Talk:Opus Dei

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Good article Opus Dei has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, which collaborates on articles related to the Roman Catholic Church. To participate, edit this article or visit the project page for details.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the Project's importance scale.
Peer review This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.
This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here.

This article was featured in Wikipedia Selected anniversaries for October 2 on 2.10.05/06.

Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] NPOV on Pop Culture

There's a definite bias in the Pop Culture section. Personally, I neither like Opus Dei or the Dan Brown book, but the section leans heavily towards Opus Dei support and "debunking" a fictional story. Also, it lacks any other references in popular culture. I couldn't give any examples, but I've seen Opus Dei show up numerous times.76.179.235.134 02:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Criticism and 'cult' allegations"

Alec has asked me on my talkpage for an opinion about the bullet points in the criticism section, "Criticism and 'cult' allegations," but I think I'll reply here. I dislike the way having bullets in that section, and nowhere else, separates out the criticism as being in a special category, distinct from the rest of the article. It should be in ordinary prose like everything else.
However, I have a larger question: should there be a criticism section at all? I'm sorry to be difficult, and I don't exactly know what alternative placement to suggest for the criticism, but take a look at this section of Wikipedia:Words to avoid: "Separating all the controversial aspects of a topic into a single section results in a very tortured form of writing, especially a back-and-forth dialogue between "proponents" and "opponents". It also creates a hierarchy of fact - the main passage is "true" and "undisputed", whereas the rest are "controversial" and therefore more likely to be false, an implication that may often be inappropriate. Since many of the topics in an encyclopedia will inevitably encounter controversy, editors should attempt to write in a manner that folds debates into the narrative rather than "distilling" them out into separate sections that ignore each other... In summary, controversy sections should not be used as a tool to marginalize criticism." It seems to me that especially the title of the next section has the effect of structurally marginalizing the criticism: ""Support and rebuttals". Seriously... I see people on this page opposing the use of the word "cult" in the heading of the criticism section—surely a less serious issue (given that the section is about "cult" accusations) than using a word like "rebuttals"? So, Alec, you've done a great job on this article, and I know this is a lot to ask, but if you're thinking FAC here... can you think of a way to "fold" the criticism into the narrative? Bishonen | talk 18:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC).

Well, this is an issue that comes up from time to time. The old mediator initially was concerned about this, but ultimately decided this sort of structure was required. As he totally non-bindingly said "'From reading through the article and debate again I would agree that a separate section would perhpas be more useful to the article (and that the use of response section is a good way of achieving this). I think my intial suggestion of trying to weave criticism in, whilst in theory is quite a nice idea, on reflection is a bit too difficult to achieve effectively in this article."
Here's my understanding of "Article Structures Which Imply A View". The way it's been explained to me, the reason that people sometimes suggest not having a criticism section is to ensure that one side doesn't get an advantage in a issue debate, with all the criticism being pulled out of the main narrative and relegated to exile in a post-scripted exile section. So, a structure like this would be bad:
  1. All kinds of facts mixed with opinions from supporters
  2. All kinds of facts mixed with opinions from supporters
  3. All kinds of facts mixed with opinions from supporters
  4. The opinions of critics.
That would be bad. It subtly implies that the supporters POV is factual, whereas the critics POV is not. It creates a 'hierarchy of fact' where the main body of the article is factual or supportive, but the criticism is sequestered off. That sort of section is bad.
In contrast, a slightly different structure, called a Response Section, is okay. (see here) Ours is entitled Responses to Opus Dei. In such a section, both major POVs are presented in a section, rather than just one-- rather than having one side or the other presented in the main body of the article. This looks like:
  1. Introductory material unrelated to controversial
  2. Responses to Section
  • Major POV 1
  • Major POV 2
This sort of section IS okay, because it's "equal" and doesn't create a hierarchy of fact with one POV being factual and the other POV being notfactual. The heart of Article Structures Which Imply a View is this: In summary, controversy sections should not be used as a tool to marginalize criticism.
The way I see it, the spirit of the recommendation is to not have an article structure which gives either POV an unfair advantage, but instead to have a level playing field. But nothing in that is to prevent presenting one side in a controversy and then another side in a controvery. Sometimes organized by POV is the just best way to do it. Just a quick glance over the Featured Articles list reveals that almost every controversial subject does do a "by POV" organization or other such controversy section(s): Boy Scouts of America membership controversies, GNU/Linux naming controversy, Cannabis rescheduling in the United States, Evolution.
In some cases, this being one of them, I can't even begin to fathom how you could make a good article that doesn't have a "critics say X" section and a "supporters say y" section. You could intersperse them, but it'd make each sides argument impossible to follow-- and in practice, with this article, such an approach has been utterly impossible to balance.
--Alecmconroy 18:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
As regards the words "rebuttals"-- yeah, that is a rather poor choice of the words-- "Support and replies to criticism" might be better. ---Alecmconroy 18:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I haven't weighed in on the "criticisms" issue yet because there are advantages and disadvantages to doing it either way (a discrete section vs. interwoven). While I find it almost physically painful to disagree with the esteemed Bishonen, I tend to view this particular issue in a different light. I think it would be better to keep the section seperate and make sure that criticisms and responses are carefully phrased and properly balanced. This should help keep the rest of the article cleanly focused on specific topics. Attempting to interweave criticisms throughout the article could lead to an argumentative tone in the presentation and make it difficult for the reader to follow. These are just my initial thoughts, and now I'm going to crawl into a hole and hide from Bishzilla. Please don't hurt me! Doc Tropics 19:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Almost physically painful? We'll see. Bishzilla 22:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC).
I would like to observe that the "rebuttals" section could certainly be worked into the overall article, even if the criticism section could not. I would also like to note that we have spin off articles for the criticisms, so this only needs to be a brief gloss, not detailed. Lastly, in our desire to be sourced, we need to be careful not to turn this encyclopedia into an advert for ODAN or any other webside with a "political" agenda. It would be a bit of a coup if ODAN could use Wikpidea to express its ideas, granting it a much higher readership than before. This would entail abuse of the encyclopedia, I think. Lostcaesar 22:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
PS, I made a prose version of the criticisms here — Lostcaesar 22:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry I forced Alec to rehash all that, from my ignorance of the mediation. While I think "folding" of criticism into the narrative desirable, I do see that it's probably impossible. But the criticism section is more problematic than it need be; I don't think it sufficiently "carefully phrased and properly balanced" yet. It needs to be considered in tandem with the pro section, and the phrasing needs to try to make up for the fact that the supporters get the last word, and get to "rebut" all the criticisms. They'll presumably have the last word —somebody has to—even after the seriously bad word "rebuttal" (=disproof, refutation, proof that something is false) is changed, as it surely must be. One point of imbalance is the quite literally hagiographic quotes in the pro section from John Paul II's statements on the occasion of Escrivá's canonisation. (There are no quotes in the criticism section.) Escrivá's canonisation is certainly an important fact, but it has already been given plenty of weight in the "History", "Doctrine" (via a cite), and "Historical responses to Opus Dei" sections. Is it really warranted in "Contemporary responses to Opus Dei" as well? Is the year 1982 claimed as the very breaking point, and overlap, between the historical and the contemporary..?
Lostcaesar, about keeping the criticism section short because there are already spin-off articles about it: I understand how you got that impression, but actually there aren't. It only looks like there are, from the list of no less than four putatively "main articles" at the head of the criticism section: Opposition to Opus Dei, Opus Dei and Catholic Church leaders, Opus Dei and civil leaders, Opus Dei: Responses to Cult Accusations. But I'm afraid the whole array melted in the sun when I clicked on it. Three out of the four of them are currently up for deletion (and properly so) as POV forks. And the fourth, Opposition to Opus Dei, is redirected to Controversies about Opus Dei, and is not anything like a neutral presentation of opposition; in fact, surprise, it's yet another "rebuttal" of such opposition. There is no remotely acceptable or neutral spin-off article presenting criticisms of Opus Dei. Even if there were, this central article, Opus Dei, is supposed to have a proper criticism section. That's the way NPOV works—not through forking. Bishonen | talk 02:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC).
Thanks, Bishonen, for chiming in here. Hello again! :) I agree with you that it is preferable to fold the disputes into the narrative. And IMHO, it is not impossible.
In relation to providing equal treatment to two major POVs or avoiding a hierarchy of fact, I would like to know how this can be reconciled with "undue weight" as expressed here at Wikipedia's explanation of giving equal validity: Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth.
I still think that Wisden17, our mediator, was speaking with objectivity when he said that the "body of evidence" is strong enough to assume the existence of a majority view. John Allen, Jr., CNN's Vatican analyst, did empirical research. Reed Business Information said the following on his book on Opus Dei: "Allen's balanced, even reporting sometimes borders on the clinical." Introvigne, a social scientist who wrote in twelve scientific journals, commented that the analysis of the anti-cult group is "of very poor scientific quality." I think giving equal validity to the two views gives undue weight to a pseudo-scientific theory.
As I said at mediation, the issues in dispute with regard to Opus Dei are empirical, sociological issues: wealth, power, amount of demands and freedom, political stance, secrecy. These are not matters of faith, where there can be no expertise, but observable and measurable items.
I'd truly appreciate hearing people's comment on this issue, especially on the proportionate prominence and reliability of sources such as Allen, Introvigne, and Messori. I think we will not be doing Wikipedia a favor, if we treat the latest, and best researched work on Opus Dei at the same level as ODAN or Rickross. I support what User:Dominick and User:Lostcaesar are doing in questioning these latter sources. Thanks! Thomas 07:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Just remember-- we don't ever cite Rick Ross, not as of this moment. We cite new stories and provide a link to a mirror on rickross. Big diff. --Alecmconroy 11:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Bish-- thank you so much for diving in and looking over all of this. Let me reinterate Doc's sentiment that we're all a little starstruck to see ya here "in person" as it were-- I'm used to just watching you from the peanut gallery of the Arbitration Committeee. Anyway, I'm not totally clear how you think we fix the page? should some of the hagiographic quotes be pulled? Should the brief bullet points be transformed into full length prose? I'll try some things and show them to you, doc, and other and see what ya'll thing. --Alecmconroy 12:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I took the somewhat bold step of restructuring the bullets into prose, and renaming the section "controversy", to step away from the back and forth nature previously used. In time we can work the other sections more seamlessly into the article. Also, we might want to go over those spin off pages, if they are so poor, and include their content here, deleting them as needed. Lostcaesar 14:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Did you mean to delete the entire "replies to criticism" section? --Alecmconroy 14:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
No I already patched that back in, sorry. Lostcaesar 14:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Alec, I notice you changed by prose, and in the edit summary said that "if we're give a prose version a shot, we can't just collapse the bullet points, have to make it less dense". But what it seems you did mostly was to add more criticisms, or to add more details to those criticisms. I just wanted to inquire about this. Are you condensing information from the other pages? Lostcaesar 15:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I think so, although four controversy pages are such a shambles it's sometimes hard to be sure-- they're basically an almanac where either side can interject any criticism they want, with no real summary or integration between them. If you think this page is too much of an ODAN/OD brochure, check out the controversies article, where whole sections appear to be just copied verbatim from odan, along with gobs more rebuttals copied directly from supporters.
Basically I'm trying to turn bullet points into paragraphs to avoid the "schizophrenic effect" where we have one paragraph that changes topics every sentence. In doing this, i'm trying to not add NEW issues at all-- i.e. I'm not just willy-nilly adding bullet points. Instead trying to find just one or two explanatory sentences about each criticism, so that the prose doesn't jump around. The downside of this, which I can already hear the OD member hear objecting to, is that even though it may make the same basic points, it will visually appear larger than the bullet points did.
Maybe once i've made the full prose section, if the celebrities (Bish,Doc, et al) think it needed, we could add more supporting/rebuttal material. --Alecmconroy 16:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
"Star-struck"? Heh, is that the famous love-bombing? :-) Yes, I think the canonization statements by John Paul II should be removed from the response section. Or, at least, from the "historical" response section—my big point was that it's a bit absurd to have it in both places (and it's not like it hasn't also been mentioned before).
I too have made a prose version of the criticism section, here. It turns out to be a good deal like yours, Alec; in fact I guess mine might have been more to the purpose if I'd gotten round to posting it a bit sooner. Anyway, feel free to mine it for any details that might be of use. A minor matter, btw, Alec and Lostcaesar: you both use the word "claims" in your redactions of the criticism section. That's a bit of a weaselly word, please see Wikipedia:Words to avoid. Bishonen | talk 21:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC).
I believe I solved some of these difficulties, move at least some of the back-and-forth material into proper integration into the article, and moving the papal comments to their own section. Lostcaesar 21:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I crawled through "Criticisms" and briefly rewrote a few things to reduce redundancies like "Critics claim...", and improve the flow a bit. "Criticisms" and "Replies" seem relatively well-balanced right now, with perhaps a little extra in "Replies" that's not 100% relevant. Also, I would like to reorganize "Replies" so that responses to criticism are at the top; this will improve overall flow as well. Doc Tropics 21:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I think, now that I have filtered out some material, that we might be able to conflate the criticisms and the responces into one, "controversy" section. Lostcaesar 21:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


I'm new to this article. Sorry for being so naive. But....

The criticism, that Raynlawyer just tried to straighten out, bothers me. It's not enough that the accused says that a) Hitler was a great guy. I think we can agree that, if Escriva said that, most of us would disagree with Escriva's logic, or lack of same.

However, Escriva also supposedly says something that is Politically Incorrect: that b) the exact quantity of Jews Hitler (the Nazis) murdered is 33% less than is currently accepted today. By the way, the original figure was eight million. I can't trace the claim historically, but it would be interesting to see when six million and not eight million became to be generally accepted. I can remember William Buckley publically doubting the eight million figure. I think that was in the 1970s.

Somehow the two together are not very convincing to me. Had the critic stuck with statement a) he might be believable. Sandwiching in statement b) seems unecessarily redundant.

I assume the critic is claiming that Escriva was anti-Semitic. Is that it for evidence? One sentence said one time in front of one person? And a rather odd sentence. Was his logic and sentence structure often that fractured and off the cuff?

If someone can trace out when it became possible, without fear of being labeled anti-Semitic, to claim that six and not eight million Jews were murdered, that might lay the critic's claim to rest. If it was after 1975, then the critic's memory of what was said was incorrect. Having said that, I would assume that someone has already thought of that a long time ago!

As I said earlier - late to this dispute! Student7 03:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Student-- yes, I agree that the alleged Hitler praise isn't very convincing. Even if he did say the things in question, it's a hard stretch to say that this actually says anything bad about Escriva. If we imagine someone in 2007 saying such things, it might be logical for us to conclude the speaker was anti-semetic. But for someone speaking in the 1940s-1970s, such statements might just mean the speaker was ill-informed. Whole nations believed Hitler was a good guy, whole nations were skeptical of the holocaust initially-- if Escriva was one of them, that just means he was uninformed, human, and fallible like the rest of us-- it doesn't make him evil.
But, it's not up to me to personally weigh the evidence and decide what I find convincing and not. The hitler allegations are notable enough that it's been discussed in the mainstream media (Newsweek, Intl Herald tribune, others), so, we can't delete it even if we personally find it to be uncompelling. What we can do, however, is insert more rebuttals if we can find them into the Controversies about Opus Dei article.
Inserting more rebuttals in to the controversies article is still a work in progress, because while there are lots of things _I_ could as rebuttals, that'd be original research. The only sourced rebutal I've found is basically an outright denial that Escriva ever said such things. Ideally, we'd also find a quote or two explaining some of the points you raised and that I raised-- namely-- that even if he did say those things, that hardly means he was a bad person. So far, I haven't been able to find anyone making that argument, which is odd since I find it so compelling. If anyone knows of any media source that says as much, give me a heads-up so I can put it into the controversy page. If not, I haven't given up yet-- I'll just have to order more books. :)
--Alecmconroy 14:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. You are right, of course.
I'm sure it says it elsewhere in this commentary that the Opus Dei criticism section is far too long. I think most of it, with a proper one or two lines after "see Opus Dei criticism" should be moved out to that section, including the rebuttal(s).
Just looked at the Democratic Party (United States). Are you surprised to learn that there are only two lines about Clinton's impeachment trial there? I think that is as it should be. Ad hominem attacks against Escriva should be in an article about HIM or in a separate article of criticism about HIM. Unless it is fundamental to criticism of Opus Dei, which it doesn't seem to be. I assume that Opus Dei has sinners in it like every other organization in the world. That is hardly "newsworthy" in itself nor necessarily of encyclopedic value.
This is Opus Dei's "parade" and while critics should not be surpressed, they should not rain on this parade. They already have a venue elsewhere. There are (and should be) good links to the criticism section.
I have to admit that the Democratic Party article seemes a bit too puffy. But even allowing for the usual political hype, comparing it with the article on Opus Dei brings into clearer focus the necessity of letting the subject of the article (and it's supporters) explain itself as accurately as possible. There is ample room elsewhere for raw criticism. Student7 15:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Separating out the critical aspects of Opus Dei and putting them elsewhere would violate NPOV. See Wikipedia:POV fork. --Alecmconroy 02:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Accusations as myths in intro

I reintroduced "and they state that these accusations are mere myths." This my edit stresses my point: without this, it's as if the Popes support a cultic secret society and lede is supposed to contain a summary of section "Replies to Criticism." One editor claims my edit is "incongrous-sounding" and "weakens" the Pope's statements. ???? Enlighten me por favor. Walter Ching 11:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revision Suggestion

The line The depiction of Opus Dei in the 2006 Da Vinci Code movie was scaled back and significantly less ominous than its depiction in the novel. appears to be an opinion. I read the book and saw the movie and while I think they both make Opus Dei look pretty ominous, at least the book has a disclaimer. Brown also attempted to make Aringarosa innocent at the end of the book. In the film, both Aringarosa and Opus Dei are in on the murders. I am not a WikiProject Catholocism member. My mixed feelings and personal experieces regarding Opus Dei make it hard to be neuteral. Therefore I will leave it to project members to edit this line if they deem it necessary.nut-meg 06:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

So, you're saying that in your opinion, the film made Opus Dei look worse than the book did? --Alecmconroy 06:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
If participating in multiple homicides is worse than not participating in multiple homicides then yes, the movie makes Opus Dei look worse. But that's not the issue so much as the line in the article is an opnion and opinions are not NPOVnut-meg 00:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Back when I was trying to find sources for every sentence in the article, I tried to find sources that said point-blank "OD's role in the film was scaled back". The only thing that really came up was another Wikipedia article-- which is always a bad sign, but I left it in since I haven't read the book. If it was "completely obvious" to anyone who had both viewed the film and read the book, then I'd be okay with leaving that statement in without a source. But if we have someone such as yourself, who knows both the book and the film, who considers it not to be obvious (i.e. OR), then we should cut it. In the end, it's not that important for us to compare the book and film in this article. I'll make the change now. --Alecmconroy 05:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article quality

Having come back to this article after some time away, I just wanted to say that the general tone and balance is very good, and much improved on the state of the article last year. It sets forth not only the undisputed facts of the matter but also the heavily diputed views of pro- and anti-Opus Dei proponents in extensive detail, and seems to be NPOV throughout. -- Karada 13:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BBC television - Waking the Dead

The article does not mention the current controversy surrounding the BBC television series Waking the Dead. There is a BBC news article about this at [1]. The matter is still developing, and it may be worth adding this when more is known.--Ianmacm 20:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, not really a surprise considering the proven anti-Christian bias of the BBC [2]. --Túrelio 20:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yup! How come this aint in article BBC? Important self-descriptions should be in encyclopedic article. Mustn't it? For that matter, impt self-descriptions of OD: spiritual direction, no political leanings, work for youth, social projects, secularity, freedom, divine filiation, etc etc. Or is secular dogmatism on the rise in Wiki? Ndss 07:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

How come this aint in article BBC? Probably because it was forked to Criticism of the BBC, an article that references the above mentioned Daily Mail-report three times.-- Túrelio 08:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Something proved by the Daily Mail? I can't write any more for laughter. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmh, was there anywhere written that the Daily Mail has proven that? No! My above remark said proven bias (that were my words) and then listed a reference. That reference reports that BBC's own executives have admitted such bias, and IMHO that's quite near proven. If it had been totally wrong, surely BBC would have forced Daily Mail to publish a rectification or counter statement.
Though it may be less funny, try reading Criticism of the BBC, [3] or [4]. Now, if you want to remove all Daily-Mail-based references from :en, good luck. Suggest to start with ref 49 in Ruth Kelly. -- Túrelio 16:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

One must remember that the organization that is Opus-dei is completely voluntary. One is not rquired to inflict pain upon oneselsf by means or corporal mortification. SO what is with all of the questions and discussion of how people think it is not thr right thing to do. Nathan Melo (16:44, 15 February 2007)


[edit] Article History

I took my best shot at compiling the various Featured/Good article nominations into the {{ArticleHistory}} template at the top of this page. This article has a very complex history, so if I missed anything, please accept my apologies, and either go ahead and add it in, or list the date and link here, and I'll go ahead and update the info. Thanks, Elonka 02:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

As a followup, I've added some article IDs to the history, so that you can click on the date to see the version of the article from that time. In some case, I'll freely admit that I wasn't enirely certain which version of an article from that 24-hour period to use, so I made my best guess. If anyone knows of a more precise ID to use, feel free to change the oldid in the template, or give me a diff here, and I'll fix it for you. Best, Elonka 01:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Beautiful, Elonka. Thank you. :-) Walter Ching 10:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed another straw man argument

I removed another straw man argument, a favorite method of weakening Opus Dei's replies. The old version argued: Opus Dei also says its level of independence from the rest of the Catholic Church has been exaggerated— supporters insist that Opus Dei works in harmony with local dioceses.

But really Opus Dei never said independence is exaggerated. The idea never appears even in the note indicated. [5] By this Wikipedia is saying that Opus Dei admits to be a relatively independent body.

Instead, I wrote: Catholic officials say that contrary to criticisms of independence "the hierarchy has taken over the care of this reality by means of a prelate appointed by the Pope" and that members are "even more conscious of belonging to the Church." These are quotes not from Opus Dei but from the Francesco Monterisi, Secretary of Congregation of Bishops, man in charge of dioceses and prelatures. It is not Opus Dei who is acting defensively, in a state of denial. The Vatican itself says that Opus Dei far from being independent, improves unity with the Church.

The first strawman argument I removed was a quote taken from Fr. James Martin, S.J. which said "Opus Dei does not recruit." Walter Ching 06:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It is a fact Monterisi stated this. It is a fact Monterisi is a Catholic official. A euphemism to suppress a categorical statement is unacceptable. "Many groups would prefer that certain facts be stated euphemistically, or only in their own terminology, or suppressed outright; such desires need not be deferred to (NPOV)" Walter Ching 07:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Not a matter of suppression, just a matter of clarity. When he says "the hierarchy has taken care of this reality by means of a prelate", I think we're well outside of the bounds of what a typical reader will understand. All the sentence really needs to accomplish is state that, in a clear and brief way, that supporters deny OD is independent from the church. There are various wordings we could use to get that across to the readers, and we can play with the wordings if needed-- but but "hiearchy taking care of reality" just doesn't get the job done. --Alecmconroy 11:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I hear you Alec. But there is still a big difference between a defensive sounding, strawman-like "Opus Dei and its supporters also deny that the group is in any way independent from the rest of the Catholic Church" (your version, Alec) and "Catholic officials affirm that church authorities have even greater control of Opus Dei now that its head is a prelate appointed by the Pope" (my version: conveys original categorical, explained rebuttal, from a top church authority, clear to the reader). Walter Ching 09:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I think that new wording is basically acceptable. "denying independent" and "saying they're not indepedent" are basically the same thing-- if you feel the latter approach better represents the position of OD, that's I don't see any problem. --Alecmconroy 04:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Your rendition of my version (it seems to me) is another case of straw man argumentation. "They're not independent" is a misrepresentation of my "they are even more 'dependent' now" which Monterisi insists on. ?!? Walter Ching 09:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Ahh- well, that's because my head was obviously on backwards when I wrote that. Had I been thinking straight, I would have written that "'denying independence' and "claiming dependence' are basically the same thing.". Instead I wrote "'denying independent' and 'saying they're not independent'" are basically the same thing"-- big difference. Sorry about that. Sometimes you wake up and only half your brain has booted. --Alecmconroy 09:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] third strawman argument removed

Strawman argument: Some argue that a certain distance or separation from family is appropriate.

Implication is (or might be): members (even supernumeraries) tend to be "off" from family affairs somehow because of their Opus Dei duties.

Improvement: To explain the celibate lifestyle of numeraries and their relationship with their blood family, supporters quote Jesus's comment that "He who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me" Walter Ching 09:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Just FYI. I think what you are taking issue with are not at all strawman arguments (contesting a weaker claim and claiming to contest a stronger one), but rather either complex questions ("do you still beat your wife?") or apophases ("I do not want to address his stupid remarks"). And in either case, the severity is quite mild as these things go, so I second Alec's caution with wording as the problem is indeed quite subtle, but do encourage you to go ahead as you see fit. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 02:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Sad to say, Baccyak, straw man arguments are misrepresentations of an opponent's position. And all these examples are more or less subtle ways of misrepresenting Opus Dei. Walter Ching
While you may be essentially correct with your two statements, they say nothing about strawmen in this particular article. The connection between the two statements is logically vacuous; I stand by my description. E.g., because both Walter Ching and (say) Adolf Hitler are human does not imply Walter Ching is Adolf Hitler ;-) . And perhaps the more important point is that even misrepresentations are allowed if they are both notable and verifiable (in that they were made, not that they were necessarily true). But of course those types of positions are also rebuttable...easily. Like I said go ahead and fix as you see fit, but do pay attention to clarity and encyclopediaticness [sic; but you know what I mean...] Baccyak4H (Yak!) 04:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] fourth straw man argument removed

Straw man argument: For example, supporters say that Opus Dei's relative silence stems not from a secretive nature, but rather is the result of a commitment to privacy, humility, and "avoidance of self-aggrandizement".

Implication: yes, Wikipedia believes Opus Dei is relatively silent compared to other organizations. Its practices are secretive according to other standards, but Opus Dei insists they are not because it has its own views of humility.

Improvement: "For example, supporters say accusations of secrecy stem from mistakenly equating its members with monks. Instead, its lay members, like normal professionals, do not externally represent their church group. Opus Dei itself, they say, provides abundant information." Walter Ching 08:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this last round of changes was a bit of a step backwards. There were a couple of problems introduced.[6]. The deletion of the explaination of the "sign of contradiction", for example-- the short description you wrote isn't going to work. People familiar with the subject may catch it, but your average reader will have no idea why it's being discussed as a defense against criticism without the longer description. (and as a side note just for future reference, the 'encyclopedic voice' can't call Jesus by the name "Jesus Christ", but that's just a trivial aside which would be easily fixed if that was the only problem).
The deletion of the rebuttal to secrecy introduced its own problems. For one, it's just original research-- you're basically making up your own explaination and putting into the article, which is a no-no. Obviously we probably could dig up somebody saying more-or-less the same thing your saying if that's the only problem, but that has to be done first. In this case, I don' think OR is the only issue-- that new text introduces a problem when it talks about the "normal professionals do not externally represent their church group"-- it's not clear, but what I think you mean is "People don't normally go around saying what church group they belong to". But obviously, that's a somewhat forced analogy-- most people are very open about being members of the catholic church, however, but might be more discrete about being members of Opus Dei.
Which is to say-- yes, you're correct when you say Allen's "humility" argument does acknowledge, as implication, that OD has a long history of being somewhat "discrete/secretive", but attributes this this to a positive virtue rather than a negative attribute. If you and Baccyak4H, feel strongly about it, it might be okay to replace his argument with an outright denial that OD is "discrete/secretive". Personally, I think the blunt denial is much more of a strawman arguement than the "humility" argument-- it's a matter of record that OD has a uniquely "discrete/secretive" history, with its "secret/discrete" latin-only constitution and the "secret/discrete" rules requiring prior approval before revealing you're a member. Even strong supporters of the organization admit OD has a history of what we might call "lack of transparency"-- though not by any means necessarily about bad thing.
That said, this section isn't the "accurately summarize facts" section, it's the "summarize arguments" section. In an earlier version, I kept in the blanket denial "OD does not recruit" for similar reasons-- it was obviously a strained argument, but it's not my job to delete the arguments I find harder to swallow and replace them with ones I find more palatable. So, if you (Walter) really still feel the point-blank "OD provides abundant information" approarch is better, let me know and we can ask Bac and some of the other old RFCS if they agree that's the way to go. If they do, I'm sure we can cobble together a sourced blanket "OD isn't discerete/secretive" sentence that will comply with OR and won't present opinions as facts.
--Alecmconroy 09:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Did you take a look at the footnote you placed??? There's a long quote of JLA: "I’m not sure that today, you can make an argument that Opus Dei is secretive in the sense that people normally mean it. One needs to distinguish between some Opus Dei members and Opus Dei corporate policy...At the level you would use to identify secret societies in the world, I just don’t think Opus Dei rates. Their offices, their headquarters are a matter of public record — the information office puts out information about budgets and membership and all that kind of stuff. So I wouldn’t say it was secretive...And their logic for that is, again, secularity. They don’t want to be a religious community and they don’t want to run specifically religious enterprises — they want to run secular enterprises that have a Christian spirit. Therefore they don’t want to be distinct from the rest of the world. That’s one reason why they don’t wear habits. [7] Read Messori Chapter on Strangeness of not being strange, and other chapters. My version is a summarized arguments section. Walter Ching 08:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Replaced unenlightening repetition

Old version: Similarly, Opus Dei stresses the importance of labor, and places great value on industriousness, diligence, and hard work.

Implication: This version merely repeats synonyms, takes up space, but does not add any additional information.

New version: Similarly, Opus Dei stresses the importance of work and professional competence....According to its official literature, some other main features of Opus Dei are: divine filiation, a sense of being children of God; freedom; and charity. Walter Ching 11:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV and Suppression of essential backgrounders

A glaring problem of this article is a suppression of the names of people who hold views. This is a direct violation of Wikipedia:NPOV in the name of "not including in the text unnecessary details"  ???

In fact, names of representatives are not details but necessary information for NPOV to work as envisioned by Wikipedians:

Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular...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. It is also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them. It is often best to cite a prominent representative of the view.

I will endeavor to correct this glaring suppression of essential facts. Walter Ching 07:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Go for it. I do think, however, that there are there are better ways to word your last sentence. As written, it would not be hard to construe "glaring suppression", with my intended emphasis on the noun, as an assumption of bad faith. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 13:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Baccyak4H, thank you for your kind encouragement and my apologies if you felt slighted by my use of words, although I do know that you (Baccyak) did not have a hand in writing this part of the article. I feel disappointed for myself that my use of words has been construed as an assumption of bad faith. First, because the word "suppress" comes right out of Wikipedia's policy vocabulary. Second, there are quite a number of meanings expressed by the word "suppress". One connotes stoppage by using force; and another merely refers to "keeping something from being published". And if people assume good faith on my part, they can very well choose the second meaning for my statement, and will then come to understand that I assume good faith as well as they do.
May I also refer to your use of "bad company fallacy" or a form of reductio ad Hitlerum where you attempted to associate my good name to an unsavory character. I would like to inform you that I forgive you, and I would continue to be happy working for Wikipedia, despite everything. Thank you and I wish you a nice weekend. Walter Ching 07:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, honestly I do not understand about half of what you wrote, and from the other half I can easily infer you did not understand what I did. I took it to your Talk, since I have no issues with this page per se Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
The second half referred to your statements here, for which I am sorry I failed to refer to earlier. Walter Ching 03:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This may just be me

I'm fairly new to the community, so I may not know all of the ins and outs yet, but why is there a "citation needed" marker after cite 100? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Capt.Frigate (talk • contribs) 03:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

You are right. Everything said in that sentence can be found easily in ref 100. I will remove that cite tag. -- Túrelio 08:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] masochism

On the other hand, critics state that self-mortification is a "startling" and "questionable" practice— one which borders on masochism.

You can't understand mortification as a way of masochism, In the catholic doctrine, the mortification is suposed to "hurt", if you like it, then you are not doing mortification but some thing else --Domingo Portales 15:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opus Dei and Catholic Church leaders

There are two sections in this Opus Dei article that does not have its own main article: Structure and Papal Support.

Someone redirected the article titled Opus Dei and Catholic Church leaders, an article that fits perfectly into Papal Support, and has high notability. As per our discussion, Badlydrawnjeff and I believe the article can stand on its own. May I ask an Admin to help bring back the article to its previous state? Thank you for whatever help you can give. Lafem 02:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../o/p/u/Talk%7EOpus_Dei_4841.html"