphs. It was filled with snide devaluations of the heavy criticism Opus Dei encounters almost everywhere apart from its supporters in the Roman Catholic Church. How does 'misrepresentations of Opus Dei's newness' counter claims of collusion in fascist/corrupt regimes? Hitlerism and Mussolini's fascist corps were also new and misunderstood in the 1930s. Pvazz 07:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Pvazz, where did you get your ideas? May I know these scholars? Are they better than Paul Preston, Brian Crozier, Peter Berglar, Vittorio Messori, Piers Paul Read, John L. Allen, Jr.? Thanks. Ndss 09:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

By reading more than just Catholic 'insider' journalism. I don't think you can turn to Paul Preston for succour; he has written that Escriva was already implicated in Franco's regime by the early forties, conducting spiritual retreats for the caudillo. Crozier aside, the others are all Catholic 'insiders' including Allen. Berglar's book on the 'founder' is published by an Opus imprint 'Scepter'; Allen writes like a judge trying a case according to a series of rules that have been laid down by Opus. He softens Escriva's role in Spain, avoids South America altogether. This book reminds me of how Jesuits would write speeches for their 'opponents' to read. I've read Joan Estruch on the Deistas in Spain, Carmen Tapia of course. My original point, and still my point, is that the introduction to this article was deeply flawed. The 'criticisms' of Opus Dei are all still valid. No one in Opus Dei denies their ultraconservatism, nor their espousal of right-wing politics (even if they claim politics is not their concern); the accumulation of wealth accomplished by members in the name of Opus, and their modern, pyschologically savvy recruitment techniques, are public knowledge. You cannot turn to writers who are all politically commensurate with Opus, and expect a balanced view worthy of wikipedia. I suggest you consult the introduction to the Wikipedia France version of the 'Opus Dei' entry for a more neutral, detached point of view. My purpose here is to make sure that the introduction doesn't regress to its former state, where Allen's book somehow refutes the very serious criticisms that Opus has endured since its foundation. I will compile a more systematic bibliography in the next few weeks, if I have time, and will surely monitor any developments in the opening paragraphs. Pvazz 03:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it seems you have agreed to Walter's changes. I'd follow you on this. On the other hand, I don't understand your "Allen writes like a judge trying a case according to a series of rules that have been laid down by Opus." Are there any hard evidence on this? From an impartial observer as reputable as Allen? Thanks. Ndss 05:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Estruch's claims were utterly debunked by Schall, Political Philosophy of Georgetown. Imagine claiming that priests only go to seminary to improve their lot? That's a lot of hooey! Lafem 07:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Who's Walter? Do you mean the 'Opus Dei of Myth/Opus Dei of Reality edit? Cutting. Allen values his reputation for impartiality more than he values writing a truthful account of Opus Dei. See this [6]. Lafem, Schall doesn't debunk any of the important parts of Estruch's book. Although flawed, it does begin to delineate the sociological framework within which Opus Dei's political power has operated. Schall quotes Leo Strauss on 'scientific' social studies, and then wonders exasperatingly why a sociologist doesn't count 'miracles' or 'divine callings' as valid explanations. Even with its spattering of Latin Schall's review fails to 'debunk' the book. As I've written above, my purpose in editing this page was to make sure that the opening paragraphs didn't try to convince readers that the serious poltical criticism of Opus Dei had been answered. I also objected when the epithet 'definitive' was added to Allen's book, which is another in the long line of 'official' books written about Opus Dei. Pvazz 11:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the Irish Echo Online and the article of Peter McDermott, Pvazz. I will have to do a bit of research on how authoritative and credible McDermott is. Same with Irish Echo. :) Lafem 03:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Allen's book cannot be called "much debated"

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)

Allen can be called "respected"

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)

Problematic and Highly POV-- one random reader's opinion

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)

Putting Wikipedia first

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:

Guidelines for controversial articles. Key guidelines: (1) Describe the controversy, but at the same time maintain non-equal validity. (2) "The more at variance from commonly accepted notions an assertion is, the more rigorously it should be documented."

Article structures which imply a view. Recommends not having a separate criticism section: "editors should attempt to write in a manner that folds debates into the narrative"

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)

Please also look at Roman Catholic Church as regards phraseology. And Islam and United States as regards the brochure look. The last two are controversial, but they hardly contain criticism. This articles has a lot. Thomas S. Major 02:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I just took away some lines where OD is made to look good: Benedict on the Catholic faith, John Paul I, and spokesman Carrogio. Thomas S. Major 03:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

That's good, Tom. I also like Alec's "Controversy over Opus Dei" section, that's a neutral and factual title. I also did some cutting on my own. I deleted the "Having wings" line. This might sound highly pro-Opus Dei. BTW, this article was in the Good article list from January to May, that's 4 months, and it is basically the same, except that the criticism are more pronounced now and harsher, and the "sect" section was broken up into two, quotes from civil leaders were added. [7] Cabanes 05:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

In Reply to "Putting Wikipedia First

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)

I agree with some of Alecmconroy's suggestions. And here's my contribution. I removed "great catechesis". Sounds triumphalistic to me. Sorry, but that's how it comes across. I also inverted the negative-positive ordering in some section. Let me just add that I am not for removing the discussion on "sign of contradiction." It is a fact that many scholars call it such. Even my idol, John L. Allen, Jr. mentioned it at Carnegie Council. It's definitely a scholarly conclusion and not a mere shield versus critics. Sorry, Alec, but I don't buy into your atheist Mr. Encyclopedia as the exemplar of neutral scholarship. Now I understand your very deep POV. Most probably you don't even concede any expertise to atheist Bryan Wilson, the most pre-eminent sociologist of religion, who tells the media and jurists not to readily believe in apostates who are after their self-justification. Of course, the media loves these guys. The media is run by secularists, mainly. But the world is 84% religious and so the human thinking community is better represented by a Mr. Encyclopedia who believes in God.

I also re-read the expertise rule. It does not invalidate expertise in religion. It merely states: "there is less expertise and more of opinion" in matters of religion. But as you can see this article does not even have a 90:10 proportion between criticism and response. It's more 70:30. Sorry, but on this basis, the NPOV tag has to be put down.

In fact, this article didn't have any serious NPOV tag since October 2005. Since then, there were hundreds of people who read this. That can be interpreted as the "super-majority consensus" on its neutrality that you are asking for. And only when Ta bu shi da yu came that the article received a spate of NPOV tags. And what appears in Ta bu shi da yu's user page? Opus Dei is a shadowy group seeking world-domination. No wonder. I agree with some of your points I repeat, but... Anyway, thank you so much for the positive encouragement, Alec. Sorry, if I don't totally agree with you. Ndss 07:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I brought back The Da Vinci Code as section title cum controversy. Ndss 09:16, 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:

Having become members of God's family through baptism, all Christians are called to a life of holiness consistent with their new nature as children of God
Whatever work Christians do is to be done with a spirit of excellence as an effective service for the needs of society, working out of love for God and all men and women. Their work then becomes a fitting offering to God.
Catholics are to live a "life distinguished above all in the art of prayer" and should proclaim God's word "without ever hiding the most radical demands of the Gospel message."
Christians should love personal freedom

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)

Hi to all! I am not really in favor of what Ndss has done on putting the criticisms in after the response in some sections. I wrote my position on this sometime ago. However, for the sake of compromise, I'd go along with it for now.

Wilson and Introvigne are sociologists of religion. They are social scientists. The Wikipedia tutorials on expertise refer to social science issues.

The statement "all rest of the population (99%) agrees that OD is not something they want" is nothing but Mr. Conroy's personal estimate, the estimate of somebody who is a random reader of a Wikipedia article, and who watched a TV program somewhere. Here in Wikipedia we rely on serious works conducted by people who studied an issue. (That's written somewhere in Wikipedia:NOR). Allen concludes that Escriva is reviled by some and venerated by millions. Messori states that one-third of the bishops asked for his canonization. In the year 2000, the Catholics in the US voted for the most important Catholic they know. Escriva was number 12 or 15. You can search for it in the net. Scott Hahn, a member, was among the top 10. Opus Dei's life style is like that of the religious orders. And religious orders such as a Carmelite, Benedictines, Mother Teresa's sisters, etc. are more loved than hated at least where I live, and as far as I know in most parts of the world, except in secularist countries, which are few compared to the religious countries. There were 300,000 to 500,000 who attended the beatification. There are 1 million conservative Catholics it influences in the US according to Scott Appleby. Etc. etc.

Yes, the abortion doctors can be experts in abortion procedures; but there is such a thing as a fields of expertise: social science, religion, morality, science are distinct fields of expertise. These doctors are not experts in these latter fields.

The quotes from Message and Spirituality are summaries of Escriva's doctrines. That's the same type of summary found in Islam or in other religion articles. Lafem 11:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me clarify-- my statement that 99% of the population disapproves of OD was intentionally ridiculous-- I'm not trying to seriously argue that. My point is just that an article intentionally biased "in proportion to the relevant experts" is not a good standard to justify what would otherwise be a NPOV violation. AN abortion doctors is NOT an expert in morality any more than I am. How then can you say that the existence of "experts" can justify having an unbalanced article.

The "Message and Spirituality" summaries are not attributed. They aren't sourced, they are't quotations. They're just thrown out there as a statement of fact. A brief summary of the form "Members of OD believe _____" is appropriate-- here the theological summary and the quoted endorsements have taken over the article.

--Alecmconroy 22:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The facts about Wikipedia:NPOV

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.

"A simple formulation":
- "an alternative formulation of the non-bias policy: assert facts, including facts about opinions".
- "When asserting a fact about an opinion, it is important also to assert facts about competing opinions, and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct."
- "we can say, "Most Americans believe that the Beatles were the greatest band," which is a fact verifiable by survey results, or "The Beatles had many songs that made the Billboard Hot 100," which is also fact. In the first instance we assert an opinion; in the second and third instances we "convert" that opinion into fact by attributing it to someone."
"A vital component: good research": "Disagreements over whether something is approached the Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) way can usually be avoided through the practice of good research. Facts (as defined in the previous paragraph) are not Points Of View (POV, here used in the meaning of "opposite of NPOV") in and of themselves. A good way to help building a neutral point of view is to find a reputable source for the piece of information you want to add to wikipedia, and then cite that source. This is an easy way to characterize a side of a debate without excluding that the debate has other sides. The trick is to find the best and most reputable sources you can."

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)

Well you definitely raise some interesting issues. About the quotations-- I certainly agree that attributed direct quotations are signficantly better than unattributed opinions listed as facts. But, I don't believe that a quotation being attributed is necessarily proof that its inclusion is NPOV-- the sheer preponderance of positive quotations seems to me to be the NPOV violation.

But, if indeed this article does violate NPOV, I have to say-- it's one of the most well thought out and justified NPOV violations I've encountered. It's clear you've put a lot of thought into this, and you can certainly cite some excellent policy and style guide pages to justify the choices you've made on this page. At the same time, however, I'm left with the intuitive feeling that this article is overwhelmingly positive, to an extent that it can not be considered to be from a neutral point of view-- no matter what the tutorials and style guides say.

For example, consider some things I found at Wikipedia:NPOV dispute that might apply to this article:

While each fact mentioned in the article might be presented fairly, the very selection (and omission) of facts can make an article biased.
Some viewpoints, although not presented as facts, can be given undue attention and space compared to others (see Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Space and balance).
The text and manner of writing can insinuate that one viewpoint is more correct than another.
A type of analysis of facts that can lead to the article suggesting a particular point of view's accuracy over other equally valid analytic perspectives.
The author's own viewpoint is mentioned or obvious.
Alternate viewpoints are compared in persuasive terms.

But-- some of the points raised in discussion and in the FAQ are really fascinating, and I'm left wondering what the correct interpretation is of the expertise rule, for example. On the one hand, we have a journalistic model-- an article that is very "He Said - She said", giving perfeclty equal weight to both sides of a debate, being ultra-careful never to favor one side or the other. At the other end of the spectrum, we have a very democratic model-- an authoring process that weighs the opinions of the general public, the wikipedia editors, and the relevant experts, and constructs an article that reflects the relative proportions of the various viewpoints.

When applied to this case, the journalistic method would result in one portion of the article made up of undisputed facts, one section of various pro-OD opinions, and one section of various anti-OD opinions, with the pro- and anti- sections roughly equal in length and in tone. The democratic model, applied to this case, should result in a page very much like the one we currently see: many quotes expressing the overwhelming support that exists for OD, the small minority that is critical shold be given only small weight.

I've always edited using the journalistic model, but you certainly raise some fascinating issues that I hadn't previously considered. I think it's sufficiently paradigm-shattering that I'll try to talk to someone in the Mediation Cabal, to see what the opinions of the professional NPOV experts are on these issues. If this article is, in fact, a pretty good example of NPOV, then I probably have several allegations of NPOV violation in the past which I should apologize for, and I should avoid such allegations in the future if the "bias" I perceive in an article merely is reflective of the "bias" of the relevant experts.

--Alecmconroy 09:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Alec. I saw your list of possible violations of the NPOV dispute. Please take note that this article favors the anti-OD side in some ways: the phrases "point out" and "indicate" are only used on the anti-OD side. The "however" and "althoughs" are used only on their side. Lafem 09:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to Alecmconroy and Thomas S Major for their contribution.

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:

Fristly, the article should be thoroughly purged of:
- Any passage written with the voice or vocabularly of Opus Dei
- Most of the images
- Any non-sequiturs which attempt to refute political criticism with either of the following arguments: a. Opus Dei isn't interested in politics or b. Opus Dei is misunderstood, persecuted, etc. These are not political arguments, they are defenses against any political argument.
Secondly, the introduction should be reduced to one paragraph of stylistically consistent sentences that summarize Opus Dei's history, give an account of its socio-political character, and its theological outlook. All reference to individual scholars such as Allen should be removed below, and explained there in full.
Thirdly, the whole article must be copy-edited to achieve a consistent, dispassionate, neutral voice.

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.

Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: 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.

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).

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.

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.

This rule, my friend, is for all topics, religion, and otherwise.

On certain topics, there is naturally less "expertise" and scientific thinking, and more "opinion". This is especially the case of topics such as morals or religion, based on faith, as well as politics.

We should then list all points of views, according to their importance, and, if possible, be precise as to who holds them.

This demands hard work, man, and not some wishful, dreamy effusions of opinion. Well, here is my preliminary listing:

John Paul II - Pope of one billion Catholics, hailed by world leaders for his moral and religious leadership.
Benedict XVI - Pope of one billion Catholics, brilliant writer of 30 books before becoming Pope, renowned theologian.
John Allen -- always called respected even by his critics, his book on Opus Dei is the only one which has been hailed as "widely considered as the definitive book" about Opus Dei. Estruch and Walsh do not have that distinction; they have the distinction of having been debunked or proven false on many counts.
Bryan Wilson -- Reader Emeritus of Sociology. Followers around the world.
Massimo Introvigne -- wrote in 12 scientific journals.
Cornelio Fabro -- preeminent Italian philosopher
Vittorio Messori -- most translated Catholic writer in the world
Josemaria Escriva -- he is venerated by millions, voted top 100 Catholic, a canonized saint, truthful and humble, after the longest canonization process in terms of wealth of material and sessions in history.

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)

Between Pvazz and Jimbo Wales, I'd choose our Jimbo anytime. ;-) Rabadur 10:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Lafem, you forgot the list at Opus Dei and Catholic Church leaders and Opus Dei and civil leaders. Rabadur 10:16, 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.

Lafem, I hope you've calmed down enough to realize the irony of your invective. You've accused me of Stalinism because I wrote what needed to be done, in my view, to restore the article's NPOV status. How am I going to force you to do anything? Do I have a gulag? Re-read Orwell too, he writes lucidly on the subject of political lanaguage. When I say purge it is in reference to language, words, not people. You have simply misinterpreted my directness. I haven't patronized you, insulted you, nor impersonated wholesome Jimmy Stewart characters, nor feigned outrage, and would never condescend to the sarcastic appellations 'sir' and 'my friend'. You are not the righteous protector of liberty on wikipedia; deflate that fantasy. As for dogmatism and autocracy, again, the irony couldn't be more acrid. I refer to the voice with which the article is written, not the quotations of your non-Opus-Dei-members. Ten writers who agree wholeheartedly on such a contentious issue must originate from a commensurate political position. Popes are leaders of institutions acting according to political expediency; if the criticisms of Opus Dei are to be given credence, then Opus Dei itself exerts significant influence over the shape of these expediencies.

I accept that your list of luminaries has its place in this article. However, Opus Dei's critics must also be allocated space, and the tattered presentation of their arguments systematized. If your only point is that the footnotes are too sparse, then I agree, and will do what is possible to annotate and organize them. Importance isn't conferred by proverbial pats on the back from colleagues. I don't dispute Allen's integrity, however, his arguments don't answer the political criticism of Obra. For example, consider the use of Wilson. In a reductive formulation, the article attempts to exploit his work on the confessions of apostates in order to discredit and avoid the criticism of ex-members altogether. The argument goes like this: Wilson says apostates are often resentful of their former brethren, that they feel betrayed and wish to restore 'face'. This is not and will never be an argument against the predication of cult for Opus Dei. Indeed, it is an implicit admission that Opud Dei is a cult, whose members upon leaving must recover their identity. This is just one example. There are numerous others.

The thought, theology, and history of Opus Dei should be given a full, eloquent and systematic exposition. Political criticism of Opus Dei deserves a well-annotated, undiluted presentation. Neither of these two things have yet been achieved. Finally, refrain from any more insulting remarks about 'hard work' and sarcastic appellations. Try to exercise independent judgement. Wikipedia is not a papacy. Jimbo Wales doesn't demand kow-tows from wikipedians. Any more ad hominem and I'll be forced to refer you to Lacan's work on slaves in search of a master, and to explain therein your snivelling posture toward power and authority. Pvazz 13:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I told you Alec, passions run high on either side of this question. The democratic model would be utopic, if not anarchic in the long-run. The quotation model is the way to go. IMO it's the preferred route for a controversial topic. Thanks for considering the possibility of a "paradigm shattering" notion of neutrality. Wikipedia's notion (assert facts, including facts about opinions) has to be distinguished from the common Cartesian notion of methodic doubt, or even agnosticism.

I'm an NPOV enthusiast, and my plea to Lafem and Pvazz is to take things easy. Let's work with some peace. Re-reading WP:EQ won't be a bad idea.

As regards your comments, Alec:

While each fact mentioned in the article might be presented fairly, the very selection (and omission) of facts can make an article biased.

the division of space is fair enough IMO. The anti-side is recognized as a significant minority, their representatives are mentioned. I hardly know any omission of important representatives or their basic statements.

Some viewpoints, although not presented as facts, can be given undue attention and space compared to others (see Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Space and balance).

There could be something here as regards the long theological statements and quotes of Ratzinger, etc. But remember the NPOV refers to proportion of space on disputed issues. The statements of theology are statements of belief. The dispute is on whether these are ultraconservative or not.

The text and manner of writing can insinuate that one viewpoint is more correct than another.

I think Lafem did mention some use of words favoring the anti-side.

A type of analysis of facts that can lead to the article suggesting a particular point of view's accuracy over other equally valid analytic perspectives.

I don't know if you are referring here to the cult issue. Introvigne's analysis on what is cult or not a cult are generally accepted by academics. But as you can note, the two sides are shown here as two acceptable options.

The author's own viewpoint is mentioned or obvious.

All statements IMO are covered by references.

Alternate viewpoints are compared in persuasive terms.

I don't see any problems here. Thomas S. Major 05:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Introduction Re-Write

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 am reverting to the version of Musical Linguist. We cannot suppress a citation of the latest, most reputable and respected study on Opus Dei and of a highly respected social scientist. Any intro is an abstract, and those citations are abstracts. Undoubtedly, the deletion is not a neutral move. Please remember the vital component of NPOV. I stand by Tom's dispassionate espousal of Wikipedia:NPOV. Walter Ching 01:59, 26 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)

Ansolin, please stop vandalizing the Spiritual practice part. Even if they are hateful to you, actual quotes are not NPOV violations Anonimus 07:15, 26 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)

It's ok to quote, Ansolin, as long as we quote reputable sources. HBHG is far from being one. Walter Ching 03:48, 28 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)

Dear Pvazz, I regret to say that I tend to agree with Anonimus's changes. Opus Dei teachings were the teachings of Maritain, Congar, Hans Urs Balthazar, Woytyla, and numerous other periti of the Second Vatican Council. They now form part of the Lumen Gentium documents, the key dogmatic teaching of Vatican II. Allen's conclusions on myth and reality form part of his book's title and numerous other articles he wrote after, e.g. in davincicodechallenge. To my mind, they are the strongest statements he has made. I have not found any indication nor any declaration on his part that he was merely demystifying. He was seeking the reality. I sincerely hope you see my point. Thank you. Marax 08:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

My own opinion is that the introduction isn't the place to start getting into the nitty gritty details of the controversy. We should have a paragraph that mentions OD has gotten a lot of praise from various people and we should mention that it has its critics who have accused it of several negative things. We don't need to get into exactly who those critics are, what all their evidence is, what their exact arguments are, and what experts and evidence are used to rebut the critics-- those are all best hashed out in the controversy section.

I'd suggest gutting bulk of the third intro paragraph, removing any references specific critics and supporters such as Balthasa, ODAN, Introvigne, or Allen. This is separate from any of my arguments about neutrality-- it just seems in the interest of brevity and summmarizing, we should limit the intro to just relating the existence of supporting compliments and detracting accusations. --Alecmconroy 14:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Yup, intro isn't for details. The numeraries, celibates, etc. have to go. And the 1982 bit. But, you can't remove Allen and Introvigne. People go to Wikipedia looking for enlightenment of Dan Brown's accusations. Nope you can't remove them.

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)

I agree with Ndss. Walter Ching 03:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I strongly move for placing "respected" for Allen. Fellow Wikipedians, please note my arguments here

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)

Can't understand Pvazz's remark: Don Corleone was also respected. Dispense with your 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)

Allen is not Corleone. In Wikipedia, we don't do Original Research. It is Pvazz's POV that does not matter here. I am putting it back. Nothing personal, Pvazz. This is pure business. Ndss 03:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ndss. Walter Ching 03:48, 28 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:

"Opus Dei originally comprised only celibate numerary members, but now also admits supernumerary members, numerary-assistants (who are all women), and has numerous co-operators."

I don't think this sentence really depicts an accurate picture of the membership. It is true that in the beginning only unmarried men were members, but only a few years later, unmarried women were also admitted. I think it more accurate to speak of the membership as it exists today. I.e., a more detailed account of the kinds of members and how they became incorporated can be put elsewhere.

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)

"Membership in Opus Dei consists of men and women, married and single, and priests. The majority of its members (98%) are lay people (supernumeraries), most of whom are married; the remainder are unmarried men and women (numeraries, numerary assistants, associates, and priests). Numeraries, numerary assistants, and assoicates live apostolic celibacy so as to be totally available to serve the needs of prelature."

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)

I see that someone has made this sentence into a new paragraph, but I still have the same objection: it isn't an acurate statement on the membership. No explanation is given for the terms "numerary", "supernumerary", etc. Also, numeraries practice "apostolic celibacy"; this is quite a different thing than taking a vow of celibacy. If a man or a woman is unmarried and not sexual active does that mean he or she is celibate? Perhaps, a dictionary might conclude a "yes" answer, but that is not the spirit of apostolic celibacy which is different than religious celibacy. Anyway, I leave this here for another day or so to see if anyone has something to add, and, if not, then I'll edit article with my proposed change, and see what happens.

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)

I think that you point out an excellent problem with. I have a few techncal suggestions that might further improve of the proposed paragraph: We might want try to avoid terms like "lay people" and "apostolic celibacy" unless we want to explicitly define them as they mean within the catholic church. Most people won't consider "lay people" to mean "non-priests members of Opus Dei", and most people won't know what "apostolic celibacy" is. There's a similar problem with the term "secular"-- most people will interpret it at "non-religious", not "non-monastic". I added this version to the article, see how you like it:

Opus Dei is made up of four different types of members: "Supernumeraries", "Numeraries", "Associates", and "Numerary-assistants". One type, the Supernumeraries, are non-celibate, typically married, and make up the bulk of the membership. The other three types are required to be celibate, and often live in special centers run by Opus Dei. Currently, Opus Dei has approximately 85,000 members worldwide.

Opus Dei's central teachings emphasize the Catholic beliefs that "everyone is 'called' to become a saint" and that "ordinary life is a path to sanctity." This is reflected in the fact that only a small minority of Opus Dei's members are part of the priesthood-- most members lead traditional family lives and have regular careers.

-Alecmconroy 03:37, 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)

My take is that the OD has taken a Catholic teaching, the universal call to holiness, and elevated it to a more central status. OD didn't necessarily invent this doctrine, but they have built an organization around this belief in a way that other Catholic organizations have not. I'm a little less certain about the idea that "ordinary life is a path to sanctity"-- this seems to be even more unique to OD. Certainly, most of the stories of sanctity we hear about in the Catholic sphere are descriptions of extraordinary-ness, not ordinary-ness. But in any case, OD is a part of the catholic church, one which has the official approval of the vatican-- so whether they were innovative or not, I don't think it hurts to characterize them as "Catholic beliefs", cause they're Catholic now.

Of course, I oppose including in the introduction such characterizations of OD as "innovative", "loyal" "mythic-vs-reality", and so forth--- just way too big a can of worms to crack open in the intro. --Alecmconroy 08:30, 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)

More Comments

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.

Don't understand why the ductus divina quote and the benedict quote are be irrelevant to the foundation. They clearly are, aren't they? Their crucial. Creating Support and Endorsements gives a non-neutral appearance, so am not in favor of it. Ndss 03:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

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?

Quite clear to me it's a summary. A pretty good one at that, short and to the point. Ndss 03:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Kay. At one point, I had thought it was all one block quote. I have a lot of problems with this section as being a Wikipedia article-- It states a lot of things as fact that may not be facts. It seems like most of this section is more a rehashing of Christianity and Catholicism Theology in general, rather than a summation of the specific uniqe aspects of Opus Dei in particular. It is not particularly short. Perhaps most importantly, I don't think it's verifiable-- by which I mean, I think 20 different authors could write 20 different summaries of this sort, and it's entirely possible that none of them would closely resemble our current summary. At some point in the future, I'll try to add a section that is a "summary of the summary"-- a really quick paragraph or two that highlights just of few of the "biggest" ideas which are central OD-- like the santicity of work. --Alecmconroy 22:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

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.

I will look for it in Vasquez de Prada. Thank you. Marax 11:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

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?

It is not an honor. It was an application of a new law of Vatican II. St. Josemaria did not like privileges. Marax 11:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

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.

After taking note of Tom's assessment and yours, I transferred a part of this discussion to Teachings of Opus Dei. I hope this has been of help. I will see what else I can prune later. Marax 11:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

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?

Check out the Peer Review and Archives. Seen some pretty solid arguments for these pics. Ndss 03:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for supporting the photos, Ndss! Hi Alec, for your convenience, I added an item on this to Tom's Q&A. I hope it helps. Walter Ching 04:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, there are NPOV arguments that have been put out there against some of the pictures, but setting all those aside-- my primary objection to some of the pictures is stylistic. Do I really need to know what the outside of a particular conference center looks like? How does that enhance my understanding of the OD movement? Do I really need to know what color book cover the official bulletin has, or what illustration Introvigne's book cover had? Several famous paintings are included, but they seem to apply to Catholicism in general and be only tangentially related to the issues being discussed. The images are often more distractions that interfere with the flow of the test. But from my perspective, the overabundance of images is a very small stylisic problem in the grand scheme of things--Alecmconroy 22:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

Saw NPOV Mediator Geo.plrd's comment on your talk page. I don't know what to make of it, but it's a third party confirmation that this page is neutral.

Yeah, I didn't quite know what to make of Geo. He'd only had like 40 edits or something and he was trying to become an administrator. He didn't seem to know how to format his responses, and I wasn't sure if he had found OD's talk page, because he didn't seem to know where to find the discussion of the NPOV debate. I guess I was looking for someone who had handled hundreds of disputes and could quickly talk about what how "reflective proportion of expertise" is usually interpeted in practise, etc.

In any case, Geo was one more person who read the article and found it neutral. His status as a random Wikipedia who didn't seek out this article further shields him from ad hominem allegations of pre-existing bias. I told him he should try to come here, read through all the talk, and then post his opinion, so we may see him join this discussion, which would be good. More eyeballs are always a great thing in this sort of debate. --Alecmconroy 22:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Saw your Userpage, too. Kinda explains many of your POVs. Pvazz might want to see it, you seem to have similar ideas.

BTW, are you related to Jesuits Fr. Pat Conroy, S.J., and Fr. Jim Conroy, S.J.? Dunno, just connecting the dots. You seemed to like the Society of Jesus article. Ndss 03:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Hahaha. What part of my userpage explains my POV? I try to keep my userpage free of userboxes and what not that announce my opinions on every sort of issue in the universe, and try to just assume the role of Wikipedia editor rather than activist, but obviously, it's hard to not give away some things about your own POV, no matter what you write on a userpage.

Nope, I have no tie to the Jesuits and have never heard of the individuals you reference. My endorsement of their page is very limited-- I just went to look at it because it too is an organization within the catholic church and so it is very similar in some aspects to Opus Dei. When I saw how different its tone was, I mentioned it as an example of a more historical/encyclopedi tone. This wasn't any sort of approval for the content of that page or for Jesuits.

Of course, people often think they know what my position is. I've been accused of being a fundamentalist, an atheist, a republican, a democrat, a t, a communist, and an anarchist. The reality is far more complex and there's no good name for me. I will just say that my opinions on this article are very much seperate from my opinions on Opus Dei itself. :) --Alecmconroy 22:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality not possible with current structure...

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

Hi Carnagh! Welcome to Wikipedia! :-) It's great to hear your comments. You might want to learn more about our policies at Wikipedia:NPOV and Wikipedia:NOR, Wikipedia:Verifiability, three core policies of our encyclopedia. You might also want to read the Q&A at the top of this page.

The book of Messori studied how a black legend developed around Opus Dei's role in Franco's government. In part you can see it explained in the section on Opus's relation to politics. Kindly check as well Opus Dei and politics. You can find there what the latest, and most reputable studies have concluded. Neutrality in Wikipedia provides more space to citation of the most reputable sources, while allowing proportionate space for the minority opinions. You can find the different views presented in each section. Hope this helps! Walter Ching 07:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Solution: Add your POV

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)

Principles of Wikiquette

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)

Assume good faith.
Treat others as you would have them treat you. Even if they are new. We were all new once...
Be polite, please!
- Be careful of the words you choose - what you intended might not be what others perceive, and what you read might not be what the author intended.
Work toward agreement.
Argue facts, not personalities.
Don't ignore questions.
If another disagrees with your edit, provide good reasons why you think it's appropriate.
Concede a point, when you have no response to it; or admit when you disagree based on intuition or taste.
Be civil.
Although it's understandably difficult in a heated argument, if the other party is not as civil as you'd like them to be, make sure to be more civil than him or her, not less.
Be prepared to apologize.
Recognize your own biases and keep them in check.
Give praise when due. Everybody likes to feel appreciated, especially in an environment that often requires compromise. Drop a friendly note on users' talk pages.
Remove or summarize resolved disputes that you initiated.
Help mediate disagreements between others.
- Take it slow. If you're angry, take time out instead of posting or editing. Come back in a day or a week. You might find that someone else has made the change or comment you wanted for you. If no one is mediating, and you think mediation is needed, enlist someone.
- Walk away or find another Wikipedia article to distract yourself — there are 6,905,188 articles on Wikipedia! Take up a Wikiproject or WikiReader, or lend your much-needed services at pages needing attention and Cleanup. Or write a new article.
Review the list of faux pas.
Avoid reverts and deletions whenever possible, and stay within the three-revert rule except in cases of clear vandalism. Explain reversions in the edit summary box. Amend, edit, discuss.
Remind yourself that these are people you're dealing with. They are individuals with feelings and probably have other people in the world who love them. Try to allow dignity to others.

Images

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)

From the Horse's mouth

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.

Changes and Justifications

I removed several different sentence from the article. Here are the changes and the justifications. Please talk, rather than just reverting them.

"Various Popes and Catholic Church leaders strongly support what they see as Opus Dei's innovative teaching on the sanctifying value of work, its loyalty to the Catholic Church, and its enabling individual Catholics to sanctify the secular world." (from Intro)

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.

Aren't the criticism's unsourced too in the intro? These three points are sourced in Message and Spirituality --"new lights", Revolutionary or Conservative --"absolute fidelity by Benedict", Faith Novelty and Controversies, and Training and Instruction.

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"

Ok!

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)

Still can't understand why you want to do things the non-Wikipedia way. The debate is best developed in the narrative. That's what Wikipedia says. This article was in the Good Article list for several months! The Society of Jesus never made it to the list. And what does the divine inspiration have to do with Opus Dei in society? Why don't you want the discussion on the divine origin of Opus Dei up front? Right at the start? Isn't that the meat of the debate? Why shy from it? Let's "be bold," should we be, Pvazz?

Ok, I removed Ratzinger and placed the official statement of John Paul II as Pope. Ratzinger can stay in the footnotes. Ndss

POV

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.

Checked it out myself. Didn't see what you are accusing the guy who wrote that. The quote starts with: Over the last 50 years a new type of lay organization emerged in Europe. The most significant examples are.....Ndss 06:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The whole article need to be re write

Intro
Beliefs
History
structure
Claims made about opus dei all of them good and bad with a line or two answering the claim
Opus dei and men
Opus dei and women
Opus dei and Recruting
Opus dei and the church
Opus dei and the secular world
Opus dei and good works
Prominent opus dei members.

Ansolin 04:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC) (formatting edited to improve readibiliy -Alecmconroy)

Nope. Sorry. If you want the rationale behind this, check out Archive 2006-1. Ansolin, please read the Wikipedia:NPOV. Ndss 06:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Ansolin, I agree with what you've written, and also experienced a similar instinctual recoil on my first reading. It has taken weeks to revise the introduction, and I've only recently begun to work on the body. Ndss and others will occasionally intervene, but usually they realize that the article better serves its purpose if the copyedit is neutral and grammatical, and if both Opus and its opposition are given a forceful exposition. By forceful, I mean restrained, succinct expression, instead of the often strained tone colouring both support and opposition. Hang around and help. In the long term, and after an initial revision, views opposed to Opus should have a more systematic bibliography of sources. Ndss, Thomas, and others are fetishists for rules, authority, and are earnest believers in objectivity, so without a systemtatic arrangement of sources, the article will never progress to neutrality. Neutrality is still a long way off though. Pvazz 08:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Pvazz, Antolin and Carnagh, Thank you for your comments and your help. As I told Pvazz, I appreciate the help he is giving in further balancing this article and providing appropriate flow in its expressions.

Lafem and I explained the structure behind the article in this section of the Archives: Structure. Thank you for taking time to digest these previous discussions, and I hope you can build on them. We look forward to an article which can be featured.

Like Thomas, I can sense that you have a different view of neutrality from what is written in Wikipedia policies. I had the same problem before. I request you to take time to review the policies. Being on the same page is an important step towards harmony, and towards the Wikipedia neutrality. Thank you. Marax 03:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment

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:

NPOV tag?

Should the NPOV Dispute template be added to the article?

I don't know if a previous editor is allowed to comment here. But here are my two cents. I agree with Thomas and Marax that the gentlemen who have been editing recently do not quite understand Wikipedia:NPOV. In fact, Pvazz criticizes a fetish for rules. Alecmconroy is starting to realize NPOV's simple formulation of "asserting facts, and asserting facts about opinions," especially providing more space to opinions of important and reputable experts and books. He finds this idea paradigm-shattering. I've seen in the Spanish Wikipedia that the Spaniards clearly differentiate between neutrality and equidistance. I think that the latter is these gentlemen's idea of NPOV. Walter Ching 06:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't criticize your fetish, only outed it as such. You continue to refer to NPOV rules as if they were the decalogue. The dispute concerns the presentation of facts, the style of the article, the assumption that only catholic insiders are experts on Opus Dei, and the reductive use of broad arguments about disgruntled apostates to discredit works written by Opus Dei ex-members. I have never argued that sources should be treated indiscriminately or with 'equidistance' as you put it. And Walter, please don't assume that all wikipedia editors are gentlemen. Pvazz 08:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

What I've found paradigm-shattering is the idea that you write an article by taking some sort of a survey of experts, find the proportion of experts who support vs the experts who oppose, and then write the article according to an identical proportion. I have always interpreted Neutrality to mean "explain each side sufficiently", and "try to construct an article that is as slant-less as possible". I continue to believe that writing an intentionally biased article, based on the justification that most experts share that bias, is not a correct interpretation of the neutrality requirement. If I'm wrong, then the styleguides need to be rewritten to make that fact more clear, and I definitely owe a lot of editors a lot of apologies. --Alecmconroy 23:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Suggest you read the top three Wiki policies slowly. They interconnect. If you set aside your aversion towards benevolent dictatorships, you might find enlightenment. Ndss 04:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Ndss, apart from the your assumption that anyone who disagrees with your interpretation of wikipedia's guidlines is illiterate, you do not address any of the arguments concerning NPOV. Says the benevolent dictator... Pvazz 07:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Responding to the NPOV RFC, here is my two cents.

As an initial matter, it's hard to come to a firm conclusion without seeing the arguments pro and con regarding the NPOV tag The various RFC's would be easier to respond to if each question were in its own section with a link to relevant debate or a summary of the arguments.

I don't know if the article deserves the tag, but I would recommend a couple improvements.

First, if it were me, I would cut down the last paragraph of the introduction. The summary of criticism: "Opus Dei's opponents point to its secrecy, its clandestine financial dealings, its elitism, its ultraconservatism, its support for the extreme right-wing in politics, its misogyny, and its cult-like recruitment regime" is excellent; and a similar level of generality as to the response would be fine -- the body can have specific expert's responses.
Second, I think the controversy section could have a little more summary of the criticism. Again, the intro sentence: "Opus Dei's opponents point to its secrecy, its clandestine financial dealings, its elitism, its ultraconservatism, its support for the extreme right-wing in politics, its misogyny, and its cult-like recruitment regime" is great, and I would put something like that early in the section to let people know what the controvery is

Thanks, TheronJ 13:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Balance between supporters and critics

How should the article balance space between supporters and critics? Should the article devote less space to supporters of Opus Dei and to rebuttals of criticism, devoting more space to critics of the Opus Dei? Should it keep the current proportions of support -vs- criticism? Or should it devote more space to supporters and less space to critics?

I have given my comments on this some time ago. I abide by what we discussed then, a discussion summarized by Thomas at the Q&A. To borrow from Pvazz's expression, many supporters of Opus Dei are luminaries, e.g. Allen, Messori, Introvigne, John Paul II, Cardinal Ratzinger. The first two are famous investigative journalists; Introvigne is a most prolific sociologist with an encyclopedic turn of mind; the last two know Opus Dei well, by the reports they receive as members of the Catholic hierarchy, and through their personal experiences. All these deserve more space than Estruch, Fr. James Martin, and several ex-members whose voices are contradicted by thousand of others. I firmly believe Wikipedians should work towards peace, a by-product of abiding by Wikipedia's clear-cut policies on neutrality. I firmly believe we should respect these policies. Marax 03:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Criticism and praise in separate sections or interspersed?

Should all commentary opinions (from supporters and critics) be placed in their own sections, or should they be interspersed throughout the article ("folded into the narrative")?

I believe the Wikipedia article on Wikipedia is a good model. It is now a featured article. Marax 03:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Marax-- what about the Wikipedia article do you consider to be a model? I read the article and note that it has a whole separate section for "Evaluations of Wikipedia" specifically for support and criticism, and in my view the rest of the article is fairly free of value-judgements about Wikipedia. But that may not be what you take from the Wikipedia article, so I thought I'd double-check. --Alecmconroy 00:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Theological or historical tone?

Should the overall tone of the article be changed so as to be less theological and more historical?

As I explained at the FAC, the present level of scholarship on this topic usually go into theology to understand this Catholic reality called Opus Dei. I think Wikipedia as a serious encyclopedia should do not less. Aside from being a theologian, I am also a historian, and I believe the two have to be balanced in good proportion, i.e. both should be present in the article, with more weight given to religious analysis of a primarily religious phenomenon. Marax 03:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I should clarify that I personally regard the problem as one very specifically to "tone" not "subject matter". I definitely believe that theology must be covered when talking about a theological subject matter-- but it's possible to speak "historically/encyclopedically" about theology, rather than theologically about theology. For example, look at History of theology-- it's all about theology, but it's impossible to determine what religion the author(s) and intendend audience are. Contrast that with Opus Dei, where it seems very much like it was written from someone speaking from a Christian point of view.--Alecmconroy 00:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey Alec! History of theology is a non-Catholic, non-Christian subject matter. Opus Dei is a Catholic subject matter. It is under Catholic spirituality, Catholic doctrine, Catholic prelatures, Catholic history, Catholic Church, etc. Yes, yes, the point of view should be varied in proportion to their expertise and reputability. There's space for other povs anyway: Johann Hari, for the anti-Christian pov; Kung, Martin, Catholics for Free Choice and ex-members for the Catholic, anti-OD pov; Urquhart, Hutchison for the Christian pov. But how do these compare with the luminaries? Ndss 04:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Images

Should most of the images be removed from the article?

Thomas's reasoning is logical enough. Another insight: Opus Dei's status is personal prelature which covers persons and not territories. Images of persons involved in Opus Dei, most of them lay, are powerful media for providing what Wikipedia calls "reliable" information on this type of prelature. Marax 03:02, 30 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)

There are more effective, less propagandistic ways to express Opus Dei's global character. Marax, your argument that a personal prelature must have numerous domesticated images of its members borders on casuistry. I accept that an image, maybe two images of the members themselves should be included. But to argue, as you do, that eight images of random members, all of whom are photographed benignly, ideologically 'normal' and smiling for the cameras, cannot be justified by the line 'Opus Dei is a global people movement and we live in a visual age'. You should chose one, maybe two favourites and delete the rest. Pvazz 06:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Intro: Details on controversies

Should the introduction contain multiple specific details about the controversies?

Perhaps the list of accusations are a tad long-winded. In any case, the opponents and supporters of Opus Dei agree that Opus Dei is controversial. Thus, readers expect to find in Wikipedia an encyclopedic analysis of these controversies. If you are referring to both Allen and Messori's analyses, then by all means these should stay in the introduction. I don't know if they should be named, but their conclusions will certainly be excellent information. Marax 03:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Theology discussions to be reduced or not

Should the extensive discussions of theology be reduced to a short summary (linking to a second sub-article if needed)?

Perhaps it is better for me to keep silent on this. Let me just say I have very good reasons for contributing in these sections. Marax 03:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

<grin> well, you remind me of an interesting issue-- it's occured to me that any member of Opus Dei might have a conflict of interests when it comes to editing this article. I mean, wouldn't your religious duty to promote an holy organization you've dedicated your life to HAVE to take precedence over your editorial duty to be neutral and NOT promote the organization? But of course, what's the alternative-- start asking everyone to announce their potential biases, ban them from editing subjects they care about, and insist that "Who you are" play a role in determining "What you can edit"? Fascism I say! :) --Alecmconroy 08:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd be siding with Marax on this one. There are quite a number of honest non-promotional reasons, for keeping the present state of the Message and Spirituality section.

First, this is an article that falls under Wikipedia's category on Belief and Religion. It definitely warrants a step by step illucidation of OD beliefs.

Second, Teaching of Escriva = Opus Dei. There was previous consensus on this point. See this exchange:

I'm not yet familiar enough with the content to have a definite opinion on the right way to go. I do think it would be an idea to move some of the personal teaching to Josemaría Escrivá. I think that is quite appropriate, and would also help in shaping this page. Charles Matthews 07:52, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Um, not appropriate at all. The teaching of Escriva=Opus Dei. As the founder he was responsible for formulating their charism. According to Catholic polity, they are responsible for keeping it up and are judged by how closely he followed it. We're not talking about a founder like Charles Boremmeo who was also a Bishop and did other things, Escrivas work and teaching is embodied in the doctirne of OD.--Samuel J. Howard 09:03, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly subscribe to this point. If we want readers to get a full encyclopedic rendering of Opus Dei, you have to provide them with a more or less detailed exposition of his teaching, if possible a theological synthesis. That's what we have here. And as someone in the past said, I think that's Davidson, what we have here is a remarkable theological synthesis. I agree.

Third, given the reputability of OD backers and investigators, the majority POV for this article is the Catholic theological POV. And according to a profound theological-ecclesiological analysis of Opus Dei, Opus Dei is about "a message and an institution carrying that message." Of course, let it be said the quote is from Pedro Rodriguez, an OD member, but someone Ratzinger highly respects when it comes to ecclesiology.

Fourth, in its present form, this section summarizes in two to three sentences each of the features of Opus Dei's spirit as written in its website. If we accept the Catholic theological POV as majority POV, then the best outline of its beliefs can be found in the OD website. IMO, that outline is well-studied.

Fifth, this section connects quite well with the preceding section on OD's Foundation and Mission. It's status is that of a Catholic teaching entity.

That's about it. There might be other grounds that I missed. Thomas 04:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey Tom! That's a homerun...well, almost. You failed to mention Allen, "considered the definitive...." He begins his study with "OD from the Inside": Contemplatives in the Middle of the World, Unity of Life, Divine Filiation and Sanctification of Work. Ndss 02:32, 6 June 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)

Thank you, Alecmconroy, for starting this process. I am glad to see the attention being paid to this article. Marax 03:02, 30 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.

Jargon

(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.

If you look at liturgy, Roman Catholic Church, Algorithm, you'll find technical terms everywhere. This is an encyclopedia where deeper knowledge is displayed.

Of course there are technical terms in many articles. My point is about excessiveness and audience. My impression of an encyclopedia is that it is meant to be an educational tool more than a place to display. I could be wrong about this, though. (Snideness begets snideness).

IMHO, the wikisolution to jargon is to wikilink the first use of each term to an article explaining the term. TheronJ 22:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Quotations

(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.

It depends on what encyclopedia your used to. This is Wikipedia. Set up by a guy named Jimbo Wales. It's a controversial topic, you know. The more controversial, the more referenced. That's Wikipedia wisdom.

As with many things in life, it is a matter of degree. I have read many articles in Wikipedia, even controversial ones, that don't read that way, so it seems to me incorrect to say this is Wikipedia. (BTW, I've met Jim. Nice guy. I heard he started an online encyclopedia.)

Yeah, but this place is vandalized more than many others. If it were not for those quoted statements, half of the article won't be around by now. Still, I agree that some kind of tempering needs to be done. Rabadur 07:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Scale/Rebuttals/Contrasting sides

(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.

Allen and Messori are not Opus Dei members. Anonimus is right. If you think, there is something lacking, please add! That's Wikipedia wisdom, too!

70.88.254.65 you have reiterated a fundamental flaw of this article. Ndss, yes we know that Allen and Messori are not iniiated Deistas, nevertheless, they are both members of the Roman Catholic élite, whose 'system of belief' notoriously discourages all dissent: Galileo, Inquisition, Heresy, Holy Office, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith etc. etc. Pvazz 05:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

(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)

Wikipedia is not fair in your sense. More space to more reputable sources. That's Wikipedia! Ndss 04:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Ndss, the reputability and presentation of those sources are what is disputed; hence, it is you that is unfair according to 70.88.254.65 not Wikipedia. Pvazz 05:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Reputability? Let me see...do you remember who called Lafem's scholars "luminaries"? Sorry, Pvazz. Sorry for my irony. Just too much of a temptation... 12 scientific journals never thought Introvigne an inquisitor? Anti-cultists call him cult-apologist, But that's par for course. That's pop culture, comics, etc. And Allen? Time Magazine, Newsweek, New York Times, Tablet, Telegraph, Washington Monthly, Carnegie Council, his professional colleagues respect Allen. Who are we to question his reputability? And Wilson? not reputable? John Paul? Ratzinger? Wikipedia doesn't discriminate against atheist experts as long as they are reputable. Why discriminate against Catholic experts who are reputable? Who's unfair?

Presentation? Alec's, yours, Ansolin's objections were answered by Thomas, Marax, etc., weren't they? Nothing personal, Pvazz. Pure business. Ndss 11:23, 2 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)

Ndss, even Marax understood the sarcasm of 'luminaries', and repaid me in kind, by the way...Who are we? We are mere mortals, yes lowly editors of wikipedia, not members of an élite group of like-minded, conservative, I mean progressive, Catholic intellectuals. Popes and high ranking clerics are as reputable in scholarly matters as any other politician. As soon as they assume power they begin eliminating dissent. Consider Ratzinger's behaviour at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith or JPII's entire papacy. If you remember my Don Corleone point, respectability derives from one's milieu, and from one's conformity to the political views of that milieu. Don Corleone is a proficient, accomplished Mafioso, therefore also a respected one; Allen, Messori Introvigne make with the Vaticanista poltics, hence their respect. Do you really believe Opus would have opened the doors to Allen if they thought he might write a book from any other perspective except the Official Catholic one? Have any of Allen's so called objective books deviated from this Catholic position? That aside, Introvigne and Messori at least are accomplished scholars, and deserve their place here, as does Allen.

<squeeze in between> Pvazz, the insinuation in your rhetorical question (“Do you really believe Opus would have opened the doors …”) is simply wrong, at least on a global level. In 2002, Opus Dei in Germany opened its doors to a reporting team of FOCUS Magazin[9] headed by Bernhard Borgeest[10] that visited a number of Opus Dei centres and even got the opportunity to be present (with reporter and cameraman) at members-only activities like a formation circle for numeraries in Germany and elsewhere. Focus is the second largest German newsmagazine FOCUS (newsmagazine) and fully (German) mainstream in regard to religion and church, aka not friendly. Though the original report is still pay-per-view, part of it has been republished with the Da-Vinci-Code hype recently.[11] --Túrelio 23:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Opening the doors for a mainstream media conforms to public relation protocol. No organization wants a TV station making a documentary about a cult which 'refused' the cameras access to its members; this may have happened if the Work chose differently. Allen was allowed much wider access over a longer period of time, and with less supervision. He doesn't bring camera crews, and conducts interviews on and off the record; his book was marketed, at least in part, as resulting from 'unprecedented access'. For Allen access becomes co-operation, and it is repaid in kind. Allen co-operates with Opus Dei, promises a reasonable [read official], objective [read limited to official objects, viz. North American and not South America] and unbiased [read no new damaging material]. Allen kept his side of the bargain. It is Allen's lack of independence as a journalist that ensures his access to Opus Dei. He will not follow the story until the end, he has allegiances, commitments, and a 'reputation' for impartiality. Impartiality is the currency whereby Allen as apparatchik-journalist negotiates his worth, his impact, his efficacity. For example, look what goes on here, every OD apologist bends over backwards to discredit good faith criticism, to position themselves as privileged in relation to the Wikipedia guidlines. The article itself, it style, its presenation of facts, is of secondary importance. But I digress...

Pvazz 08:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey Pvazz! Sure hope you have evidence for your accusations. Don't see any objective basis for them. He paid for his trip. He has a reputation to keep. I know Allen, I tell you. He's not a conman. Ndss 01:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

His book is the evidence. I've never argued that Allen's book is a con, but even if it were, every con has both its conman and its patsy, its mark. Nor am I suggesting that Allen has profited financially, received kick-backs, free dinners, a trip to the local S&M club. I argue that his book is only important because of its 'definitive' exposition of the official Catholic view. Allen is not able to argue outside of this view (where most criticism originates) because of his complicity in that view as one of its proponents and supporters. I objected to your aggrandizement of Allen, as though he were an independent, objective, judge who would separate myth from reality and show us all the truth. He is not independent, and his objectivity is circumscribed within the narrow boundaries of Catholic doxa, and the Vaticanista clique from which his position is sanctioned. Pvazz 06:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Now, 70.88.254.65 argues that an encyclopedia should include more than just the single, official, Catholic position on Opus Dei. He is right. None of my objections have been answered, and I will continue to work through the article, with the assistance of others, until it conforms to the Wikipedian standards of neutrality. I won't repeat these objections here as they are clearly listed above. Even in the short time I've monitored this article, numerous first-time readers have written long posts outlining their objection to the one sided presentation of the so-called facts. Everytime this occurs, Marax, Lafem, Thomas, Ndss or some other righteous citizen of this wiki, trundles out the monolithic guidelines and suggests that they have their 'problem' or pathology cured, and return when they feel healthy and 're-educated'. All of them are good faith, first responses to the article from readers new to Opus Dei, that is, the vast majority of Wikipedia's readership. Why shouldn't their instinctual cringe at the articles grasping, defensive tone be noted, accepted and acted upon?Pvazz 15:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow! I will continue to work through the article, with the assistance of others, until it conforms to the Wikipedian standards of neutrality. Great news! Now, I'd like to hear what these Wikipedian standards are. Please help me. Thanks! Rabadur

My point was not about how much space was devoted to whom. My point was about presentation style. If you allow only one side of a debate to rebut the other, you give an advantage to the rebutter. I think you should just leave out the comments that rebut the criticisms. Let them stand on their own, just as the positive assertions stand on their own. 70.88.254.65 20:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, I don't see anything wrong with restricting the criticisms of OD to a sentence in the introduction plus a discussion in the "criticism" subsection. There's nothing wrong with sections discussing the history, organization, or other factual background of the group. I do agree that the criticism section seems a little NPOV -- if it were up to me, I would shortent the whole thing down to a bare bones summary of the criticism subarticle.TheronJ 22:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks TheronJ. If Opus Dei is controversial, then there should be controversy all over the place. There's controversy over its teachings, its canonical status, its spiritual practice, its social impact, its relationship with women and politics....Response of society was a perfect title until Ndss, egged on by alec, changed it to controversy.

The response is controversial, hence the title. Pvazz 09:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Pvazz, there is such a thing as right to self-defense. In any court of law, the defense has the last say. However, given Ndss's moves there are sections where criticisms now have the last say. And how do the critics react? It's still not fair! Which is the same thing as saying: it's not fair that the statements of pro-OD guys are more brilliant and luminous, even if the critics have the last say. It's not fair that Ratzinger and Allen outshine OD critics. Plainly, these are absurd complaints. It's either one is luminous and the other not so.

Rabadur, Wikipedia articles are not legal documents, nor is Opus Dei or anyone else in the dock. Refrain from mixing your metaphors, and maybe your remarks will not plonk together so haphazardly. Amongst the abundance of non-sequitur I'va gleaned the following point: Allen and Ratzinger outshine all opposition, and are therefore [sic.] the source of all objection to the article's neutrality; and the corollary, the criticism itself is founded on the resentment of the crticics and not the validity of their arguments. I'll reiterate my point once again: ad hominem attempts to displace criticism from its target [Opus Dei or the style/presentation of the article] onto a resentful critic are not in any way refutations of those criticisms. We are not blind eye-witnesses, and we certainly won't be 'exposed' by the defense. Pvazz 09:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I placed alec's brand new section about mortification where it belongs. I don't see why the picture of the cilice should be larger than all the others, and I don't see why there should be a larger discussion over it than say Opus Dei's corporate works. Rabadur 07:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, you deleted most of the mortification section, moving three sentences and a picture into the spiritual practice section. I thought the new section was quite good and most neutral-- the criticism for the practice was limited to a single sentence, after all. Every single source I've seen has devoted some time to discussing the mortification issue, it seems to be one of the more-talked-about features of Opus Dei, although I was careful to reiterate that there's a long history of the practice throughout the history of Christanity.

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)

As for the size of the cilice picture-- I hear ya. I wasn't totally happy with the thumbnail size either. The picture wasn't a very good one, technically speaking, and I had to make it big in order to show the spikes. If the thumbnail is too small, the thing looks indistinguishable from a necklace. I'll keep fiddling with this-- I don't want it to take up too much space, but I also want it to at least show what the thing is.

I agree needed to click on the picture before i could see the spikes.Ansolin 12:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You say "In any court of law, the defense has the last say". (actually, I think the state has the last word, but that's beside the point). The trial is a good analogy. I don't care which side goes first and which goes last-- but I do feel it's deeply unfair to let one side go first AND last. That's what we see over and over in this current article. Look at the "Respone of Society" section: a huge paragraph about how everyone loves OD, four lone sentences that state a controversy exists, and then two more huge paragraphs about how stupid the critics are. We see the same pattern in "Relation with politics", "Revolutionary or Conservative", etc. If you want the supporters to be first, take first. If you want the supporters to be last, take last. But for the love of god-- you can't expect to have them BOTH. :) --Alecmconroy 09:33, 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)

Please read Wikipedia:NOR. (I'm trying hard to be patient. Hope I'm succeeding...) Whenever you edit, whether your a first-timer or a veteran, check out the bottom of the page. What do you see? "Please note: See our policies and guidelines for more information on editing." Thanks. Ndss 01:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I've read it. Maybe you should reread it. I'll try to be as patient as you are. Look at the first paragraph. It says that sources should "provide information that is directly related to the topic of the article." The bold is in the original, emphasizing its importance. My contention is that assertions about the motives of "secularists, liberal Catholics and Anti-Catholics" are not directly related to the topic of the article, which is Opus Dei. If you'd like to move those quotations and sources to articles about "secularists, liberal Catholics and Anti-Catholics", they'd be perfectly appropriate there and it would be a great place to put all the sources that describe them, analyze their motives and methods, and present controversies related to them. BTW, I'd be more swayed to your position, if you could show specifically what is wrong with my argument, than by vaguely implying that my argument isn't consistent with NOR. 70.88.254.65 02:23, 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)

Ndss, can you stop referring to sociology journals as 'scientific' journals. Don't forget that Wikipedia's guidelines are open to interpretation; if we followed them to the letter, the encylopedia wouldn't exist. Every article is in some sense a new synthesis of Ideas. I don't advocate the introduction of original material, I merely point out your overzelous and selective devotion to the letter rather than the spirit of the guidelines. Pvazz 06:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I think one fallacy we may be struggling with is the idea that if something is cited, it is therefore inherently neutral. On the contrary-- citing sources is more a matter of Verifiability and No Original Research than it is just of NPOV. Just because something is cited does not necessarily make it neutral.

"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."

The argument being made here is that the sheer quantity, depth of detail, prominent of placement, etc of the pro-OD viewpoints constitute non-neutral POV and non-encyclopedic tone. Let me ask, for example-- at what point would you agree that the pro-OD quotes and the theological language are too much? Or can such a thing not exist so long as those quotes come from the "most reputable" scholars? If we wanted to have ten Introvigne quotes before and after every sentence of criticism, would that be okay? or twenty? or a hundred?

My point is-- the issues of balance and proportion cannot be answered just by re-iterating the opinion that Allen and Introvigne and the Popes are the most luminous adherents of the pro-OD viewpoint. The fact remains that while they may be the most vocal and prolific Catholic commentators on Opus Dei, that is not an excuse for writing a non-neutral, theologically-toned article and giving those commentators undue weight, letting them have the first and last word on every topic.

My personal opinion is this: You can cite the NPOV policy that supports giving less space to extreme minority viewpoints-- but that will not justify the biased tone of the article or prove to us that critics of OD are an extreme minority. You can cite how many journals Introvigne has been published in-- but that will not justify giving him four rebuttals for every word of criticism. You can repeatedly insist that you believe this article is neutral-- but that will not justify overruling the unending tide of new editors who keep putting up the NPOV dispute tag. "You have a persuasive tongue. But in spite of all your talk, you cannot justify what has no justification." (The Way, 37)

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-.

But if you think that we should over-represent the majority opinions and under-represent the minority opinions, do remember.... in the grand scheme of things, the opinions of Catholic authors like Allen and Introvigne, and Catholic leaders like the the Pope, and indeed all the Catholics-- these ARE the minority view. The other five billion people on the planet disagree. The other five-sixths of the world's experts, scientists, theologians, sociologists, and historians do not subscribe to views currently expressed in this article. If we actually followed the philosophy of majority-rule, this page would quickly wind up looking like Criticism of the Catholic Church as we filled it with the quotes of the Protestant, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhists, and Secular scholars who disapprove of some portion of Catholicism and Opus Dei. Surely, this too would be a violation of NPOV.

Put another way-- you repeatedly say that the pro-OD scholars are the most respected. But have we, as wikipedians reached a consensus on the conclusion that they are the most respected?? Surely, we have not. Ndss and Thomas (and some others) have doubtlessly reached that conclusion, but there is no _consensus_ that your opinions are true. You can cite other authors and scholars who praise Allen and the others-- but there is no consensus among wikipedia editors that THOSE opinions are true.

Ultimately, if you really want to make an article that is extremely pro-OD, you need to have an overwhelming consensus among the Wikipedia editors that OD is a good thing, or at least that the experts who say OD is wonderful are without doubt the most reputable experts. You do not have such a consensus-- you probably don't even have a majority. And without a consensus, there are no "most reputable experts", and without the justification of any consensus-supported experts, you cannot justify an unbalanced article. The article is due for a major face-lift. --Alecmconroy 07:03, 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.

Noted. However, your claims to the 'majority', in the scientific sense are unfounded. There aren't any proofs written, nor axioms advanced, nor theorems deduced in relation to Opus Dei. Your pretension to scientificity on the part of Allen et al. doesn't transform this issue into a question of scientific truth. It remains a controversial, political and sociological debate. Your paragraph lists the consequences of an unequivocal division of positions into majority and minority; this is exactly what has not been agreed. Pvazz 23:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

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.

No we don't. See above for my critique of the schorlarly reputability of politicians, in regards to Ratzinger and JPII. Again, it is precisely the measurement of reputability which is at stake. You cannot assume that the reputability of a homogenous political grouping, like the so called 'luminaries', outshines all those politically opposed to them, purely because their opponents don't share in that poltical authority. This is straightforward scholarly nous.Pvazz 23:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Take note: there is a difference in Wikipedia between significant minority and tiny (or extreme) minority. Thomas accepted the minority as significant minority.

Fortunately, Thomas does not have the authority to accept anything on my behalf. Pvazz 23:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

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-.”

Your 'therefore' has transformed the following five words into a non-sequitur. We have not agreed to your proportion, let's say, the rationale of your allotment of that proportion is disputed. Pvazz 23:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

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.

No he's not respected everywhere; anyone who has visited Africa, and seen the devastation of AIDS, would have witnessed the horrible extermination which the Catholic Church allows to occur there. Ndss, if you want to grovel at the altar of authority, and enjoy the spectacle of power which the RC Church has conducted since the time of Trent and before, then by all means, but here, we examine arguments before we dress them in the robes of authority and power. Pvazz 00:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

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.

Ndss, television networks pander to populism, and are complicit with their advertisers. You shouldn't confuse the infomercials of US network television for reasoned, scholarly appraisal.

90:10 is the right proportion. Ndss 05:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

90:10? You really don't think that gives undue weight? In the United States, Bush's approval rating is something like 20%, and lower than that in the rest of the world. Does that mean the George W. Bush article should have a proportion of of 80:20 against?

Why 90:10? Why not 95:5 or 99:1 or 999:1 or 9999:1?

I also disagree that the opinions of John Paul or Benedict count as "expert" opinions. Being a leader of an organization is not the same as being an independent expert on that organization. Would you let Bill Gates's opinions define the content of "Criticism of Microsoft", based on the fact that he is the most luminous person who's spoken on the subject? Would you let George W. Bush's opinion define the content of "Republican Party" or Bill Clinton's opinion dictate the content of "Democratic Party"? Would you let the opinions of the employees of Microsoft or the members of the Democratic party take up 90% of the articles? If I said to you "The Microsoft article should be very Pro-Microsoft, because Bill Gates and his employees are famous experts, while the detractors aren't as rich or famous", would you believe me, and make an article that is 90% a Microsoft Brochure? Suppose I said to you the article on the Republican Party should be exceptionally pro-republican because its leader is the most famous most powerful man in the world, and all the people who have studied the republican party most are, not cooindentaly, members of the republican party. Would that hold water?

Of course not. You would recognize that an employee of Microsoft or a member of a political party have agendas, and they are partisans in the debate, not commentators. Of the experts you cite, two are leaders of the catholic church, one is a member of the catholic church, and one is a member of Opus Dei itself. That just can't be fair. You can't write an article where nine out of every ten sentences quote a member of the very religious minority which is being debated, then try to pass that article off as having neutrally discussed all sides of the issue.

Don't get me wrong-- we should not censor their opinions, but we should not let them dominate.

Now, I couldn't resist taking a moment to be a little, oh, silly: You included the dictionary definition of reputable, so let me include my own excusion to the dictionary shelf. Dictionary: neutral-- having no personal bias, not supporting or favoring either side in a war, dispute, or contest. "Reputable" is used 4 times in NPOV, "neutral" is used 43 times. Which word, do you think, is more important to describing the nature of the policy? :) hehe. (Obviously, I don't expect this particular paragraph's logic to persuade anyone, least of all myself :))

--Alecmconroy 06:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It should be 95:5. Apostate testimony is baloney. Secularists should not be allowed to use this page to stigmatize holy people. Cabanes 07:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

We shouldn't burn you at the stake? Of course, that's the prerogative of the righteous and the holy. Pvazz 00:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

If we just use Wikipedia criteria, it's obvious who has the majority in expertise and reputability. Of course, if you use Monroyan criteria, it's a different story. These latter criteria are in no way related to Wikipedian standards of neutrality. Rabadur 08:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Monroyan?? --Alecmconroy 09:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, nice surprise to see so much support!! Thanks guys, Cabanes and Rabadur. Glad to have you around. Please come more often!

Alec, your comparison doesn't work. Sorry. Bill Gates and Bush are only rich, famous and powerful. They do not have the reputation for reliable scholarship needed in an encyclopedia. John Paul II and Benedict have. They are academicians who wrote books and studied anthropology, philosophy and theology. That's the reputability needed in Wikipedia. Please read NPOV tutorial on credibility. It's about the field, an academic field. Their reputability in the field of religion is very high. Bush doesn't have any reputability in the field of political science.

It's not their dearth of education which strips politicians of their scholarly credentials, rather, it is their conflict of interest. As leaders of the RC Church, popes and cardinals are greatly restricted in their scholarly scope. Don't forget that Ratzinger, at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was for a long time the very instrument of this restriction. As has been mentioned numerous time, the official view of the Catholic church shouldn't be allowed to dominate a Wikipedia article by masquerading as a more reputable one. Pvazz 00:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

And most importantly, Gates and Bush don't have a John Allen. An independent minded journalist. Yes, yes, he is Catholic you say, but the OD critics respect him so highly!! he writes for a famous liberal anti-Catholic establishment newspaper. So the tactic of saying he is a Catholic...therefore he is a pro-OD Catholic, just does not hold water. Remember even those who accused Allen of doing a white wash agreed with him on several counts. And those who praised his work are not just Catholics. Even former critics have changed their minds. Allen spent his own money, time and effort to interview critics and defenders, and ended up demystifying OD. He is an independent investigator. And so was Messori. They ended up with the same conclusion!

No, Ndss, Allen is not anti-Catholic, nor is he independent. The newspaper you refer to holds all the fundamental Catholic poltical positions; it is just another Catholic faction, not an alternate or even opposed politics. Obviously, there are some points which are undisputed. By critics, do mean those more conservative Catholics who understood that Allen's 'objectivity' could be useful? Messori? Have you ever been to Italy? He is know for his Catholic populism, however encylopaedic his mind. He is also a Vaticanista, par excellence. Have you ever wondered why all the official Catholic works on OD come to the same conclusion? Official views are always unified, especially in an institution which until recently burned dissenters. Pvazz 00:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, the most recently burned Christian "dissenters" I remember, were Christians in Nigeria burned alive by Muslim fanatics earlier this year and a Protestant preacher with his family who were burned alive in their car in India by Hindu fanatics some two or three years ago. --Túrelio 06:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I suppose the hundreds of thousands of slaughtered muslims in the Balkans, Iraq, Palestine, and Afghanistan slipped your mind. Not to mention, the innumerable victims of Catholic and other religious morality throughout Africa. If anything, your examples further illustrate the brutality of authoritarian organisations like the RC Church and other evangelical religions. However, this is somwhat irrelevant to my point, which concerned the political commensurability of OD's supporters, and their unwavering unity behind the official Catholic position on L'Obra. Pvazz 07:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, thats really news to me, that the "hundreds of thousands of slaughtered muslims in the Balkans, Iraq, Palestine, and Afghanistan" were burned or even slaughtered by the RC church. But I agree with your suggestion, Nigerian Christians burned by fanatical Muslims and a preacher family burned by Hindu extremists reaaaaally "illustrate the brutality of authoritarian organisations like the RC Church". Obviously Wikipedia brings together people from different planets. --Túrelio 08:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Intolerance, for which the RC Chruch has a thousand year reputation, is also evident in these cases. Further, that intolerance derives from the authoritarian enforcement of official belief, and the violent supression, as heresy, of all dissent. I didn't impute that the RC Church were the butchers in this case, I only wished to point out that your examples were flawed. Firstly, the victims were hardly dissenters, they were from another religion altogether. Secondly, of all the religions in the world, Islam is by far the most persecuted, mainly because the most powerful nations in the world have declared it to be their enemy. So, your example didn't answer my point, and in addition insinuated that Christians were somehow the victims of world-wide religious persecution at the hands of Muslims and Hindus. I hope the point is now clearer. Pvazz 09:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing to be gained by this line of discussion on who burned who most. It will only devolve into personal attacks. We should always try to keep focus on the article itself, not on the subject of the article. --Alecmconroy 13:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Roger that. I suffer from occasional choleric imbalances. Pvazz 15:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

could you give a link to these anti cathlic articles that allen did.Ansolin 05:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Remember that there are 80,000+ members of OD, perhaps some thousands of ex-members, and 900,000 who support it. Among the ex-members there are more people who are for it than those who are against it.

Oh yes, John Paul and Ratzinger are only mentioned in the article when it comes to the field of theology. As you noted the weight should be analyzed on each of the aspects of the subject matter. That should be done in this article. Yes! the weight can vary according to the aspect. It could be 80:20 in some, 95:5 in some, 60:40 in some, even 50:50 in others. But I think that's already happening....Let's see...Ndss 10:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

More practical next step

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

Anonimus 02:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Such a good suggestion, Anonimus!! How about it, Pvazz and Alec! It's your turn. Let's see how credible your sources are! Your right Anonimus! Lafem has been waiting since.... Ndss 08:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Wrong reference

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)

External link removed. --Túrelio 09:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article Candidacy: Additional Improvements and Comments

Appropriateness of using Allen?

Reliance on a single source - Appropriate?

Keep on improving: Need for order

Sect or prime target of secularists: integrate repeated sentences; maintain NPOV due proportions between experts

Contents

Intro: "created"/"founded"

Introvigne's affiliations

Distinction of theological/spiritual and social matters

Intro: John Paul II's summary of Opus Dei and Escriva's mission

Allen's recommendations

Images on Opus Dei at the Wikimedia Commons

Related, orphan article

In fiction

No discussion of the levels of membership?

Da Vinci Code controversy

Not biased, but favoured, perhaps?

More space and last say for most credible experts, e.g. Allen

Sanctity per se may sound promotional; experts talked highly of OD

NPOV tag without explanation is akin to vandalism

This is based on NPOV policy; Messori like Allen was also suspected of being pro-OD

Proganda = misleading information

Policy on credibility: The most credible experts support each other's claims

Ending statement for Opus Dei

Opus Dei and politics

Johann Hari

Article removed from Wikipedia:Good articles

Tone

Read John Allen: "widely considered as the definitive book about Opus Dei"

Allen's book cannot be called "much debated"

Allen can be called "respected"

Problematic and Highly POV-- one random reader's opinion

Putting Wikipedia first

In Reply to "Putting Wikipedia First

The facts about Wikipedia:NPOV

Introduction Re-Write

More Comments

Neutrality not possible with current structure...

Solution: Add your POV

Principles of Wikiquette

Images

From the Horse's mouth

Changes and Justifications

POV

Request for Comment

NPOV tag?

Balance between supporters and critics

Criticism and praise in separate sections or interspersed?

Theological or historical tone?

Images

Intro: Details on controversies

Theology discussions to be reduced or not

Jargon

Quotations

Scale/Rebuttals/Contrasting sides

More practical next step

Wrong reference