Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Opus Dei

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mediation closed 17:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC) as parties have resolved most issues, and are happy to end the mediation.

Parties: If you wish to resume this mediation, please file a new request.

Contents 1 Initial Questions 2 Some further thoughts 3 Responses to Wisden17's points 3.1 Images 3.2 Balance 3.2.1 Criticism 4 Next steps 4.1 Summarizing the article 4.2 Combining proportionate distribution of space and non-assertion of pov: how? 4.3 Wikipedia on bias and non-assertion of views 4.4 Intermixing 4.5 Things I like/dislike about Opus Dei 5 History Section 6 Remaining big issues 6.1 Balance 6.1.1 But who are the experts? 6.2 Article Length 6.3 Use of a response section 6.4 Images 6.5 Theology section 7 The criticisms of Opus Dei 8 Actions and ideology 9 John Stuart Mill & Planned Parenthood, potential compromise 10 Potential Compromise First Step 11 Resolution

Hi, well eventually we can start! I'm sorry it has taken a while for a mediator to take your case and to get this mediation started.

Let me start with a few basics. We must try to keep the mediation as civil as possible. Mediation is an entirely voluntary process, and we will get nowhere with people simply insulting each other. However, it appears from the relevant talk pages etc. that all discussion so far has been relatively civil.

The nature of my mediations tends to be a series of questions, which I ask all of you to comment on, in order to lead and focus the discussion.

[edit] Initial Questions

Let me start with these:

• What are the advantages of adding a NPOV template to the article, would time not be better served trying to discuss what we feel is actually POV?
• Does a tone shift have to be "historical" to "religious" or vice-versa is there no middle ground (on a deeper level surely all religion is historical!)?
• What are the objections to the images on the page, I know this has been discussed before, but try to summarise here what the main objections are?
• And finally, with regard to the introduction, referencing "multiple specific details" about controversies, does that really fit in with this?

Let us try to keep comments brief and to the point. --Wisden17 23:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for helping us out. One thing that has changed in the six weeks or so since we wrote the original RFM, is that I have written up a suggestion of what I feel the article should look like-- that suggestion serves as a more concrete example of the direction I feel we should be going-- it's often easier to point to that concrete example, rather than to try and use vague words like "historical" vs "religious".

Specific questions:

• I agree we don't need to spend time talking about the NPOV template-- it's just a temporary measure, and now that we're in mediation, we can focus our efforts on how to bring it down. There had been some edit battles over the NPOV template, but they ceased a while ago.
• "Historical" vs "Religious" was definitely a clumsy of choice of words on my part. In arguing for "historical", I think I was trying to emphasize that the article should be verfiable and encyclopedic in tone-- not that it should be non-religious in subject matter. Or to directly answer you-- yes.. there's a huge amount of gray in the middle of the two, and the ideal article is a synthesis of the two, not one or the other-- but a history of a religious group.
• I think there are two concerns about the images. One concern is that the images may convey certain value-laden propositions about Opus Dei: when its members are shown as happy, smiling familes, or when its founder surrounded by admiring crowds, it's implies that Opus Dei must be inherently positive. I think this is what other editors have meant when they described the images as "propagandistic". The second concern about the images is just that many of the images are non-notable: random family snapshots, generic religous paintings, book covers of books related to Opus Dei, conference centers where Opus Dei members sometimes meet-- I feel these images don't really give the reader any new informmation.

Am I allowed to interject? As a total newcomer to this mediation and the page being mediated, I looked at the pictures being curious as to whether the pictures were "value-laden" because of admiring crowds or smiling families, as claimed by Alecmconroy and, as he reports, other editors. Well, as a newcomer, my impression is that that is silly. Exactly what pictures do we need, someone with a scowling face to balance out the smiling faces? Someone being egged by growling crowds to balance out the adoring crowds? This is an article about some religious order -- naturally people who choose to be in this order might be smiling and happy -- I see no way this could be propaganda if before going in people know this is of a religious nature and that religion's followers might be happy with that religion and its leaders. And as to non-notable pictures, I felt those pictures added information even if another picture might have been as well suited. This is just my initial opinion as a total newcomer and I'm not likely to interject further on this issue. Thanks. --SafeLibraries 07:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

On the images, none are especially prejudicial for or against OD, however the image in the top right position of the article obviously shows OD positively. If you moved that photo down the page to a different location and simply placed an OD logo in its place then that would remove a pro-OD image from the most important image position on the page.69.255.0.91 15:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.255.0.91 (talk • contribs).

• The "multiple specific details in intro" is another clumsy choice of words. It referred to some specific details that were added seven weeks ago which I felt unbalanced the article further. My overarching concern is just that the lead section be balanced, rather than contain an over-abundance of one side or the other in the Opus Dei debate.

Hope I wasn't too verbose in my replies!  :) --Alecmconroy 00:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Wisden17, for helping us go through this issue! And also much thanks to Alec for his patience and his efforts.  :)

Re the proposed article: the opposition to the proposed new article which gives 50:50 to criticism and response, is based on the Wikipedia non-negotiable NPOV policy: "to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject" which I have called the Crux of the Matter. Related to this is the issue of whether there can be expertise and therefore proportioning of space as regards a religious group. I have just written my response on this here at the end of this sub-section: In summary, I said that in religious matters based on faith (cf NPOV tutorial), i.e. based on the authority of a Deity, there is little expertise and proportioning, but on a religious group which has social issues, there can be socio-historical, empirical expertise. And therefore greater space should be given to these experts. IMO, the 12 criticisms listed can be studied sociologically, as John Allen, Jr. did in his work which has been praised by many both secular and Catholic.

• Re NPOV template: Some editors have argued against the template using Wikipedia:NPOV Dispute: Probably the only grounds on which there could be an NPOV dispute over an article that actually conformed to the NPOV is when one or both of the parties to the dispute did not understand either the NPOV policy, or enough about the subject matter to realize that nothing favoring one POV had actually been said. For example, ideologues, when presented with an article that has exemplary neutrality (as per our policy), will consider the article biased precisely because it does not reflect their own bias enough.

However, I agree that it may be better to focus on what is the exact POV issue, thus my focus on the crux of the matter.

• Re tone shift. IMHO, this issue is related to the proportioning issue. If the experts on Opus Dei regarding its varied aspects, religious and social, are the prominent writers such as John Allen, Jr., Vittorio Messori, Massimo Introvigne, Peter Berglar, then it follows, given NOR, that we should follow their use of religious categories to study its religious aspects. And since Opus Dei is seen by both its opponents and its supporters as a religious group, some religious, theological categories were also used by these authors to study its social aspects, while, of course, not neglecting to use socio-historical categories to study these social aspects.

Again, thanks Wisden 17!! Great point, Tom!! Frankly there's no room for tone shift really. Hey guys, check out:Hinduism, Buddhism, Baha'i Faith. Almost half of these articles is spent on their beliefs and teachings!! Isn't logical that religious people are explained on the basis of their beliefs? Why make an exception for Opus Dei? Why treat it historically? Doesn't the article give space to Estruch in the very first section of this article? That's a generous concession. I did it myself, you know. And am willing to be more generous. We can always add to the historical timeline, couldn't we? That should finish all this debate, really. It's clear to me all Alec's objections have been answered, what with Safelibraries fresh look! Ndss 11:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

ND, I'm not doing a very good job of communicating my concerns, because you're conflating two separate issues. How much space we devote to Beliefs and Teachings is one issue. The tone of the article is a totally different issue. Tone is about ensuring opinions are not stated as facts and taking care that every sentence is verifiable. Consider a sentence from the current article: "All Christians are called to a life of holiness". Now look at the parallel sentence from my suggested replacement article: "Opus Dei emphasizes a 'universal call to holiness'-- the idea that everyone should aspire to be saint-like, not just a few special individuals." See the difference? They both convey the same thought, both take up comparable amounts of space, but the tone makes all the difference in the world.

Putting aside tone, let me explain the space concern, since I didn't above. The current article is monstrously long. I think the theology parts have the most tone, verifiability, and NPOV problems, and they use five sentences where one would do-- I feel like they're more "sermon style" than "summary style". Moreover, we all agree Opus Dei doesn't even have its own theology apart from the Catholic church. Certainly, it may emphasize a few points of Roman Catholic theology, but fundamentally, OD isn't a new religion, it's just a prelature-- a jurisdictional district of sorts. The Opus Dei article, therefore, isn't very similar to the Hinduism or Buddhism articles at all-- it's more like the article on the Archdiocese of Chicago. It suffices for us to simply say that: Archdiocese of Chicago Theology = Opus Dei Theology = Roman Catholic Theology-- we don't need three separate articles rehashing the same theology.

--Alecmconroy 23:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to Ndss for referencing these religion articles and to Alec for his specific clarifications.

Let me help in this discussion, for I am as eager as everybody to finish this long-drawn discussion as soon as we can, but with enough calm, of course. :)

• Re tone. As defined by Alec, "Tone is about ensuring opinions are not stated as facts and taking care that every sentence is verifiable."

Perhaps this quote from Wikipedia:NPOV could help guide us: assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves.

IMO, the introductory statement for these opinions of Escriva/Opus Dei could take care of the concern that these statements be shown clearly as belonging to somebody else and not to Wikipedia qua encyclopedia: "The following are the main features of Escrivá's spiritual teachings, the core message of Opus Dei". Wikipedia:Verifiability refers to statements being verified as belonging to this or that published material, not to statements that might be spiritual or non-material in content.

Indeed, there were attempts in the past of including statements such as "Opus Dei teaches that", "Escriva said that", but they were reversed in favor of the present solution, perhaps because they needlessly lengthened the statements. Anyway, if people think this is the best way to avoid misunderstandings in the future, then I'd go along with putting in these phrases.

I've just done some changes. Thomas 08:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Re space dedicated to OD theology: I totally agree with Alec that OD in its jurisdictional aspect is akin to the Archdiocese of Chicago, but I also see that it is a prelature that has a specific mission, which is not that of a diocese: its mission is to teach about the universal call to holiness, its meaning, its content, its how-tos for the average Catholic. And since its teaching is still relatively new to many, a bit of space would be necessary for it to be elucidated properly, especially since it has been called "revolutionary", that is it is changing a long-standing mindset. Its teaching on freedom I think is crucial for understanding secularity (it's not the church hierarchy running the world, but each one runs his own life and is answerable for it). Its view of charity is also important in the sense that OD shows how it is practiced in ordinary life. Morever, Catholic spirituality is very rich in diversity as you can see from the article itself, or even more clearly here.

• Re sermon style: The content itself is a synthesis of Escriva sermons. I don't have an opinion on the best way of resolving this, but as I said in the past if the majority pov is the Catholic pov, then it might be ok to keep the section as it is. But I do like some of the ways by which Alec has explained the Opus Dei theology: average Catholic for laity, comparison with Catholic orders. I'd like to listen to other editors' opinions on how we can best resolve this. In fact it may even be to the interest of OD, a lay organization, that its theology be couched in more secular, lay terms, as its own website does. :) Thomas 02:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

In the interest of mediation and compromise and also knowing that Alec has complained about too many endorsements, I have just removed three specific endorsements (Malik, Fox-Genovese, JPII) and downgraded Fabro's to a footnote. Hope this helps us move towards settlement. :) Thomas 05:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

So, what do you think of the theology section I wrote? I tried to just condense the old section and hit the high points that all sources agree are emphasized by OD: universal call to holiness, focus on laity, unity of life, and force on work. I left out mortification-- we have a whole section about mortification later in the article, and I sort of feel like it's not really as central to OD as the critics suggest. I left out charity, because we talk about the charitable works later, and charity is a such big part of all christainity and catholicism, it doesn't seem to be very OD-specific. I also omitted the "freedom" issue, because while Journalistic Coverage of Opus Dei always mentions the universal call to holiness, the focus on work, and the focus on laity, they don't talk about the freedom aspect. Also, the extent to which OD has a "love of individual freedom" is one of the central issues of the controversy. What do you think about it? I feel like my version tells the reader almost all the same information, but is much shorter, to the point, and is easer for the average reader to understand.

The Crux of the Matter -->

You also say "if the majority pov is the Catholic pov, then it might be ok to keep the section as it is." I think you make an excellent point in predicating your arguments based on the issue of how we should treat the Catholic POV-- is it one of two sides in a controversy, or are we going to treat the catholic POV as the POV of majority, consensus, and expertise. This issue is critical. We need to decide if (1) the article should be written "in proportion to experts" and if (2) Allen and other pro-OD sources are the only reliable experts. If those two statements are true, then the article only might need only minor changes. If, however, we can't reach the conclusion that both of those are true-- if we think the article should be written without favoring either side in the debate, if we doubt that Allen et. al. are really the only reliable experts, and if we doubt the pro-OD sources are more reliable than both the neutral/journalistic and anti-OD sources, then I think the article will need a more-extensive renovation. Right now, I think you believe both (1) and (2) are true. I currently believe both (1) and (2) are false. When we can come to some sort of an agreement about that point, then we'll know what sort of article we should write. But... we've given Wisden lots to chew over. Let's see what he's got to say.

--Alecmconroy 17:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a million, Alec! I read through your proposal a few times and as i said I like your layman way of presentation.

And special thanks for pointing at the crux of the matter. Let me restate it in brief here:

"NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." (direct quote) Proportion or correct relationship between parts is the key to Wikipedia NPOV. Prominence and credibility are given more space in Wikipedia. And so are the more reliable sources.

I argue that (A) there are many independent proofs from the major secular press agencies for whom he works, from professional reviews and commentaries (including critics), and from the public that John Allen is not just a prominent, highly respected journalist and expert on Catholic affairs, but his empirical study on Opus Dei is considered definitive, most informative, expertly written. His detailed research moreover confirms previous studies of other prominent and credible sources such as Messori, West, Thierry, and Berglar. And thus, also the writings of such world-prominent theologians and Catholic writers such as John Paul II and Ratzinger, and in the end the writings of Opus Dei members who studied Opus Dei: Le Tourneau, Rodriguez, and of course, Escriva. (B) Also, there are specific proofs that the sources for the critics of Opus Dei are not as reliable and as prominent, namely Walsh, Tapia, Hutchinson, etc. (C) Those who criticize the neutrality of this page have not presented counter proofs that outweigh or disprove (A) the proofs in favor of the Allen et al, and (B) the proofs against the OD critics.

The theology sections therefore should be written taking into account the conclusions of John Allen et al. As regards the OD religious message, Allen enumerates Sanctification of Work, Contemplatives in the Middle of the World, Christian Freedom, and Divine Filiation, as "cornerstones." If you now have amazon's copy, then let's study that Section Two of his book. Thomas 02:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

And, for my part, I argue: (1) This is a religious/moral debate, and we should treat both sides equal on general principle. (2) Even if are going to let the "experts" dominate the article, the Pro-OD sources are not the greatest experts on this, because there are questions of their neutrality (i.e. all are Catholic). Instead, I feel CNN, Time Magazine, and other sources are the most reliable experts on this, since they lack any clear religious bias. (3) While many book reviews have said nice things about Allen, the major media sources fail the share his conclusions. Therefore we should not let his opinions dominate the article.

Condensed: On general principle alone, we should be neutral on moral debates. And if CNN, Time magazine, BBC, NBC, CBS, and Fox didn't let his opinions dominate, neither should we.

--04:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Check these out. Are these Catholic sources?

CNN on Opus Dei. They called Allen "our Vatican analyst": http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0603/14/lol.02.html

This is a very brief clips that talks mostly about the Da Vinci code and then allows Allen to plug his book. But look at CNN when it devotes full coverage to OD. [1] and [2]. Pro-OD coverage doesn't dominate

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0512/12/acd.02.html

Includes some very intense comments from critics. CNN doesn't take a stand on the issue one way or the other.

NPR on Opus Dei. They called Allen Vatican analyst of CNN and of NPR: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5029154

This is a book review & exerpt, not a journalistic story of OD.

Newsweek on Opus Dei. They interviewed Allen. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7288539/site/newsweek/

And we should talk to Allen too. But he's one voice, one side in a debate-- not both sides.

USNews on Opus Dei. It's positive towards Opus Dei. http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/features/davinci/opus_dei.htm

It is not. It's neither. It mentions ODAN, the cilice, Robert Hansen the OD member who was a treasonous spy.

Time Magazine on Opus Dei. They said Allen's work is most informative and its more positive than negative towards Opus Dei.

They too interview ODAN, and they do not let the Pro-OD viewpoint dominate the article.

CBS on Opus Dei. Maria Teichner four time Emmy awardee calls Allen's book widely considered definitive book on Opus Dei. More positive than negative on Opus Dei. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/30/sunday/main1561631.shtml

CBS too interviews ODAN, and they do not let the Pro-OD viewpoint dominate the article.

Foxnews on Opus Dei. Interviews Amy Wellborn who is pro-Opus Dei. See her website and who throws out criticisms on Opus Dei. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,195875,00.html

This isn't even an article about Opus Dei-- it only comes up once, when she mentions that OD doesn't have monks-- not a disputed fact. Therefore, this story too is neither Pro-OD nor Anti-OD

BBC on Opus Dei. The latest is Titled fact vs fiction. Do you know who they interviewed to lay the fiction to rest? Jack Valero, spokesman of OD. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/hardtalk/4989976.stm

Can't get this video to play right now, but this bbc story certainly isn't dominated by Pro-OD.

In the past, BBC always showed 50:50 on OD. But now it's different. After Allen. Still, Wikipedia policy is not 50:50. It's different. It's proportion.

Hey, remember Tom's point? 12 disputed items are not religious matters based on faith, but social matters of a religious group. Big difference, really. Sorry, pal. Ndss 05:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

ND, you miss the point completely. No one's saying we can't present the Pro-OD viewpoint. Of course the major new sources mentioned OD & Allen's viewpoint-- so should we! But just like CNN and all the other major news sources, we should be neutral in the matter, we should balance the pro-OD sides with OD criticism, just like CNN and Time do. Looking at their coverage, I'd say the correct proportions are about 50% consensus fact, 25% pro-OD, 25% anti-OD. You can't point out that all the articles interview pro-OD sources as if that somehow disproves me. That's exactly what I'm arguing for.

I can cite you ten bazillion major news stories that let neither side dominate-- you couldn't even show me five that let OD dominate. show me the CNN headline that says "Wonderful Humanitarian Organization Maligned by Extremists"-- it doesn't happen. Show me the CNN article that's 95% pro-OD, the way many people would like this article to be.

You cannot convince me that society has some how come to a consensus on what the truly good religious organization is. I may not get out much, but I think I would have heard if the 10,000 year old question "Which religions are good and which religions aren't" suddenly got solved behind my back. It is not true! CNN isn't reporting it that way, Time magazine isn't reporting it that way. You're trying to tell me that after 10,000 years of people fighting and arguing and killing over religions, Allen has come along and figured it out and everyone agrees he is the most reliable expert on the subject? If the supposed experts have really got it all figured out and they have a formula to tell me what religion is good and what religion is bad, why does Opus Dei only have 85,000 members worldwide-- there are universities with more students than that. If everyone really believes Allen is so reliable that his views should dominate, why hasn't the world gone and joined Opus Dei? I don't care HOW many times you claim to believe that Allen is the only expert who counts, the other five billion people on the planet do not believe he gets to dominate the discussion by virtue of his expertise.

If there were really religious experts who can accurately tell us all which religions are good and which religions are bad, then we could all agree, and they wouldn't be killing each other in Lebanon right this very second as we speak. But they are killing each other, because nobody can decide what religions are the good ones. Not experts, not society, not anyone.

Mind you, I do NOT think we should let the ANTI-OD people dominate EITHER. I don't trust them any more thant I trust Allen. But I refuse to believe that Wikipedia should pick a side and then write an article that lets one side dominate. Period.

There is only one formula that can possibly allow us to conclude Allen's expertise is so great that it should dominate over all the other viewpoints. Here is the formula. 1. I personally believe Opus Dei is wonderful. 2. Allen said so too! Therefore 3. Allen is the most reliable human being who has ever lived.

--Alecmconroy 06:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Alec!! Really, no need to raise our voice here. ;)

Notice your CNN posts? Pre-Allen (2001, 2002!) All of my posts are the latest from these news agencies. Now in 2006 CNN calls Allen our Vatican analyst. Allen's voice is CNN's official voice, you know. Same thing with NPR. Allen's voice is NPR's official voice.

No more comment on the other things. They've all been answered, IMHO. Some unWiki ideas mentioned in your User Page can do some reviewing before we can understand each other here. Ndss 09:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Re images. Please see Why those images in QandA. These images support the conclusions of these prominent and credible experts.

• Re details in the intro: Thanks for bringing up the Guide. From there, I also checked out the Guide on Lead Section. For more than 30,000 characters like this article, 3 to 4 paragraphs are ok. Please also see [3]

Thanks and I hope we can settle this with great civility and peace. :) Thomas 08:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I just saw the comments of Safelibraries. I also give him much thanks. I totally agree with the points he raised. As I said before, in this age of visuals (MTV, movies, internet, etc), a picture can say so many things: how things are organized, how the people are, who are these people, etc. Thomas 08:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Let me add this. I have now read some of the article. It is LOADED with views both for and against the subject, and I now cannot believe the article is "propagandistic" in any way, except perhaps the opposing information is very detailed and extensive and perhaps too much of a percentage of this article. I have been trying to add even a tiny fraction of similar opposing information into pages about the American Library Association and I have been opposed every step of the way. Alecmconroy is one of my chief opposers. As I read Opus Dei I was shocked with all the opposing information and citations contained within the article when the ALA articles are constantly keep from containing hardly any opposing information whatsoever. Clearly I am being misled by those claiming articles may not contain opposing information that I post because I oppose the ALA and supposedly have a soapbox/bias. The amount of opposing information in this Opus Dei article is far, far in excess of even the small amount people like Alecmconroy allow me to add to ALA articles that would otherwise be total propaganda (actually written by ALA members) without someone at least getting a little opposing information into the page.

So, in sum, regarding the Opus Dei article, the voluminous amount of opposing information in the article makes it impossible to regard this article or its pictures as propagandistic. --SafeLibraries 09:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your fresh view of the Opus Dei article, I would agree with most of it. But please, don't label anybody here as "my chief opposer". Though "opposer" is nothing bad for itself, IMHO it sounds a little bit like "ad hominem". Always try to AGF. --Túrelio 09:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Actually, he is also my chief supporter as his comments have almost always been directed toward improving my edits. Indeed I'm even contributing on this page because of his influence. I said what I said only with the best of intentions knowing he has been a big help to me. --SafeLibraries 09:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Whither or not the pictures are POV they have little or nothing to do with the text in true I like the theme of most of them I think the article should have more on what opus dei does in the world over it spiritual beliefs but not at the expense of making the article longer.

Check out most the FA's. Most are very long, you know. See my explanations! Ndss 11:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

IESE Business School Barcelona Campus.[[4]]

-- shows Opus Dei in society. Connects with text from Ratzinger: Opus Dei - unconditional openness to all the challenges of this world, in the academic world, in the world of work, in the world of economics

Picture of the prelatic Church of Opus Dei at the Opus Dei headquarters in Rome.[[5]]

-- shows Opus Dei is religious institution esssentially. Connects with text: "Catholic Church per se is beyond earthly power struggles and is engaged in a fundamental struggle for the peace and happiness of each soul"

Women members of Opus Dei and their friends in Condoray Centre in Peru [[6]]

-- shows "Opus Dei members, says Messori, are mostly from the middle and lower classes."

"Parents must teach that the first calling of the Christian is to follow Jesus." The statment is conected to the piece but aside from it being a very nice paining it very hard to see relivence. [[7]]

-- connects with text: Richard Neuhaus on separation from families and f belief

Pope Benedict XVI blessing the statue of St. Josemaria in one of the niches of St. Peter's Basilica [[8]]

-- supports Introvigne idea that Opus Dei is integral part of church

Image of Our Lady, Empress of China [[9]]

-- caption (greatest saint did ordinary family things -- Escriva) completes Ratzinger's idea (Escriva taught you don't need special heroism to be a saint)

Arnold Hall Conference Center [[10]]

-- images shows where training happens

Explanatory comments added by Ndss, 11:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC) (formatting tweaked by Alec)

.Ansolin 17:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Other topics. Not yet addressed in the article is whether it is similar to the Catholic Traditionalist movement, a group that has not accepted the reforms of Vatican II. OD uses a Latin mass, like the church where movie star Mel Gibson worships, but there's no information in the article on whether OD exerienced a rise in popularity after 1965. 69.255.0.91 15:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.255.0.91 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Some further thoughts

Right, well those few questions certainly sparked a good response. The above answers are very encouraging and it seems that there has been movement in the right direction with the article. Let me now take the points raised above:

• Images: for me the images add a lot to the article, and I don't see them as too much of a problem. There may be a few too many pictures though, but I mean I hardly think this is the major issue to discuss. I personally think 25 images on a article of that length is a bit too many, and so we may want to discuss about removing some pictures. I should point out though that to me having images of smiling families etc. is fine, but the question I would ask is what do certain photos contribute to the article, for example, the Toni Zweifel image seems to me to be unnecessary. It doesn't seem to highlight or illustrate anything at all (I don't think that a picture is needed to show a numerary!).

• The issue of NPOV: right well this seems to be the "bone of contention". This is most often the reason for mediation disuptes, disagreements over what reliable sources are, and what NPOV really is. Now looking at the article and the healthy and constructive debate you've had above let me give you a few things to consider. I wouldn't get too focused on debating individuals and how prominent they are etc., the issue really does have to be about presenting both sides of the issue, and trying not to do so by simply having a pro-article and then a small criticism section at the end. I see you have a good list of links at the bottom of the page, which is good, but I think there is still room to perhaps add more criticism throughout the article as a whole. The aim of any article is to present a balance, and whilst of course prominent sources etc. will get more focus there must still be a balance in the article. The question then is: how to do so? I understand that this is the main issue that has caused friction on the page, and that the argument seems to be that as there are a number of pro-OD sources that the article needs to be highly pro-OD. (Fair enough, that is a slight simplification, but highlights the main issue.) Let me quot from WP:NPOV "The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted. All significant published points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions." Let us discuss then what you would like to see added to the article in relation to this issue, or perhpas changed in the article. NPOV is there to ensure balance in articles, and it seems above that this message seems to have been lost somewhere.

Right so it seems that we need to focus on how best to achieve a better NPOV in the article, and also look at perhaps reducing the number of images. --Wisden17 10:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Responses to Wisden17's points

[edit] Images

I'm just an interloper on this topic for the hottest days of summer, so I make my observations to improve the article, not to complicate the process.

Below are a few photos I located on web. I didn't post the photos to this page since they have to be cleared by those who own the copyrights to them.

This is a photo of the OD headquarters in NYC. For those who are pro-OD, it is impressive and new, a sign of success. For those who are anti-OD, it is imposing and ominous, a sign of secret wealth accumated by questionable means.

http://www.bjartur.is/?i=43&o=777

Here are a few extra photos of Escriva. Some photos currently used are technically publicity photos, as a PR firm might distribute of a corporate executive. Nothing wrong with them, it's just that the article will have a more balanced look if non-publicity photos are used in the more prominent locations. The first photo is a good black and white likeness taken at an event, not a studio. The second is a good color likeness of an older Escriva in 1971, but he's looking into the camera.

http://www.catholicweekly.com.au/01/dec/2/08.html http://www.openhere.com/current/intlback2004.htm

This is a photograph of an unidentifiable female wearing a cilice, which for me helped to expand upon the subject more than just correcting the movie that the cilice is not to break the skin or to be worn all night. The page loads slowly because it's a personal site from Brazil. Also, the WP article says critics oppose OD over mortification but it does not say exactly what is offensive about the practice. A set of snow chains around my leg isn't my choice, but I regularly cause my body pain in the name of better cardiovascular health.

http://www.estulto.weblogger.terra.com.br/

It's not a reach to say that the public impression of OD is probably a notch or two toward the negative side of balanced as a result of the Da Vinci Code book and film. So the tension lies between accuracy and the pre-judged views of the public. The OD article that sufficed pre-Da Vinci Code is not one that can find consensus today, and yet the pre-Code critics of OD had few of their criticisms included in the film.69.255.0.91 18:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

69.225, the pics you show are all great, but I don't think we're allowed to use them, since they're under copyright. Obviously, if someone wants to write and try to obtain permission, that'd be great. I think a pic of the HQ and a color pic of Escriva would definitely add something.

Looking through the article, I think the best and most informative images are:

• Esriva prayer card-- we have to have an Escrivá pic, I think the official prayer card is the one we should use. Escriva as a boy isn't as relevant to OD, and Escrivá with arms outstretched in front of audience of admirers doesn't show him as well and some people regard is has raising more NPOV issues than the prayer card image.
• Echevarria-- Seems very appropriate to have a pic of the current prelate
• Cilice-- I think this is very essential because the typical description "a length of barbed wire around their thigh" conjures up and image of barbed wire fencing bloodily digging the thigh. Very important to show the reality of these things and let people see how tiny the spikes are.

Similarly, I think some of the images add very little to the article and as such are the "worst" images:

• The four snapshots of random non-notable OD members(1, 2, 3, 4): these pics add nothing. Every religion has average members of varying races and varying family sizes. I could take those same pics and use them in any article. The caption for these could basically read "Opus Dei has members who are humans." -- not informative.
• The images of semi-notable Opus Dei members: Zweifel,Fontan. They might be find for List of prominent members of Opus Dei, but we don't need to mention them by name in this article and we don't need the pics.

What images do other think absolutely should or shouldn't be in the article.

--Alecmconroy 07:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

After removing some images, I've done more tweaking. I removed the image of Benedict XVI blessing Escriva's statue because Benedict already appears elsewhere, and Escriva's canonization is also featured elsewhere.

I brought back Zweifel's image as a way of further explaining to the reader that Opus Dei's way is that ordinary people, like a Swiss engineer, have the capability of becoming canonized saints. That would explain the other images that seemingly can be used for other articles (as many other images in Wikipedia are used for many other articles). They explain that the members are ordinary people who can become holy, they need not wear habits as buddhist monks or the sisters of Missionaries of Charity (a far cry from the image Dan Brown painted and which millions of people now have of Opus Dei thanks to Brown). Instead members are ordinary people who generally proceed from the lower classes (condoray) as compared to other organizations who can only admit elites, can also be leftwing politicians as opposed to the myth that they are only rightwing (Fontan), usually have a lot of children (perottet). They show the varied aspects of ordinary people who strive for holiness.

I'm still trying to obtain an image of the seal of Opus Dei and perhaps the national headquarters. Thomas 06:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Balance

Thanks a lot, Wisden17. Those are words of wisdom, I might say, while risking a pun. :)

Thanks for being on the side of smiling pictures. I agree specially because Opus Dei, as I said somewhere, is a smiling asceticism. It's what it is about. I guess some photos might have to go, such as the one of Zweifel, although that has the virtue of putting forward ordinary people whose process of beatification has started.

Thanks for confirming the Wikipedia policy that while "prominent sources etc. will get more focus there must still be a balance in the article."

Since you asked "how to do so?", I searched for the word balance in NPOV and NPOV tutorial and basically here are the two quotes. These will help us make a good decision.

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. And, when available, give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner.

Different views don't all deserve equal space. Articles need to be interesting to attract and keep the attention of readers. 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. (NPOV tutorial)

My opinion is that we have to decide on space divisions. It's difficult thing to do as you have somehow suggested, but anything worth doing is worth sacrificing for and doing well, as they say. :)

Based on an analysis of the reputability and prominence of sources, there might not even be "comparable reputability." But yes, in some cases, as you have said, the solution might just be to add criticism. But this addition will have to happen after an analysis of appropriate space division for that section or issue.

I have more ideas, but am running out of time. Will try later or tomorrow. Thanks again! Thomas 04:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

As I've said, I feel that we should devote most of the article to the consensus reality of Opus Dei-- the things all sides agree are true. The remainder we should divide equally between the pro- and anti-OD sides. Based on the version of the article I wrote, I estimate the proportions as 70% consensus fact, 15% criticism, 15% support. When I say equal proportions for pro- and anti-, I don't mean to be dogmatic about it-- I won't start doing word counts or sentence counts, but I do think it's important that the reasonable reader would look at the article and see both the pro- and con- sides as of "about the same" length. To give one side or the other a noticably larger amount of space is to implicitly endorse one side over the other.

And if NPOV does require us to go for equally balanced, then I think we have to make some major changes. For starters, I'd suggest:

1. Making the bulk of the article a "consensus reality" section that is very careful never to endorse nor criticize OD. Quotes from Popes and ODAN should be moved out of these sections. These sections should briefly summarize Opus Dei just as if were were talking about the Salvation army, the Boy Scouts, or the Red Cross: History, Teachings, Activities, Organizational structure. It's essential that these sections not be used as a forum to introduce opinions about the organization's morality, sanctity, or other value-judgements.
2. Next, we take all the support and criticism that was pulled out of the main part of the article and put it in its own sections. As it is, the opinion is so mixed in with facts that it's impossible to separate the two or to try to balance them. Creating a separate section prevents opinions of one side or the other ovewhelming fact.
3. In the controversy sections, we briefly _summarize_ the the Pro- and Anti-OD sides. Conveying the top ten criticisms, a similar amount of support. If we want to have a full blown "back and forth and back and forth and back and forth" full presentation of the all the evidence, I think it'll have to be left up to sub articles. Whole books have been written on this-- many whole books in fact. We're going to just have to hit the high points. Right now, the article is 100k! suggested is 30k. Obviously, the subpages will have their own NPOV & balance issues, but I do think we have to invoke summary style subarticles if we want to convey all the evidence for and against. Simply stating the criticism and support should suffice for the main Opus Dei page.

I've tried to do these things, and the result is the suggested replacement I'm always spamming everyone with.. Since it was written with the intention of equality, it might be a better starting point for our discussions than the current article, which was written from the Pro-OD standpoint, based upon the "most luminous experts are the Pro-OD ones" paradigm. The main criticism that has been leveled against my suggested replacement is that it did not adhere to that "in proportion to the luminosity of the pro-OD experts" paradigm, but other than that, I haven't really gotten much feedback on it other than that. If we are going to go non-biased, rather than biased towards the pro-OD side, then are there any other issues that would prohibit the adoption of the suggested replacement? What sorts of things would others want to see added or subtracted from it? I presume that some people think we should add several images to it. Is there anything else? In particular, how would the pro-OD editors most like to see the Support for OD section space used? Does my suggestion devote too much space to rebuttal of criticism when it should just be more pure suppport for OD? or vice versa? are the John Paul II and Benedict XVI quotes the ones you would most want used? Aside from the fact that it gives roughly equal space to both sides, are there any other criticisms of the controversy section of the suggestion? Or can we all agree that the suggestion is good as is (assuming of course that we're going to go nonbiased rather than biased-in-proportion-to-experts.)

Lastly, let me wax philosophical for a moment. In the interest of promoting wikilove, and since so many editors here have "come out of the closet" (as it were) as members of Opus Dei, let me ask you: PLEASE don't interpret my belief that pro- and anti- sides should be treated equally as somehow meaning I personally agree with the anti-OD people. I know I may have given that impression, so I wanted to take a time out and tell ya'll that it's really not the case. If feel a duty to report on the criticisms, but that doesn't mean I agree with them. Opus Dei has a lot of harsh criticism being levelled against it, but please, don't think those criticisms are coming from me. The world seems to have survived just fine without having me sit as arbitor of religious truth, and if you've found something that brings good things to your life, then how could I disapprove? So, anyway, I just wanted to make it clear that my criticism of this page is in no way an attack on your religion.

Also.. just consider this. Maybe I'm naive, maybe I'm silly, but I always like to believe that Truth really will win out if it's given an equal presentation. This article doesn't necessarily have to give more space to Pro-OD sources for the readers of it to come out thinking good things about OD. If you have truth on your side, you don't need to have more space or more time. In an equal match, with equal time and equal space given to both sides, the winner, by and large, will be truth. Ya know? :). Okay, enough philosophy and wikilove. What image and text should be in the suggested replacement but aren't?

--Alecmconroy 06:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me just interject here. I can see the logic in what you are saying, but it really is not the best way to go, having a separate sections specifically for criticism etc. These can create what are termed POV-forks and really they don't acheive anything. There is no problem having support for OD if it is correctly referenced etc., whilst it is equally fine (indeed it is necessary) to have properly referenced etc. criticism of OD. From experience it is best to try and weave this into the article, as opposed to simply tacking things onto the end. --Wisden17 10:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

k. I don't completely understand why a support and criticism section is bad. But more imporantly, what should our organization look like instead? Right now, the suggested replacement goes Criticism #1, Criticism #2 etc, and then Support #1, Support #2, etc. Are you saying that instead we should have a section entitled "Criticism and Supports" and goes Criticism #1, Support #1, Criticism #2, Support #2, etc? Or should we take the generic support and sprinkle it through the article, but keep a section that says something like "Cult allegations and rebuttal" that contains the criticisms and replies to the criticisms? Or should we disband the criticisms & support sections all together and pseudorandomly sprinkle the article with the criticism and support?

I just feel strongly that there should be SOME point, somewhere in the article where the "Opus Dei is a cult" side actually gets to make it's case. In the current article, there really isn't a place where that happens-- instead, there's just a homogenized mixture of criticisms thrown in throughout the article-- this means that the there never is one direct presention of each side in the main controversy of "Is OD bad or a 'cult'?". Instead, the "OD is a cult" point of view has been chopped up and strewn across the article, and I think the result is a little schiziophrenic-- a little like the prosection and the defense both trying to make their case at the same time, each interrupting each other and each trying to out-shout the other. At then end, it's a lot harder for the reader to answer "What was each side's case again?".

My other concern is that if we don't have one epicenter where the "Opus Dei is a cult" side is presented, the balance is a going to be a lot harded to maintain, we'll have to be a lot stricter about balance, and we're liable to have a lot of edit wars, as new pro-OD editors (there are many besides the two here) come to the article and try to insert more and more support before and after every single sentence of criticism. The current article is like that: 3 sentences of why OD is good, 1 sentence of criticism, 3 sentences of why the criticism is wrong. Having some central place where the "OD = cult" side makes its argument guards against the Pro-OD side just washing over the other, diluting the criticism to point where it's no longer a connected, coherent argument. Instead it ends up sounding like a sporadic heckling of OD, not a focused argument.

I guess my point is-- we shouldn't look at this as if there are five debates over five different issues, each with some critics and some supporters. Really, I think there is ONE issue: "Is OD a cult?", and each side has five different lines of evidence used in support of their side of the one debate. As such, I feel like there should be some epicenter where the anti-OD people can make their case.

Anyway, that's my two cents for why I think it's important to have a controversy section somewhere in the article in some form or another. But listening to all that, what do you think, Wisd? What sort of organizational structure should be we looking at?

--Alecmconroy 19:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey Wisden!! thanks for that firm hand!! That's what we need here! Whew! at last!

Hey Tom!! Right on the mark! keep it up buddy!! Way to go!

Nice try Alec!! Wisden's right. Cut fotos then balance. Not "equal balance" really. Wikipedian balance, right? Sorry, pal.

Hey guys! Suggestion: can't we just take some kind of commitment to Wikipedia policy? My pal Alec here is now talking about wikilove. How about some concrete love, guys. Just a suggestion. Common of element of mediation? "conversion of respective subjective evaluations into more objective values". Wikipedia:Mediation Alec knows am pro-objectivity. Don't wanna spend one year hearing bout My Wikipedian standards, my wiki policy, my wikilove, my etc.etc etc. Well, but not dictator Jimbo's Wikipedia policy. How about it? Don't wanna go around in circles, you know. Just a suggetion, really.

Important thing is work for balance, that is: divide space describing the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources. Right you are, Wisden. Right you are Tom! Ndss 14:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

ND, you might want to re-read the comments. I haven't heard a lot of support for your theory that "the 'reputability' of sources justifies creating a biased article"-- you might want to double check that Wisden's actually saying that before you congratulate him for agreeing with you on that point. Also, since you have mentioned it three or four times, let me clarify what I mean when I say I disagree with Jimbo's status as benevolent dictator. It would be a mistake for you to think I disagree with Jimbo's policies or disapprove of the man himself. I do not. I'm just commenting that right now the Jimbo is both a person and a title-- like Caesar. One day he's going to get hit by a bus, and then what are we going to do? You keep implying that I have some sort problem with Jimbo himself, but that's not the case at all. He does a great job. In an election, he'd have my vote and he'd win in a landslide. --Alecmconroy 20:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Whoever added the entire biblio wanted this article to become 100kb. It was not like that!! Shouldn't this biblio be a separate article? Ndss 14:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we can remove the bibilograpy and we can summarize the historical timelime. What would people think about me copying over my "History of Opus Dei" and "Other Wikipedia articles on Opus Dei" sections to replace the timeline and bibilography? Those should be relatively non-controversial changes.--Alecmconroy 20:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Why not pal! Am for your History of OD. Just bring it right in! Ndss 10:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I've done more work on the article, including integrating Alec's History of Opus Dei. Also removed one more image in the process. Also transferred some bibliography to their respective sections. Thomas 03:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

Obviously it is hard to decide how to get criticism into an article, and in situation like these I always point people here. What is very important is to also bear in mind points made here. I note you mention the word cult above, just to quote from the last page "The word 'cult' itself is very controversial, and has several different meanings, often with very negative connotations. In general it should be avoided--don't say "X is a cult", say "so and so has called X a 'cult' because...". If the author wants to indicate that there is something wrong with a group by applying the cult label then the article in Wikipedia should focus on the question of what is wrong with the group. Some people assert that yesterday's cults are today's mainstream religions." --Wisden17 00:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

So, I read over the Criticism suggestions. I get the point of why we wouldn't want to have a separate section that consists just of criticism, because tacking on criticism at the end could imply that the criticism isn't as true as the support. Obviously, I agree with the idea that criticism sections "must not be created to marginalize criticism or critics of the article's topic or imply that this criticism is not true while the more positive claims in the rest of the article are."

The criticism page mentions a "reception history" section that contains both support and criticism. Do you think that would be okay for us? I just don't really know how to do a total integration of support & criticism into the text of the article while simultaneously making sure it doesn't become unbalanced or "disrupt the flow of the article". anyway, I hope I'm not being argumentative-- I just don't really understand how you think we should structure the criticism and support.

About use of the word "cult"-- I agree with you 110% I said something very similar not long back-- "cult" isn't a very useful term. Some people would try to tell you that sociologists can use some sort of objective science formula to decide what is a cult, but basically I think "cult" is just code for "religion I don't like".

--Alecmconroy 01:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Next steps

Now, what seems to be the main disagreement over the article? I think we have sorted out the issue relating to the need for a POV-template, and there doesn't seem to be any argument over the need for criticism in the article. The issue of the images could perhaps be discussed a bit further, I personally think that there are a few too many for the article. What do you feel you want to achieve from the mediation, as it seems that most issues are now resolved? --Wisden17 00:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Summarizing the article

Here are the issues I think are still open:

I'm not sure everyone's totally on the same page with the balance. Should we be looking at an equally balanced article? I do, but I get the feeling Tom and ND still think we should be shooting for an article that's 75% pro-OD 25% anti-OD. Obviously, I feel we should be going for 50-50ish.

We're way too long. The present article is kinda unreadable. I'd like to see everything SUMMARIZED, rather than lectured, if that makes sense. The organization structure is VERY messy. A lot of the sections lack focus, or provide us with very little new information, just repeated theology, endorsements and criticisms. In general, I think the article needs to be SHORTENED, SUMMMARIZED, and reorganized. My suggestions:

• "Foundation, mission, and name"-> Let's rename this into "History", shorten the Escriva quote, and add some of the other historical information found in the timeline into this section.
• "Message and spirituality": an overview-- Let's rename this Theology and massively summarize / shortening it. Let's discuss mortification in the mortification section, let's discuss freedom in the controversy section (if we have one).
• "Catholic personal prelature"-> Let's remain this "Structure and activities", summarize and shorten, add information about the how OD is governed,
• "Vocation"-- this section really only conveys one new thought: that the types of membership are ranked. The rest is a rehashing of the theology-- let's put the one userful line into "Types of membership" and cut the remainder.
• "Instruction and training"-- rehashing of theology. Cut it.
• "Faith, novelty, and controversies"-- one part theology which is being covered in the theology section. The controversy should be summarizeds and put wherever we're going to put the controversies. I don't particularly find the "novelty" and the "revolutionary or conservative" discussion to be very helpful-- it seems like an academic discussion of whether OD is a "new" thing within catholicism or a "very old" thing within catholicism. It seems like it might be a little out of the scope of our article and would be more appropriate in some meta-discussion of the whole history of western theology. IT also, to me, seems like this "novel"-vs-"early church" debate exists to brag about Opus Dei. One the one hand, Opus Dei is "new, a breath of fresh air", on the other hand, people insist it's a "return to the early church"-- both points of view are essentially just praise for OD, and I don't think it's a debate we need to get into. Cut it.
• "Call and demands: theological basis" again-- no clear focus. It's half theology, half endorsements/criticism. The theology should be in the theology section, and the rest in what we're doing with the support/criticism.
• "Spiritual practice"-- this is another section of support and criticism. I think we should cut all the verbatim quotes and instead try to summarize the "main points" of the criticism and support somewhere in the article.
• "Mortification"-- this is basically okay.
• "Mission, strategy, and characteristics"-- this section has no focus at all: one part theology rehash, one part novelty discussion, one part praise. cut it.
• "Profile of members and their activities"--more praise and criticism here, with a few useful facts thrown in. Let's move population and corporate works to the "structuce and activities", and cut/summarize the praise/criticism.
• "Opus Dei and women"-- I don't know if we really need to cover this in detail, but if we do, it needs to be a balanced. Right now this section is basically "Why OD is isn't sexist". I think we could summarize this down to about two sentences: some people oppose the male-led nature of catholicism, some peopel don't.
• "Relation with politics"-- again, I'd like to see this summarized down to the accusation of ties with far-right politics and a brief rebuttle.
• "Response to Opus Dei and controversy"-- this is the closest thing we have to a controversy section. I think we need to summarize, shorten, and balance, as I've discussed above.
• "Opus Dei in 'The Da Vinci Code'--- this is basically fine.
• "Revolutionary or conservative?"--- again, this is a very technical discussion, I don't think we need to cover it. There's a lot of support and criticism here, we should summarize, shorten, and centralized.
• "History of Opus Dei: A timeline"--- summarize and prose it, put it at the top as a history section.
• "Bibliography"--- cut it.

Ya'll know where to find what I think this looks like. :)

--Alecmconroy

[edit] Combining proportionate distribution of space and non-assertion of pov: how?

Thanks to everyone, including ND for his encouragement. :)

I agree with Wisden that criticisms should be inserted throughout the article as experience shows. I am not in favor of the replacement article since there is much loss of information.

I've just removed three pictures (Zweifel, women, sign of contradiction). I will try to obtain a picture of the US headquarters. I think that's a good idea.

As to the reception issue raised by Alec, I think the Response of Society section is presently taking care of it.

So, you like the idea of having a Response section? I do too. We just need to actually populate that section with all the OTHER responses of society. Right now, the responses of society are strewn across the landscape haphazardly. I think it would be helpful to have a good solid "response of society" that summarizes all the responses of society, rather than putting tiny bits of those responses into 12 other sections? --Alecmconroy 02:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the main issue that remains was somehow mentioned by Alec: If more reputable and prominent sources should get more space as per Wikipedia NPOV non-negotiable policy on what balance means, how do we write the article in such a way that we do not "assert" that those sources are right and not appear biased?

It's a real dilemma and I hope you can help us. Some of the first critics of this article have already commented about the article: Not biased, but favoured perhaps?. Some like Safelibraries have said that there are far too much criticism already.

What I've seen the editors of this article have done is to use the terms "However", "indicate", "point" to favor criticism while giving them the space their reputability deserves, i.e. much less than the response. These are in fact "Words to Avoid." But they were used precisely to use language techniques to abide by space division policies and the non-assertion of pov policy, two policies which are difficult to juggle. Kindly help us, Wisden17. If you have not yet encountered this issue, could you refer us to other experienced editors like you who have solved this problem before? Thanks for whatever help you can provide. Thomas 02:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I interpret what Wisden has said so far as rejecting the idea that the "luminous expertise theory" justifies us having a biased (or "favored") article, but I'll let him speak for himself. --Alecmconroy 02:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Opus Dei being a Catholic institution, its identity and actions have their foundation in theology. I think this context is inescapable, e.g. Opus Dei's explanation of mortification is Catholic teaching. Theology makes a whole load of things more intelligible when it comes to Opus Dei. I suppose many of the theological statements in the entry got there as a result of some criticism or other, i.e. they have (or had) a purpose. Taking it out would result in loss of valuable information, and I think would inevitably skew the pitch against Opus Dei. If you have to mention allegations you have a duty to report how the other side explains itself, surely. Anonimus 12:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia on bias and non-assertion of views

Some relevant points from Wikipedia:NPOV

• On bias: "Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate. When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed."

How can this be reconciled with the current article which is clearly theology based In particular "One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate"? .Ansolin 03:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• On non-assertion: "To write from a neutral point of view, one presents controversial views without asserting them; to do that, it generally suffices to present competing views in a way that is more or less acceptable to their adherents, and also to attribute the views to their adherents. Disputes are characterized in Wikipedia."

• Thomas 03:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

See, this is why a mediator's so important-- an impartial judge who can point us in the right way. I read every sentence you quoted and see 100% vindication for my belief that the article should not be biased/favored. Presumably, you somehow read the same sentences and quite honestly and truly see in them vindications for the exact opposite proposition. lol. That's subjectivity for ya-- two good faith editors, both trying to get the best article possible, and we can read the exact same sentences and draw exactly opposite conclusions. hehe. Thank goodness for the mediator system-- how would we ever resolve this without them. --Alecmconroy 09:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for both your comments! :) I suppose my point is that what the article has is a cold attribution of statements to people who have stated them, in strict compliance with Wikipedia's No Original Research and it's Neutrality policy on "asserting facts and facts about opinions"; even if these opinions are praise, criticisms, theological or sociological statements, etc.

What the article also has done is to provide more space to the more reputable writers as per Wikipedia policy on balance = division of space according to reputability.

Thus, I understand the feedback that this article is "Not biased, but favoured perhaps?" Hope this helps to clarify my point. I'd appreciate to know your way of interpreting these rules. Thanks. Thomas 04:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intermixing

I see some problems with intermixing the criticisms through out the piece

• first tidiness as some have said there is some criticism in the article but its hard to find if your using wikipedia to fact check you will be mostly out of luck with this article

• second It will be really hard to keep it honest look at this example. I think control is one of the most important criticisms about opus dei

"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((what 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

this is the crux the only response is an allen quot and the quot doesent really tell much other then his opnions maybe the opus dei policy but we have no clue what that is beyoned “delicate respect “.Ansolin 03:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your feedback, Ansolin. I've done some edits to address this. :) Thomas 04:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks it is better then it was but there are some problems

1 first there more to the issue too be honest though this is a small point I am fine with more detail being in another article.

2 use of Allen this is a bad idea Allen is clearly pro opus dei I know you disagree but to anyone looking for answers about opus dei(meaning that they have heard something bad and want to find out the truth) Allen is the worst choice best would be ODAN after that multiple sources from different back grounds.Ansolin 01:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Things I like/dislike about Opus Dei

I really think the article is long there’s no need to have every fact about Opus dei in one article and complex issues can always be linked out. With out putting a clear size limit on the piece everyone can just keep adding that just leads to sloppiness with a size limit only the most important fact good and bad get in to this article with less important once going into other articles .so I suggest that everyone interested makes a list of the thing that they like the most about opus dei and a list of things they like the dislike the most to keep things far though I think it’s a good idea that everyone puts the same number in each list .then we will have a clue what the most important things to put in the article are.

• LIKE

Everyone can become a saint

Material work can be a prayer to god

The many charitable works

Support of liberal groups in some countries

Equality for women (with some caveats)

• DISLIKE

Recruiting practices

Control of members

Mortification

Secrecy

Financial control through members

.Ansolin 03:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ansolin. Thanks for your thoughts on intermixing-- I agree that lack of a response section would lead to messiness or unbalance. I would suggest, however, that we not get into our own personal feelings about OD, but instead keep the focus on the article itself, ya know? --Alecmconroy 03:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It wouldn't make much sense to cut the bibliography. In fact, the best way to conceptualize a controversial topic like this one is as a Yahoo! or Google search page with a narrative overlaying the links. It's not only the best way to manage the controversy, it is also the only way to keep the article useful to those who are reading it.

The problem with integrating the criticisms in with the OD description is that not all the criticisms match all the descriptive topics. So a discussion of the OD theology doesn't really lend itself to being countered with a criticism about OD's recruiting practices. And it doesn't really make sense to counter a theology description by saying, "Athiests counter that there is no God while Jews and Muslims say that Jesus was only a prophet, and a lesser one at that."

Now the stuff about Hitler is harmful to all, except maybe Opus Dei. It makes the critics look spiteful. It make Wikipedia look goofy. It makes OD look like the victim of a smear campaign. In Escriva's Spain, the choices were fascism or communism, a dilemma we have the luxury of avoiding these days.

But the word "cult" is almost impossible to avoid. OD's commitment and lifestyle approach to faith makes it vulnerable to the allegation, and also make its adherents vulnerable to using wrongful methods of influence in the name of good. People like to say that today's cults are tomorrow's established religions, but I don't always agree with this view. It would be more accurate to say that the human conditions that make cults popular are as prevalent today as they were long ago, and not all cult or cult-like organizations are harmful to people. The difference between evil cults and successful sects might be in the good they accomplish for their members, the degree to which their leaders are subordinate to the hierarchy of their faith, and the degree to which they have a apocalyptic theme to their faith.69.255.0.91 17:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input-- it seems like a wide variety of people support a "responses section" over intermixing. I should clarify that when I said "cut" the bibliography, I didn't mean delete it, I just meant we should include a link to it, rather than including it the main page article text. About the allegations of the ties to Franco and Hitler-- I agree that I don't find that argument particularly persuasive, but it's not up to us to assess whether arguments are persuasive, or how they make OD look or how it makes the critics look. The critics DO make that allegation, so we have a duty to convey it.--Alecmconroy 21:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey Alec!! Please don't say "wide variety of people", when Tom just remarked there is a response place for response. Not all issues are response issues, isn't it? OD church within church, OD powerful, OD weath, OD secretive-- Is it or not? Example of response issue-- people like it or not?

Please don't spam your replacement article. Pleeeeease? ;) Ndss 10:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's two separate questions. 1: "Should we even HAVE a response section at all?", and 2: "What should be in that section?". I'll let Tom clarify, but I interpreted his pointing me to a response section as meaning he does indeed think we should have one. But, don't think I'm pulling some trick or something-- I don't think anyone suddenly believes Tom agreess with me on every issue just because of that. lol. If we can decided whether or not to HAVE a response section, then we can get into what is and is not a response.

The non-balance issues:

About my suggested replacement article-- What do people hate about it so much? Aside from the fact that it is 50-50 rather than 90-10 biased/favored towards the Pro-OD side of course. But, let's suppose you HAD to pick some article that treats things 50-50-- isn't mine a good one? I think it's really fair, succinct, and clear. So far, the only direct criticism I've heard of it from ya'll is that it treats both sides equally and ya'll don't think that's right.

But setting aside the balance issues-- just look at the orgainzational structure and the summaries-- aren't they an improvement over the hodgepodge 100K article we have now? I mean, for example, the theology section I wrote is a really sincere, earnest attempt to convey Opus Dei theology in clear and succinct way. There isn't a single word of criticism in the whole section. Why do you oppose it? The same goes for my Structure and Activities section-- there's not a single word of criticism about OD anywhere in the section. It succinctly covers a lot of facts about OD in a way that I hope will be more accessable to the average reader.

I know that the support/criticism balance issue is still a sticking point, and until Wisden clarifies again what NPOV means in this situation, we won't be able to agree about how to balance the two. But what about the other parts of the article? why do you oppose the sections I wrote that don't even criticize OD in any way? Did I get something wrong, factually? Do you object to summarizations & shortenings on general principle? Or is it just that those sections were written by someone who, to your eyes, must appear to be Anti-OD? (though I insist, I'm not anti, I'm definitely less Pro- than you, so.. same diff). Do explain, please.

--Alecmconroy 15:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

K! Here goes:

1. No intellectual depth, lacks analysis
2. No names, no attributions-- can lead to bias, you know?
3. No flow, no logic structurewise
4. Not proportionate a la Wikipedia
5. No mention of black legends started by Jesuits. Root of it all really. Does this have anything to do with....? ;) Ndss 08:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

ND, well... some of your criticisms I understand and anticipated. Obviously, we disagree on the proportions. Similarly, you're right-- I haven't put in many references as of yet, because I'm hesitant to spend that much energy into a version that might just get instantly reverted. I can only promise you that every sentence in it IS verifiable, and if that versions going to be used, I'm sure we'll have no trouble whatsoever coming up with references for every last word of it.

On the other hand, I'm having a hard time understanding some of your other criticisms-- could you maybe explain in more detail? For example, when you say it lacks analysis, are you saying that the brevity in general is a bad thing? or are there specific elements that you feel aren't captured by the summaries?

The allegation of a lack of logical structure is especially hard to understand. Take the sentence: "Opus Dei's theology emphasizes a 'universal call to holiness'" and tell me which section fits best in: History, Theology, Structure and activities, Membership types, Mortification, or Controversy. Obviously, the answer is Theology. Now let me ask you which of the following sections does that same sentence belong in: Message & Spirituality, Vocation, Instruction and Training, Faith & Novelty, Call and Demands, Spiritual Practice. It's harder to tell what section it belongs in. And in fact, we cover it in THREE different sections-- and I double dog dare someone who hasn't read the article to tell me which three.

As for #6-- I have no idea what you're getting at. The CURRENT article doesn't specifically mention that the black legends were started by the Jesuits, and it certainly doesn't give an in-depth NPOV coverage of that debate. I t mentions disapproval by the jesuits, but I didn't mention that because it seemed like it was mostly a few isolated jesuits, not Jesuits as a whole. (if you want, we could add a mention of them in the controversy section). The idea that there are "false myths" about OD is mentioned several times-- we have the "two opus deis-- one of myth and one of reality" and the several other very strong statements by OD supporters that the criticisms are falsehoods.

Lastly, when you say "No mention of black legends started by Jesuits. Root of it all really. Does this have anything to do with....?", I have absoulutely no clue what the "anything to do with..." is. Do finish the sentence-- I think you assumed I could infer the ending, but I have no idea what you're implying.

--Alecmconroy 10:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

50-50 would not be an article on OD, it would be more honestly titled Opus Dei and its critics. Plus, it's my understanding that there is an entire article on opposition to OD already. What purpose is served by providing so much detail that can be found elsewhere? Over-reacting too much because someone said the OD article looked like a brochure isn't the credible solution. And some of the criticism in the article as it now stands aren't very solid. Like a criticism over ODs "misogyny," while it is not established that OD is guilty of misogyny. And then there's the corporal mortification knock. Why do critics oppose corporal mortification as a religious practice but not oppose strenuous excercize as an appropriate activity to promote good physical health? The article in fact does not say why critics oppose corporal mortification, so I guess they assume that everyone sees it to be as icky as they do. What's their actual complaint against the practice? OD proponents might even argue that corporal mortification addresses problems that individuals have after regular strenuous excercize has failed to keep their hearts beating.69.255.0.91 03:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

69.255-- you're right that an article that actually did 50-50 should be called "OD and it's critics". I'm not actually proposing that-- 50-50 is a just shorthand we've beeen using to describe "equal balance between pro- and anti-OD". What I _actually_ am proposing is not 50-50, but 75-15-15: 75% of the article undisputed fact, 15% pro-OD, 15% anti-OD.

I think we should briefly summarize the top ten main points made by the opposition (and the supporters) in this main article. It's true there's a whole article entitled Opposition to Opus Dei. You ask,"What purpose is served by providing so much detail that can be found elsewhere?". Let me turn that around-- there are no less than four different articles that are devoted to support for Opus Dei-- what purpose does it serve for us to mention those views here? I expect most people would agree that we should still summarize that support and include that support on the main page, even if we do go into more detail on other pages.

As to why the critics object to what they do--- it's not our place to debate the issue. All that's important is that many people do object to the male-dominated nature of OD/catholicism, and many people do object to the mortification, so, we have a duty to convey those criticisms.

--Alecmconroy 05:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History Section

First off, thanks for the integration of some of the history text into the History section.  :). While we're waiting on Wisden and the balance/NPOV issue resolution, how bout we start tackling this one section at a time. Maybe if we can just get one section at a time agreed upon, we can make headway? Here are some of the issues I still have with the current section:

Current': According to Escrivá, on that day he "saw Opus Dei." Throughout his life, Escrivá maintained that the founding of Opus Dei had a "supernatural character."

Suggested': According to Escrivá, on that day he experienced a "vision of light" in which he "saw Opus Dei".

Why remove the vision of light reference? It's a very powerful image, not unlike Paul of Tarsus's conversion. Why delete it?

The documents provided by Vasquez de Prada on the details regarding the foundation do not use this terminology. Thomas 01:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't have access to that-- but I will say that the phrase "saw Opus Dei" doesn't capture what Escriva seemed to claim. "Seeing Opus Dei" just sounds like "Escriva suddenly got a good idea"-- not, Escriva had a supernatural/miraculous experience. Is there any terminology we could use that might better convey that he reported a distinctly supernatural experience? When we say in the next sentence "supernatural character", again, the impression I just get is that "he got a good idea, and he thought God caused him to have that good idea". I think it's a little more supernatural than that, right? Could we say that Escriva had a "vision" in which he "saw" OD? --Alecmconroy 13:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Current: In Escrivá's own words, the mission of Opus Dei is "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. The one and only mission of Opus Dei is the spreading of this message which comes from the Gospel.

Suggested:Escrivá's summarized the Opus Dei's mission by writing: "The one and only mission of Opus Dei is the spreading of this message which comes from the Gospel.

Two problems here. The first is simply practical-- you do know that most english speakers do not know the word "apostolate", right? To everyone who hasn't had a wide training in Catholic theology, the sentence currently reads "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 floccinaucinihilipilification."--- to the average reader, the sentence ends in gibberish. I don't have a huge NPOV problem with it being there, but I really think it's an obstacle to our audience. --Alecmconroy 13:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest we then translate apostolate to evangelization. Thomas 01:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we're free to do that. Given a choice between writing our own translation and sticking with apostolate, I think I'd support sticking with the original text-- I thik us making our own translation of his quote would be NOR. It's not the end of the world if this sentence stays in-- it just might not be acccessable to most readers. --Alecmconroy 14:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Second problem: "In Escriva' own words..." strikes me as a bit overly admirable of Escriva-- as if we're saying "He _himself_ said this! His _VERY OWN_ words. It also implies that these particular words are the "Official Mission Statement" of OD-- really, they're one specific very brief summary of OD's mission I changed it to: Escrivá's summarized the Opus Dei's mission by writing"

I agree with you, Alec. Thomas 01:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Current: Years later, Escrivá's vision of Opus Dei would be confirmed by Pope John Paul II, who stated that Escrivá had founded Opus Dei ductus divina inspiratione, led by divine inspiration.

Obviously, I think this section belongs later in the article. It's not a historical fact-- it's a modern theological belief ABOUT a historical fact. I'd like it in a Support section or a theology section, but at the very least, can we put it in chronological order and mention it at the point in the narrative when the 1982 declaration fits in? Also.. Could we cut the words "ductus divina inspiratione"-- I understand ecclesiastical latin, but I'm in the minority-- wouldn't it suffice to say that in 1982, JPII declared it to the founding to have been divinely inspired?

Current:In the view of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) given in 2002, the name chosen by Escrivá evinces "this fact": that the organization was not Escriva's work but God's Work, Opus Dei, and further, that "Escriva was only an instrument with which God had acted."

Suggested: Escrivá felt the name underscored the belief that the organization was not his (Escivá's) work, but was rather "God's work" (Opus Dei).

Wouldn't it be better to keep the focus on Escrivá himself and just state why he chose the name directly, rather than drag Ratzinger's 21st century opinions about the sanctity of OD into the text at this point? Chronologically, this sentence is thrown in between the 1928 founding and the 1930 founding of the women's branch-- if we absolutely have to mention Ratzinger's personal opinion in the history section, let's at least put it at the end of the section so the section's in chronological order. Also.. the word "evinces" is obscure-- "shows" would work better.

I agree on the word change from evinces to shows. Thomas 01:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Similarly, I'd rather see the Joan Estruch quote deleted as well. We've barely even told people what OD is, and already we're debating things. Given that we're at 100K, some things HAVE to be deleted, and I think the dispersions cast about Escriva's originial motivations just don't make the notability cut.

I suppose we can change the title of the section to Foundation, Name and History. Thomas 01:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's not a matter of what we call it-- it's just a question of whether the bickering between the pro- and od- sides is SO interspersed into the main narrative that you can't follow the main narrative and you can't get a feel for the debate itself either! Plus... we're WAY too long. --Alecmconroy 13:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

--Alecmconroy 10:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Remaining big issues

By my count, here are some of the big issues we still need to get decided:

• Balance issue-- does NPOV require us to make an article that doesn't favor one side over the other?
• Does this article (at 100K rather than the recommended 30K) need to be shortened?
• Is it acceptable to have a response section that contains the criticism and support?
• Images
• Theology section

--Alecmconroy 13:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Right well let me help you address these remaining issues. I've been keeping an eye on the discussion over the last few days and see that you need my input on a few issues, mainly how to deal with NPOV. My thanks to Alecmconroy for doing this little summary, as it saves me the job of doing it!

Let's take each issue in turn and see if we can discuss them further. The question of balance: --Wisden17 14:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Balance

The issue surrounding NPOV and what it actually means to article is a common source of concern and debate. I would obviously encourgae all of you to re-read WP:NPOV and to note what it says. The most crucial factor is this :"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"; this is further summed up here "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".

So the question about having a biased article is the wrong way to put it. The article may end up being biased if there is a shortage of prominent reliable sources for one side of the argument. So NPOV doesn't require you to create a neutral article as such, it require you to create an article based on the evidence, and to present the evidence in a neutral manner.

I take the point about the use of words, and how WP:WTA may be at odds with the article. I really wouldn't worry too much about the choice of words at the moment. This is a much smaller point, and the main issue is to create a better balance to start with. This balance can be "fine-tuned" later on, when individaul words can be discussed.

I see that Thomas has essentially hit the nail on the head. Whilst you may argue that Thomas is setting out to create a POV article (I'm not I should point out!) he is in fact following Wikipedia policy correctly. The amount of weight given to particular views depends on the "reputability" and so as it stands the article may well have the right balance (although see my comments about a separate section below). --Wisden17 14:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] But who are the experts?

Fair enough-- so let's concede for a moment the principle of "equality for equality sake" (for the purpose of this mediation). It's all well and good to say that "The opinions of the reputable experts may be given more weight than the opinions of the unreptuable experts". But which experts are which? If everyone agrees that there is a consensus of experts about which side is more valid, it's easy to construct the article. What makes this so hard is-- there is no such agreement on which are the more reliable experts.

Are the pro-OD sources really the experts on this issue? The "experts" cited by the Pro-OD editors include Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, National Catholic Reporter correspondent John Allen, a controversial Catholic sociologist who teaches at the Opus Dei university. All the Pro-OD 'experts' are, coincidentally enough, members of the very religion being discussed. It seems to me very obvious that these people are not "neutral, objective reliable experts", as a reliable historian or a noted physicist would be. They aren't really 'experts' at all, they are partisans in an on-going religious debate.

The Anti-OD sources may not be popes, but they're certainly as famous and reliable as John Allen. There have been four separate authors, who wrote four separate books that were critical of Opus Dei-- Allen is just one voice. Members of the Jesuits and the editor of America magazine are also critics. There are also the former members of OD, and the anti-OD groups Opus Dei Awareness Network and Opus Libros Anti-OD sources. But, like the Pro-OD sources, these sides also seem like they have a strong religious bias for what they say, and I wouldn't consider them "neutral, objective, reliable" experts either.

However, fortunately for us, mainstream media has written extensively about OD. CNN, Time Magazine, NBC, ABC, CBS, BBC, Fox, and many others have all reported on Opus Dei, as have many other journalistic sources (see my post here). They have no direct personal involvement in Opus Dei, positive or negative. They do not appear to have any direct religious motivations. This strengthens their appearance of objectivity. Their credibilty is in no way limited to the sphere of Opus Dei. They are generally credible in all areas of reporting. When you look at how these journalistic experts have reported Opus Dei, they leave Opus Dei's status very much in question. Critics are given roughly equal weight as defenders. These experts don't talk about Opus Dei the way would report on, say, The Red Cross or Al Qaeda-- rather, they don't favor the one side or the other, they treat both sides equally.

Surely, CNN and it's ilk are the true experts on this subject. Surely, we shouldn't let ANY minority view, be it the anti-OD minority or the pro-OD minority, dominate the article. Popes are certainly luminous, but are they really "experts" in the sense of Wikipedia:Reliable sources?

Ultimately, this situation is no different than someone coming to the "Abortion debate" and insisting that the article devote 90% of its space to the Pro-Choice side, on the grounds that the pro-choice adherents are somehow the most reliable experts. This just CAN'T be right, can it?

So, in light of that, can we still justify letting the Pro-OD "experts" dominate over the Anti-OD "experts" and the neutral real experts???

--Alecmconroy 18:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Great, great, Wisden! as in...great!!! Don't know why I forgot about "not giving equal validity" to minority views. Yup, that's the perfect point to cite, Wisden.

Sorry, Alec. But isn't it clear to any neutral observer? there is a pre-Allen secular media and a post-Allen secular media. Post-Allen secular media respect secular CNN's official Vatican analyst and secular NPR's official Vatican analyst-- John Allen, Jr.. He is as objective as you can get. Why will CNN allow him to be their official analysis? All Allen's critics called him respectable and reputable! Please, please, please--Time, Bloomberg, CNN, do not give equal space to anti and pro. Please be honest, pal!!

Sorry pal. But Allen, Introvigne, Messori, West, Thierry, Berglar, Preston, Crozier were senior experts writing big time before they ever wrote about OD!! After they investigated -- from their objective pov -- they came out pro-OD. Your wrong pal. They were not pro-OD and wrote pro-OD. They were objective and reputable, and then studied OD, wrote pro-OD. Big difference, isn't it?

And what are those 4 books? by Walsh-- ex-Jesuit? who couldn't reply to OD's reply? full of errors and inconsistencies; "very poor scientific quality"? Walsh now praises Allen's book! Tapia-- ex-numerary, fired from her job in OD for some questionable activities, expelled from a scientific gathering for anti-OD propaganda), Estruch-- debunked by Schall for saying all priests go to seminary to improve their lot? Hutchinson? Martin? This Jesuit, objective on Opus Dei?

But...I have loads of objective proofs Allen's reliable and reputable-- from press, professionals and public!! Remember? mediation moves from subjective evaluation to objective values.

"Surely, CNN and it's ilk are the true experts on this subject." Did you say this, Alec? Then Allen's your man!

And then, take note: for every anti-OD ex member, there are hundreds of pro-OD ex members, and thousands of pro-OD present members!

The burden of proof is on ya, Allec! Prove that CNN is wrong in hiring Allen. Prove your four books are reputable experts. Prove Messori, Introvigne are not intelligent, resputable scholars before they wrote pro-OD. And please don't discriminate against their Catholic faith! Catholics can also be reputable scholars, you know! Sorry pal. Ndss 09:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Nd, if there's going to be burden of proof thrown around, surely it is on YOU who wants to create an abortion article that's 90% Pro-Choice, 10% Pro-Life. As for Allen-- Allen has been INTERVIEWED by CNN as an outside analyst. Analysts come to give one side in a debate, not to be journalists. Analysts can be quite controversial figures who are closely tied to controversial organizatiosn (e.g. here). Being interviewed on CNN doesn't make me a CNN journalist. If Allen was a CNN correspondent, why isn't his name on the byline of their Opus Dei article, and why does CNN disagree with his conclusions? --Alecmconroy 17:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for this lively discussion! Thank you specially to our mediator, Wisden17, for helping us reach a clearer understanding of Wikipedia NPOV. Indeed, the writers of criticisms belong to a minority of writers as regards the sociological issues surrouding Opus Dei.

Thus, I think it would be good for Wisden17 to help us clarify if indeed the 12 controversies surrouding Opus Dei (cf. Talk Page), are religious/moral matters based on faith or basically sociological issues of a religious group. We need an impartial word on this.

As regards the issue between Ndss and Alec regarding Allen and his being a CNN Vatican analyst, I think a Google Search for "John Allen Vatican Analyst" shows him to be indeed the Vatican analyst of CNN, NPR and even ABC. I hope this will lay to rest this long-drawn debate on which side has greater reputability and expertise, according to both secular and religious standards. Thomas 01:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

No, my point is he IS a CNN analyst, and an analyst is not a correspondent. Analysts are advocates for positions that they bring in to interview, not representatives of CNN. This is show nowhere more clearly than CNN's Opus Dei reporting-- the articles are not BY Allen. The articles don't agree with his conclusions. I don't care if Allen once got employee of the month at CNN-- when it comes to THIS issue, he represent himself and the NCR, NOT CNN. No matter what his old relationship with CNN, on THIS issue, Allen is on one side, CNN is on the other, end of story. --Alecmconroy 02:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarification, Alec. It is useful.

Let me quote from US Department of Labor definition and description of News analyst: News analysts, reporters, and correspondents gather information, prepare stories, and make broadcasts that inform us about local, State, national, and international events; present points of view on current issues; and report on the actions of public officials, corporate executives, interest groups, and others who exercise power. News analysts—also called newscasters or news anchors—examine, interpret, and broadcast news received from various sources. [11]

From Career Overview: News reporters, correspondents, and analysts gather and prepare useful information for local and nationwide audiences. They inform society on current events and the actions of public, corporate, and special interest figures. [12]

From Diversity.com: News analyst: Significant point: Most employers prefer experienced individuals with a bachelor’s degree in journalism or mass communications. News analysts, reporters, and correspondents play a key role in our society. They gather information, prepare stories, and make broadcasts that inform us about local, State, national, and international events; present points of view on current issues; and report ...[13]

I think that we can safely draw the conclusion that a CNN Vatican News Analyst informs the public as a journalist representing CNN. Hope this helps. Thomas 03:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Hehe.. Don't go to the dictionary, just look at the articles. They weren't written by Allen, and they disagree with Allen. Maybe Allen was the bestest janitor they ever had at CNN, but on this issue, he doesn't speak for them, period. So who are we going to pick? An obviously biased religious publication like the National Catholic Reporter, or the whole rest of the mainstream media world? Don't try to pretend they're on the same side, or that Allen somehow runs CNN just because he's been on there a few times. CNN is on one side, Allen's on the other.

Obviously, I don't want us to pick EITHER side-- I want us to be fair and equal to all sides on general principle alone. But if we want to play the "whose experts are bigger" game, Allen and the other catholic publications are going to lose out to the REAL journalists every time. The religious bias is SO obvious, it's not even funny. A handful of spokesmen who are promoting a religious minority do not constitute "a consensus of experts".

--Alecmconroy 04:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Alec, for your spirited defense of your position. :) It is indeed satisfying to see such passion.

As for me, I totally agree with Ndss that there is indeed a post-Allen CNN. I have searched for Opus Dei in the CNN.com site, and found this to be their latest on Opus Dei, dated May 26, 2006. They interviewed 4 persons of Opus Dei and one ex-member. I suppose we safely conclude that Ndss is right. There is more space given to pro-Opus Dei by their New York correspondent. The proportion here is roughly 80:20.

There is also this one of April 20, 2006. It was a very courteous and even supportive interview with Brian Finnerty, spokesperson of Opus Dei.

In March 2006 they also had an interview with Allen. And he explains away the myths.

In February 2006,CNN featured Allen again, calling him CNN Analyst. He talks about the "mythology" surrounding Opus Dei.

IMHO, it would be mistaken to see Allen, CNN, NPR, and ABS working at cross purposes, specially if they call him their analyst.

Let me clarify that I am not for the absolute removal of criticisms. Far from it: I have protected this page from people who do remove criticisms. My only intent is to abide by Wikipedia's proportionality rule and Wikipedia's rule on determining expertise, and it's insistence that respected experts who agree with each other should be given much more space. And the reason for this is to try to contribute to Wikipedia's goal to become a reliable source of free information to many people. By aligning ourselves with this end in mind, I hope we can move on to other issues. Thanks. :) Thomas 03:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, your examples bring up a great point, because I'm seen these transcripts myself, and they're something something that have strongly colored the direction I've tried to take with this article. There are a couple of different clusters of issues surrounding Opus Dei. Some simply are NOT credible: there are the claims that "The Da Vinci Code" is true and that Opus Dei is somehow an extremely wealthy secret society masterminding a global conspiracy that may or may not involve the descendants of Jesus. These sorts of issues ARE questions of fact, and they ARE unilaterally rejected by all reliable sources. As you see, when CNN and other journalism sources cover the "Secret Conspiracy" or the "Da Vinci Code" angle, they don't mention ODAN, they don't mention the cilice, they don't report both sides of the global conspiracy theory equally. On the Global Conspiracy question, you and I are in 100% agreement: they're questions of fact, there are reliable experts, and all the reliable experts are in agreement. We don't need to cover the Da Vinci Code issue equally-- we are perfectly justified in bringing it up only to dismiss it out of hand. CNN does it that way, so can we.

Alternatively, there are a whole host of OTHER criticisms that have been leveled at Opus Dei: Is OD "too controlling", "too aggressive", or "too private/secretive". That Opus Dei's stances on issues mortification, birth control, or female leadership is "wrong". These fall under the rubric of what I would call "cult" issues-- and they just say in essence that Opus Dei is "bad" or "wrong" somehow. These aren't factual disputes-- both sides agree of the basic facts at hand. What they disagree about is the moral implications of these facts. These aren't factual questions, they're moral/political/religious disputes. As as we can see, Major media discussions of these morality/cult issues are a whole different ball of wax, and the reputable journalists are very careful never to endorse either side in this debate. We should take our cue from them, and be sure we don't favor either side either.

So, I'm really glad you brought this up, because maybe this is the source of the dispute we've been having. I completely understand your concen about the "global conspiracy" issue, and I think you're right: that's a factual issue, there are a consensus of experts, and we don't have to be 50:50. But, hopefully you'll understand that the value judgements of whether Opus Dei is "good or bad", "divine or sinful",or "a cult or not", these aren't questions of fact-- the basic facts are undisputed. Theses are really big moral, religious, and political questions, with literally hundreds of millions if not billions of people on each side of the issue. "Support & Criticism of OD" is like any other big issues: abortion, the morality of homosexuality, whether the Sunni or the Shia are the true successors to Muhammad, etc. We must NOT try to promote one side or the other. We should give each side enough space to present its case. We should not let one side dominate or out-talk the other--- and that's what happening in the current article. --Alecmconroy 06:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Wonderful, Alec. Please see my post below. Thanks! Thomas 07:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article Length

Obviously the article is a little long, and perhaps could do with a greater use of sub-pages, however I don' think we really need to discuss that here, unless people think this is a major issue (personally I think you should look to use more subpages, as if, as could be possible in the not too distant future, you would like to get this article up to FA standard, you would need to do so). Take a look at Wikipedia:Article size--Wisden17 14:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey guys!! Take a look! Tom's cut the article to 85kb! Ndss 10:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes but considering many consider 32Kb to a maximum length still a fair way to go! --Wisden17 19:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Wisden17 and Alec that we have to cut the article. I would just argue that it might be necessary to have an article longer than 32kb, given (1) interest on this topic, (2) the controversial nature of some issues, which would need more space to explain, (3) and the present status of many Good Articles and Feature Articles. Thomas 01:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of a response section

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. There doesn't appear to be any argument above about the use of a response section, so I would suggest that that issue, and perhaps the issue regarding NPOV has been resolved, insofar as the mediation is concerned, and that further discussion could take place on the talk page, would people be happy with that? --Wisden17 14:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

K. I assume, Tom and ND, that you still don't wan't MY response section? --Alecmconroy 18:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Checked out your replacement article...again. See Alec, you say it's 70% on facts, 30% on controversies?

It's more--

• 54% --facts
• 16% -- mortification and da vinci code
• 13% -- criticism
• 16% -- response/support

So 54% facts, 56% controversial issues. Not fair, pal, not fair at all. And please no more of these tricks, huh? Can get me real mad, but am trying to be patient...here....;) Hope am succeeding.... Ndss 09:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

If you get mad, you do so to your own detriment, not to mine. And how is it it a trick? The mortification section is a FACT, and it devotes one frickin' line to criticism, while twice as many words are spent defending the practice. The Da Vinci code section does nothing BUT defend Opus Dei from the falsehoods in the Da Vinci Code. IF ANYTHING it's support, not criticism. But since it's uncontroversial that Da Vinci code is mostly nonsenese, I was content to list that section under Facts, not Support. You guys are silly for objecting to the Da Vinci code section-- all it does is defend OD, but I guesss any mention of the Da Vinci Code at all is taboo? --Alecmconroy 17:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Wisden. Don't agree on intermixing. We're losing too much info. Check out sections on Opus Dei and politics. Or Profile of members. Or Opus Dei and women. We lose a lot of info, isn't it? Imagine a long long section on criticisms. A long long section on responses to criticism. Poor reader, you know. He'll need a search button to look for what response to what criticism!? ;) Ndss 09:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, much worse than your ideal article, where the poor reader will need the search button to find any criticism at all, hidden like needles inside haystacks of glowing endorsements of OD. --Alecmconroy 17:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

As I said in a previous post, I think the section on Response of Society can very well address the need for a response section, but I do not mean that section to expand to one big section combining all the criticism and responses, specially with Wikipedia's proportionality system, the response section would indeed be a long long list as Ndss says.

I saw how this article grew, and I'd say the present set up addresses a need to classify information so as to be useful to the reader. I'm personally partial to thematic categorization of knowledge, a practice that is also used in Wikipedia through its categories.

I think most readers come to this page to learn about Opus Dei, not really to look for criticism against Opus Dei. This is a distinction I read about regarding the book of Walsh: it is not a book about Opus Dei, but against Opus Dei.

Thus, it is a greater learning experience, IMO, to read about Opus Dei in the Church (its theology, its institutional structure, etc.) and then Opus Dei in society (its mission, people and their activities, its relation to politics, etc.); and see in each section the different views about these. Thomas 01:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thomas keep in mind that criticism isn’t necessarily a bad thing look at Relation with politics its one of the best sections just because there is criticism that shouldn’t be a problem unless you don’t have a good response to it.

Yes it true people do come to this page to find out about opus dei (and the 26 other pages} but they also come to fact check why can’t we provide for both?

I personally wouldn’t have any problem with a 32k article intermixing criticism, it would remove the needle in a haystack problem there’s really no need for any think more then an article that has all the high points with links to other pages.

Also a clear size limit works for you as well you can limit critique as well as support by sighting space and putting it in another article that way only the most important point go in this introductory article with redirects to the others.

I just don’t think that theology is more important then the secular lives of opus dei again why must we pick?.Ansolin 02:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

May I be allowed to interject? If "cult" is a WTA, then surely a section on Opus Dei: cult is a STA, a Section to Avoid? Ran9876 01:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey Ran9876!! Right you are!! Ndss 14:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images

I've stated my views on the images a few times above. From looking just now at the images on the OD page, it looks a lot better. I personally think the images look fine now, and the Zweifel image seems to fit much better. --Wisden17 14:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yup, agreed! Ndss 09:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Thomas 01:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Theology section

Now I personally think that this is one of the areas where subpages could be used. I think the whole Spiritual message and practice section is too long. The fact that there are sub-pages means that better summaries should be used (i.e. shorter summaries) and that more information could be put on the sub-pages. I also think Spiritual practice should have its own sub-page. Take a look at Wikipedia:Summary style for a bit more practical help--Wisden17 14:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

k. Tom, ND, any objection to me copying over my summary of the Theology section? --Alecmconroy 18:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Nope, Alec! Not that. But I'd wait for Tom really. He knows better. Ndss 09:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I totally agree that we combine the sections covering theology. And yes, a sub-page on Spiritual Practice would be a good idea. I'd like to try and summarize them myself, using some of the texts of Alec and some of the present texts. Thanks, Wisden17, for these useful links.

I don't have much time but I will try to work on these things as soon as I can. Thanks again to all, and may I request that we maintain our peace, our reasonableness, and our civility. :) Thomas 01:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The criticisms of Opus Dei

Wisden, here are the criticisms Tom wanted you to look over. The question is: are these issues of fact and science or are they issues of moral and religious opinion. Obviously, I think (1) that it's not a science debate so we shouldn't take sides, and (2) the claim that the Pro-OD side has all the 'experts' on its side is simply not true. Here are the specific criticisms that have been made:

• That OD is highly controlling of its members

It's undisputed that OD members lead a highly disciplined, rigidly structured life. It's undisputed that incoming and outgoing mail is read, that members must obtain explicit permission before reading some books, etc.

The question remains-- do these sorts of rules constitute "highly controling?" What's highly? How much control is too much control? Is this control good or bad? Opinion, not science.

I think that there’s more to the control issue then this I think opus dei members live VERY controlled lives spending hours in mass, prayer, recruiting and religious discussion it true that a lot of members find this structure beneficial but it's also why a lot of members leave.Ansolin 01:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

--Allen said things have changed in OD. No more checking of mails! etc etc. He interviewed members and non-members-- How'd you feel? 300 hours of interview....Wow!!

• That OD engages in extremely aggressive recruitment

It's undisputed that OD members devote a lot of energy towards recruitment, that OD members regularly fill out detailed reports to their superiors describing who they're trying to recruit, etc.

The question is: is this recruitment that is "too aggressive"? Or is it merely zealous recruitment? Moral question, not scientific.

---Allen check how many were recuited per number of years. He interviewed people in OD schools: were they pressured? etc etc

• That Opus Dei is bad because its members often cut off contact with their non-member familes

It's undisputed that new numeraries in Opus Dei do become estranged from non-member familes as they become immersed in the structured life of OD.

The question is-- is this a good thing or a bad thing? Supporters cite parts of the bible that certainly imply it's good for children to seek God over their families, so maybe it's good. On the other hand, families are important-- maybe it's bad. Matter of religious and moral opinion, not science.

---complex issue, really. How do OD member's treat Pop and mom? What do parents say? How many parents say this, how many say that....

• That mortification is a "startling" and "questionable" practice.

The facts of mortification of undisputed. OD members DO use the cilice and they do flail themslves.

But is this a BAD thing, or a holy thing? Supporters quote bible verses and point to past saints who have done mortification. Critics say it's just plain wrong for people to beat themselves. Religious question, NOT science.

---there are other questions, right? widespread? how about comparison with sports, cosmetic surgery, etc. etc. ? how about other religions--that's comparative religion, pal, not faith, isn't it. etc etc

• That Opus Dei is intensely secretive.

It's undisputed that Opus Dei is very private: it doesn't publish membership records, financial holdings, etc. Escriva's writings advise a certain lack of openness.

But do these practices make Opus Dei "secretive" or merely "private". Well, there's no scientific test, it all comes down to opinion. If OD is good, it's just private. If OD is bad, it's secretive. For the answer, you have to look to your heart and to your god. It's not a scientific question.

---How about comparing OD to other group's practices? To training center and their trainees? To clubs? to corporations? to other religious groups? etc, etc., etc.

• That Opus Dei exerts too much influence within the Catholic Church

It's undisputed that Opus Dei exerts a disproportionately large influence over the Catholic Church when compared to other organizations of it's size. (For example, Knights of Columbus has 1.7 MILLION members, OD has just 85K-- but clearly, OD is much more influential that the Knight of Columbus)

But does this make OD "too influential"? It all comes down to whether you believe OD is good or bad. If it's is, as John Paul II saw it, a wonderful organization is the cutting edge in Catholicism and anticipated vatican 2's emphasis on laity, then no, it doesn't have too much influence. On the other hand, if you think it's a horrible organization, then you definitely feel it has too much influence. Where is the science equation to determine how much influence OD _should_ have. It doesn't exist, it's a matter of religious and moral opinion.

---Allen checked out how OD curia people influenced Vatican decisions-- cases of OD opinion rejected. Interviewed bishops-- were they influenced? etc etc

• That Opus Dei's has too much independence from the rest for the church, that it is a church within a church.

It's undisputed that OD does have a special, unique status that grants it a certain amount of independence from the dioceses. It's clearly a religious organization within a larger religious organization.

But is that somehow bad??? I can't go into the lab and find the answer to this question. It's not a scientific question, it's religious and moral.

---Hey Alec, is it a matter of morality whether the Feds control red cross or not?

• That Opus Dei's historical ties to Fascist governments were morally wrong

It's undisputed that Escriva, like the rest of the Catholic Church, supported the Fascists in the Spanish Civil War.

This is the most historical of the questions, but ultimately it's still a question of morality and religion, because it comes down to "Does Escriva's position on Franco and Hitler make him (and OD) bad?". The Spanish Civil War and World War II presented the whole world with a difficult choice-- in a war between the Fascists and the Communists, which side do you want to win? The United Kingdom sided with the Communists againsts the Fascists-- mainly because the fascists we're actively trying to kill the British and their allies. Escriva definitely sided with the Fascists against the Communists-- the decision was probably an easy one for him, since the communists were conducting wholesale massacres of the entire clergy. But the real question here is-- does Ecriva's stance of supporting Franco & Hitler over Stalin make him a "Bad" person??? It's an ethical and moral question. Scientists, as human beings, can have opinions on it, but science cannot.

---A bit laughable really. ;) No comment.

• That Opus Dei's treatment of women is wrong

It's undisputed that OD, like the Catholic Church, is patriarchal. Women cannot become priests, bishops, cardinals, or popes.

Is this good or bad? Supporters of this policy can cite the Bible and other religious justifications for this. People who believe women should have rights equal to men dispute this policy. This is a big philosophical, moral, and religious question-- scientists or 'experts' cannot make this decision for us.

---Well, that's one aspect of a complex question really: How do you treat your sister?

• That Opus Dei's stance on birth control and HIV-prevention is wrong

It's undisputed that OD, like the Catholic Church, forbids the use of birth control and condoms.

Is this good or bad? Moral question and religious question. No scientist can answer this.

---Not one of the issues, isn't it?

As I hope this shows-- the fundamental questions in "the controversy" are not factual/scientific ones, they are moral ones. There are no scientific experts on these questions, and neither side is a tiny minority that deserves to be marginalized. We shouldn't take sides in this debate, we should treat each side equally. This is the very spirit of NPOV.

--Alecmconroy 04:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

---Those were my comments!! Read Allen, pal. How about Introvigne. You wanna prove OD is cult, don't you? Ndss 10:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

ND-- every single one of these issues could have a whole page dedicated to it, if we really wanted. Allen has lots of things to say to try to make his case that these criticisms are not valid. The critics could write equal amounts on the subject. The point is, we're just summarizing. Here's the facts: OD is very controversial, and these are the eight or so reasons the critics give. That information deserves to be in the article, it deserves to be presented fairly in the article, and not to have the deck stacked against it by 5 rebuttals to every criticism. If you want to go have a whole debate on each criticism, you'll have to do it with the critics, not with me. The point is, there is a very big debate about whether OD is good or bad, and we should quickly and succintly devote 2-3 paragraphs describing each side. Not 10 paragraphs describing one side and 1 paragraph describing the other.

You say "You wanna prove OD is cult, don't you?". This isn't the first time you've said things like this. Now, normally I absolutely refuse to talk about my own motivations, but since you've repeatedly questioned my motivations or implied that I'm acting out of a religious agenda, let me take a moment to tell you exactly why I'm involved in this dispute. You obviously want to know, and you obviously have several working theories on the subject, so let me explain it for you, so you can stop speculating, and so you won't have any doubt why I've taken so much time of out of my life to deal with this article.

Do I want to prove OD is a cult? No! I actually don't. I don't even CARE about Opus Dei one way or the other. I don't even buy into the idea that "cults" even exist! A group of 80,000 people started a club that they all voluntarily joined and it makes them happy-- that's good, that's great. It's got nothing to do with me, and it doesn't need me to be sticking my nose in it, decided whether it's good or bad or otherwise. It's between them, their conscience, their families, and their god. If OD makes people happy or enriches their lives, that's great. In my opinion, 90% of Opus Dei's PR problems are just that they call their monk-class "numeraries" instead of "monks" and "nuns". No one would complain that "My child cut off contact with me after she joined a convent", people would think "Well, of course she did!". No one would complain "a lot of nuns lead very rigidly controlled lives". Of course they do-- they're frickin nuns! That's what they signed up for. Even mortification doesn't "startle" or "disturb" me-- between sports, sadomasochism, and sheer recklessness, I've known lots of people who've injured themselves far worse for far crazier reasons. Your body's just a big hunk of meat and if you wanna beat it, that's your business.

(some text redacted)

So, NDSS, there's my motivation you're always trying to get at. It's not because I'm secretly a Jesuit, it's not because I secretly hate OD, Catholicism, or Christianity. It's because Wikipedia is not a soap box, and this article practially exudes suds.

--Alecmconroy 10:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I have commented on this issue above. I would say that I do agree with Alec that there do exist issues on Opus Dei that are based on faith. One example that is dealt on here with a strict proportion of 50:50 is the issue on whether it is divinely inspired or not. The other issues, basically, as I said above and in the talk page can be empirically and rationally studied. And for this, the voice of the experts, whether they say something positive, neutral or negative, should be given due prominence. Thomas 03:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

But you see, a question doesn't have to be purely "religious faith"-based for us to have to treat it neutrally. The critical point is, these are value-judgments we're balancing, not factual debate. It's not the _facts_ that are in question, it's the conclusions. No scientific expert can tell me whether OD was divinely inspired, and no expert can tell me whether birth control and condoms are sins or salvation. No expert can tell us whether encouraging college kids to beat themselves with whips is a way to bring them closer to God or whether it's a scary, shocking practice. These just aren't areas of scientific expertise. Even if you were to assume that there were experts, there certainly is no consensus among those 'experts', unless you automaticallly have the rule that "everyong who isn't catholic doesn't count as an expert". --Alecmconroy 07:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Now that we agree that expertise does exist on certain issues such as global conspiracy, secret society, and wealth (see above), we can now focus our efforts on whether the rest of the issues are religious-moral matters based on faith or social issues on which historical, sociological experts can have a say.

Again I agree with Alec that there are issues such its divine foundation and even the issue of salutariness of corporal mortification that are based on faith, but I believe that level of power, privacy, control, religious devotion, political involvement, independence from ecclesial authority --like wealth and conspiratorial acts -- can be measured and documented empirically without need for divine revelation (based on faith) to tell us whether these are too much or too little, or a little too much, pretty much, or whatever varying shades they may have. They precisely have varying shades and degrees because they are temporal, earthly, empirical things that a keen scholar can measure and evaluate using the instrument of his field. I am convinced that they are not outright moral issues with only two possibilities whose sole arbiter is divine revelation based on faith.

The fact that Alec above and the article itself both provide complex data to these issues just shows that we are just seeing the tip of the iceberg of a complicated and multi-faceted social issue. This is what happens to most social issues where expertise is needed to delineate and study these issues. In these issues you don't need a religious authority to say: this is it or not. I hope Wisden17 can help us decide and finally put this issue to rest.

For your info, I have added more criticism in the Revolutionary and Conservative part. Thomas 07:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think you're still missing the point that "morality" is just as immune to expertise as "faith" is. There are no experts.

Or let's pretend there are experts. You can't convince me that 'experts' actually agree with you. There are no doctors recommending people gouge themselves regularly with barbed wire-- if we really want to open this up to 'experts', Opus Dei, a tiny religious minority, would be deluged by testimony from hundreds of millions of people who don't share their beliefs. Scientists can come testify all day about the negative mental and physical effects of chronic pain, but 'closeness to God' can't be measured in any lab, so it doesn't count as expertise. The NPOV policy says "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". Now, I'm inclined to say 50-50 out of sheer fairness. But if we really want to take some sort of survey-- of doctors, professors, or even just humans-- what percentage do you seriously believe actualy beats themselves for religious purposes on a regular basis. I'll tell you what percentage: a minority. A tiny, tiny minority. A tiny minority of doctors, a tiny minority of sociologists, a tiny minority of professors, a tiny minority of scientists, a tiny minority of CNN correspondents and BBC journalists, a tiny minority of humans.

Now, I'm a 50-50 kinda guy. I don't care how small a minority it is, I sorta feel like we ought to give it a fair shake. I say it's not a question of expertise, so even if 90% of the planet thinks OD is crazy, I don't think we should let one side dominate the article. I say, let's be equitable about it, let everyone have their say, and not let either side dominate, because it's a question of morality and faith.

But that's not good enough. You don't want an article that's 99% anti-mortification and 1% pro-mortification as the "less space to minority views" policy would require. You don't even want 50-50, like I suggest. No, no, you want to fill the article full of defenses, until the MAJORITY that disagrees with mortification sounds like a tiny minority voice, until 90% of it is Pro-OD. And to justify it, you claim that the only experts on this issue who count as 'experts' are, coinicidentally, those who agree with you. Everyone else is dismissed on some grounds-- ANY grounds will do. We shouldn't trust the popular media reports, they're not book authors, they don't count. We shouldn't trust the many many book authors who criticize OD, something's wrong with them too, they don't count as experts. Or, maybe CNN used to disagree with you, but yesterday than ran a story that didn't mention the cilice, so obviously, they have had a miraculous change of heart and they agree with you now. The algorithms used to determine expertise can be as varied as you like, because really, the 'real' algorithmn is whether they agree with your conclusions or not-- anyone who doesn't obviously can't be an expert, and if I give you and NDSS time, you'll get back to me and find some reason to justify why they're not.

So, let me trade places with you for a second-- let me be the proponent of non-equitable writing and let me be the arbitor of expertise for a change. We could go 50-50 on supportive opinions and critical opinions. OR, let's go truly representative. OD is 80,000 people out of 6 billion, so for every supportive opinion, I think the article should have, oh, 75,000 critical opinions. Or, let's pretend that every single solitary catholic agrees with OD-- something we know isn't true. In that case, I withdraw my earlier demand and substitute this one: for every supportive opinion, I think the article should have 5 critical opinions. By my count, that means you owe me, oh, about 250K of criticism. John Allen doesn't count as an expert-- he's never even anchored a major news show, but CNN counts. The pope also doesn't count as an expert-- he's never even BEEN a member of Opus Dei, but ODAN counts. If you want to know why I think someone is or isn't an expert, I have a magic eight ball here, so... ask me to explain my reasoning to you and I'm sure I can come up with something.

My point is: seriously, if we're going to start invoking the "don't give space to the minority views", guess which group's views are in the minority. Or, maybe we could just say, "Hey, these are questions of morality and faith, and we shouldn't let one side dominate the debate, even if that side IS a huge majority of the population. We shouldn't bicker over 'experts' because really, there aren't any experts, and even if there were, no one could agree which side has the better experts. So, let's just try to treat both sides about equal. Let's not make the article Pro-OD or Anti-OD-- let's just be neutral, as if, say, we had a neutral point of view"

--Alecmconroy 08:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I assume the bit about gouging oneself with barbed wire was a joke.

But it illustrates of the problem with an article written under your proposed ground rules. If gouging oneself with barbed wire were an ascetical practise, it would need to be explained in terms of the reasons cited by the people who practised it, which would presumably be theological. Therefore, among the experts to be cited in this case would be theologians. The problem is, you do not recognise theological expertise as objective – simple statements of theology are, you wrote earlier in the discussion page, unverifiable and hence inadmissible in Wikipedia – and your list above of "experts" does not include theologians. It's a pretty direct attack.

And whereas you imply that 99% of members of these other professions object to Opus Dei (or gouging oneself with barbed wire, which isn't quite the same), it is you who are making this up. No quotations are presented. Let's cite only *experts* who can be *cited*. The original article is not as unbalanced as you make out, and it is sounder as it cites the experts who matter, i.e. theologians and certain others who have expressed an opinion, giving due weight to the different views – again, your problem is that you do not accept expertise in these areas, and you seem think you are in a majority. The expertise criteria provide adequate protection against excessive self-sureness in areas such as this.

I objected earlier to the prospect of atheism standing in judgment over religion, and you responded to my points – I am happy to let the exchange stand in the discussion page as it nicely shows where we disagree. You called the same thing "non-theism", a term which I think has no value except in the religious sphere, where it becomes atheism. Some of your posts shed light on its campaigning nature.

Anonimus 15:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Lol. no, no-- i'm being facetious. If I stumbled upon an article that was 90% anti-OD, I'd work every bit as hard to fix THAT article as I have tried to fix this article that is 90% pro-OD. You are correct to object to it. As soon as I take the same rules that led to the current page, but reverse the direction of them, you can instantly and clearly see how wrong those rules are. You can easily see how ridiculous it would be to let the Anti-OD majority dominate this article, crush, and outshout the Pro-OD religious minority?

But don't you see how much MORE ridiculous it is to let the Pro-OD tiny minority outshout, outtalk, and out-bias the article? NPOV exists to protect minority views, so that the bias of the authors cannot be infused into the article. Here, not only is the author's bias blantant, but NPOV is being cited to justify silencing the majority opinions of the rest of society in favor of promoting the tiny minority Pro-OD voices. Because you believe Pro-OD = Truth, you don't object to how much blantant opinion has been stuck into this article. But the Pro-OD side is NOT truth. Neither is the Anti-OD side. They are both opinion. Opinions we cannnot share, or favor.

That's why 50-50 is so important. If we're going to deviate from 50-50, we're more justified in having LESS Pro-OD opinion-- after all, five billion people can't be wrong when they disagree with a mere 80,000, can they? But the point is, they can be wrong. That's why we should be 50-50.

And you know, 50-50 isn't even the point. The point is that the article be NEUTRAL, not favoring either opinion. If we had a criticism section and a support section, I wouldn't even object if the split was 33%-66% in favor of Pro-OD. The length isn't the most important thing. The important thing is that the critcism case gets made, directly, and fairly, and that we don't overtly favor one side of the debate in a way that's perceptible to the reader.

--Alecmconroy 18:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Actions and ideology

Am trying hard to believe you Alec. But too many obstacles to absolute trust, really.

1. equivocation-- "a couple" (two or indefinite)
2. equivocation-- "equitable" (equal or fair).
3. selective quotation
4. davinci and mortification not included in controversy section. 70:30 but really 54:56
5. lame excuses -- to Cabanes (I read it), to me, etc.

It's some kind of crying wolf you know?

Sorry pal. Don't take this personally. Pleeeease? Remember: "Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks." Wikipedia:No personal attacks ;)

Look at your UserPage, pal-- [14]

1. The Bible as Literature & History. I enjoy trying to walk tight rope of conveying biblical content without making assertions about its authenticity.
2. The "BC/AD" dating system is POV and is also confusing/contradictory since Jesus was theoretically born ~4 BC. Some day, the world should switch to "BCE/CE".
3. Definitions are bad.
4. Argument from authority doesn't hold a lot of sway with me.

Look at your statements. They contradict Wikipedia

1. "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"
2. there are "unverifiable statements that need to be modified to bring them in line with encyclopedic tone and verifiability. Let's take this statement "Christians are called to holiness". This is an unprovable statement. You can quote the bible, but that won't prove it, because many people don't believe the bible is the inerrant word of God."

Well, in Wikipedia we cite facts and facts about opinion, don't we? Remember: you were startled when Tom brought this up?

And what is an encyclopedic tone? Check out encyclopedia and there's a definition of an encyclopedia. Definitions are part of Wikipedia, you know?

If your ideas are not ideology, then what is? Isn't it called secular dogmatism? No public display of religion? laicism? No overt Christianity? Isn't that Christianophobia or one of its forms, mild or not mild? No essences, no definition? some existentialism, nominalism?, No authority-- a bit of anarchism?

No wonder you don't want any theology, no Catholic theology. So we have to delete Roman Catholic sacraments? Catholic liturgy?

Tis not personal. Tis pure business, Alec. Tis important Wikipedia business. You accepted Cabanes' statement, didn't you? Tis an excellent analysis of the problem we've been facing for 2 months, and you brought us into it!

"ideologues, when presented with an article that has exemplary neutrality (as per our policy), will consider the article biased precisely because it does not reflect their own bias enough. Probably, such people simply do not understand the NPOV policy."

Remember? By now there are two mediators who checked this page out. Didn't they conclude it's neutral. Wisden already said the "article may well have the right balance"! But you are still at it!

So what's the next step so we can solve this problem, pal? Ndss 14:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

ND,

If we get to the point where we're decided WHAT to put in the article based solely on WHO suggested it, based solely on their personal biases, and their editing histories.... you wouldn't last a second in that debate. If this goes to ArbCom, I may be forced to show you what I mean by that-- but in my entire Wikipedia career, I've never once gone that route. This is mediation, and I'm going to go there while there is even the tiniest flicker of hope of a consensus settlement.

It's obvious that you have reached the point where your feelings towards me personally are sufficiently strong that "What I Say" isn't much important anymore, because you already don't like "Who is saying it". If I offered to have Pope Benedict XVI personally write every word of this article, you would object to the idea on the grounds that I must be up to some jesuitic/atheistic skulllduggery.

Would you like to know what's really hilarious though. You think you've got me all figured out. You think you've figured out my bias, you think you know what POV I'm pushing, and what I'm all about. Let me tell you something.. you haven't got a CLUE. You're not even CLOSE. You're off by a mile. You're so inaccurate, you couldn't hit the broad side of a barn.

Would you like a hint? here a hint, so you can play some more of your "Which of the many groups I hate does Alec fit best into?" you're having so much fun with it-- perusing my user page for any hint of my personal identity, back through my edit histories to try to find crumbs you can use to follow a trail back to the best reason to hate me. It seems a shame to not give you more to go on-- and you're SO far off, it's sad watching you clumsily poke around trying to figure out what's wrong with me, rattling off the name of every group you hate in the hopes that you'll stumble onto the truth-- secular dogmatism, laicism, Christianophobia, existentialism, nominalism,anarchism, Jesuits, Atheism.

So, I'll give you a clue. Ya ready? Here's the hint: "An essential part of my Wikiphilosophy is that you never, ever use wikipedia to promote your own personal bias." Now... knowing that I really truly believe that, and knowing that I honestly and sincerely work VERY hard to adhere to that ethical constraint... you should be able to get a LITTLE closer. lol. Do keep trying, it's fun watching you struggle in vain to find out why exactly you hate me-- an ideological Hide-and-Go-Seek, if you will.

Anyway, back to the content dispute. I read over your comments to try to reply to them-- but the comments about content were few, and they were hard to follow. To be silly for a moment, as a movie character I like once said,"At only one point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought": "davinci and mortification not included in controversy section." My response is: If neither section criticizes Opus Dei, why should we count them in the criticism section? I wrote the Da Vinci code section exclusively to DEFEND Opus Dei from the falsehoods in the Da Vinci Code. The mortification describes a practice that OD is proud of. Covering Mortification is in no way "bad" or "a criticism" unless you yourself see mortification itself as inherently bad.

What's the next step towards resolution? Well, if I knew, I'd get someone else to tell you, so that you don't dismiss the idea out of hand. Just kidding. Well, I'm content to try this a little more-- I think we're probably just spinning our wheels here, but maybe Thomas or Wisden thinks we're getting somewhere. In the event that we can't reach consensus, the mediation will fail. I will abide by my rule that "you do make major changes to a page a controversial ways unless you have a consensus supporting those changes-- even if the page you're changing is not itself supported by consensus". That is the only rule that doesn't devolve into edit wars, I believe strongly in it, and I will abide by it.

Obviously.. that won't be the end of the story. I'd still have a few steps to take before I could put the issue to rest, of course. But you know, the thing you don't get about me is-- I don't care about Opus Dei. I think this page has very, very serious NPOV problems. If I'm wrong, if this page is really just a Featured Article waiting to happen-- I could live with being wrong. What I can't live with is being RIGHT, but not doing everything I could to make the encyclopedia bettter (without, of course, disrupting it in any way in the process of trying to improve it). The outcome isn't as important as the process. I need to fix this, or I need to come to understand why it doesn't need fixing. I don't care which one of the two happens.

If you look at the talk page history-- a lot of folks came to the article and said that this page has problems. But they didn't really care about Opus Dei anymore than I did. You guys care about OD immensely, and you're there to stay on that article. So you reverted them, you dismissed them, and in a few days , they were gone. And then, a couple days later, a NEW person would come to the page, make a post complaining about the NPOV, be reverted and dimissed, and the cycle repeated.

Well... I agreed with them. I thought it has NPOV problems. I made an edit, made a post. My edit was reverted, my post was dismissed. And I looked through the history and saw that this had happened over and over. So, I figured I ought to take the time to try to fix it right. It's like a piece of litter-- everyone walks by it and complains, but nobody takes the time to clean it up. So, I'm trying...

And maybe it won't work. That's okay. But I can look myself in the mirror and say, I did my best to try to get it cleaned up, and if I didn't succeed, well... that's being human for you.

--Alecmconroy 15:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Stuart Mill & Planned Parenthood, potential compromise

Thomas-- about the John Stuart Mill sentence. I'm not at the point where I'm going to start a sentence-by-sentence level discussion of this artice. Until there's agreement on the "bigger" issues like balance, this remains "ya'lls" article. I deleted the John Stuart Mill & Planned Parenthood sentence because I assumed you were putting it in just to be concillatory, and I was saying you don't be so concillatory that you put in non-sequitor criticism that involved old philosophers and supreme court cases. If you want it in there, though, that's a different story, for now, this article is more "an exemplar of your writing philosophy" right now, not mine.

But-- since I brought it up: you probably could re-word the sentence that says "Opus Dei, according to its critics, serves as the Vatican's instrument to oppose the liberal and secular thought expressed in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey 1992, “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life." ". The sentence has lots of problems, but no need to get into all of them now. But, we don't really have to describe this as "according to the critics". I mean, wouldn't supporters be just as adament about Opus Dei's opposition to Planned Parenthood as the critics? We shouldn't even characterize this as a criticism per se-- it's every bit as much as COMPLIMENT as it is a CRITICISM, ya know-- just depends on who you ask. Anyway, I don't really care what the sentence says-- do it however you want, we've got bigger fish to fry right now. I just think the sentence is overly harsh, OVERLY critical of OD-- if you want it there, be my guest for the time being-- just don't feel like you need to add it on my account.

I'm content to not make the Opus Dei artice the bearer of these issues at all. As my buddy Introvigne says, many of the criticisms of Opus Dei are not really criticisms of Opus Dei at all, they are criticism of Catholicism. Things like the role of women, the stance on birth control, the stance on abortion. I don't think anyone's even alleging that Opus Dei's stance on these issues are any different than Catholicism's stance. As such, I'm totally content to exclude all these sorts of criticisms from the article and merely summarize them all in a 1-2 sentence segment that just acknowledges that Opus Dei _is_ Catholic, that Catholicism has certain stances, and some people object to them. These debates are better left to articles like Controversial Catholic teachings.

My point is that just because I think the current article is too Pro-OD, that doesn't mean I think we have to cover anything and eveything that anyone could ever not like about Opus Dei. Let's just hit the top 10 reasons and be done with it. In terms of sheer words of criticism, I actually want LESS actual words of criticism in the article than you and NDSS do. I just want the words we do have to be a little more fairly presented. --Alecmconroy 23:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Potential Compromise First Step

So, what would you think about this:

Suppose we added in the section Criticism of Opus Dei as it is into the article. Every line in that criticism section is Verifiable. Every line is backed up by citations. Every line explicitly attributes the criticisms as just as the "opinion of critics", and nowhere does it assert the validity of any of those criticisms. The section as a whole is actually remarkably short, and it would certainly amount to fewer words of criticism than are in the article currently.

In turn, I'd be happy to stipulate to the removal of all other criticisms anywhere in the article (aside from maybe a few single lines that say "Some people object to this, see Criticism section"). I wouldn't ask for any random criticisms in the history, theology, or similar sections. Unless you want them there for some reason, I'd be willing to cut the long-winded quotes that criticize OD that are dispersed throughout the article, and thereby shorten the article.

If we let just that one short section speak for all the criticism, then I'd feel content that at least the criticism IS being directly and fairly presented, and we certainly wouldn't need to ever worry about adding MORE criticism to the article again. We could say: "I don't know what the Support should look like, but at least the critcism is done, and however long the Support has to be, at least we don't have to add a single word of criticism to the article". I could say-- "Well, at least the critics have their fifteen minutes of fame in the article-- they got just a few moments to have their say without being interrupted, and after that, they've said their piece, and they can sit down now."

We'd still have to debate about how long the Pro-OD material before/after the criticism section would be. It certainly could be at LEAST as long as the criticism section, and I could deal with being pretty flexible about it expanding beyond that. If I could have just those 20 meager sentences of discussing the criticism, then that half of the controversy coverage would be over and done with, and we could put that to rest. I know we don't know what the ratio of "Criticism" to "Support & Rebuttal" should look like yet, but at least we could fix the numerator in that fraction, which should simplify things subtantially.

Whatcha think, Thomas?

--Alecmconroy 22:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Resolution

At the moment we appear to be starting to go around in circles. It is clear that we have achieved a lot so far int he mediation (and have found a number of things that we all agree on), however the nature of the article, and how exactly to get criticism in, still seems to be the issue.

The issue seems to be how do we justify having the article in its current state, when it appears to be pro-OD. As I said earlier, the reason for any perceived bias is due to the wieght of supporting, reliable evidence. Alec, you have presented a number of valid points of criticism, and I think a 'responses' section is a good idea. However, you must understand that the body of evidence is against you. When I talk about evidence I mean evidecne which is accpetable to Wikipedia. Take a look at WP:NOR, in particular reputable publications. NOR ties in with NPOV, and rests at the heart of the issue. You example above about the cilice and possible conclusions baout its use is all well and good (and I know used as a joke), but proves the important point relating to NOR, unless there is a reliable source for your evidence or conclusion then you cannot use it.

The problem with the OD article is that it is currently too long, in my opinion. The fact that it is so long helps to give hte impression of bias, and this I think is perhaps a greater problem. By using a "responses" section in a shorter article it would have much more effect. The current article goes into too much depth I would have to say about OD teachings, practices etc., and sub-pages should be used instead.

I would therefore suggest that we look at reducing the overall size of the the OD article, as by doing so any impression of bias would be greatly reduced, and also as in its current form it is simply too long.

I do not want to keep this mediation going if we are simply going to go around in circles, as we are in danger of beginning to do. At the heart of the issue is NPOV, and I think by reducing the article length the whole article will have a greater feel of NPOV. --Wisden17 23:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Wisden17! Thank you so much for your balanced and fair resolution. I greatly appreciate what you've done here.

I'm happy to hear of this resolution. I agree with Wisden17 that the body of evidence is clear on what side has the majority POV, and I am glad that, in some way and after some time, Alec himself has acceded to the fact that Allen shares with other people the quality of being a reliable source of expert opinion on specific issues of Opus Dei.

Indeed, cutting the article which Alec has from the beginning suggested is a principal way of removing possible misimpressions that there is bias. I will work on that as soon as I can, as I promised.

As to the suggested response section and Alec's proposal, I would need some more time to think them through. My apologies, for I have become so busy lately. Thomas 07:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC) P.S. There seems to be some comments above from a newcomer on a response section. Thanks. Thomas 08:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't accept that the Pro-OD sources truly have a majority of evidence-- I know they claim that, but many many books have been written on this subject. Far more books have been written criticizing OD than praising it. I grant you, I have not presented all that evidence, because I don't really think we need to get into it. 20 meager sentences, and that's all the criticism we really need, pretty much. As far as NOR goes-- I don't really think that's a charge that can realistically be leveled against me (aside from my silly tirades of courese). If you look at the response section I suggest, every word of criticism can be cited. One trip to barnes and noble, and I could come away with several hundreds of pages of material that could be introduced, properly cited, and it would counterbalance the ratio while simultaneously being verifiable, notable, NOR, reliable sourced, and NPOV. But-- that would make things worse, not better.

But, despite that fundamental disagreement about the nature and type of the expertise, I'm in complete agreement with you about teh steps this article needs to go. Adding the response section, massively shortening the article would be a major step. By and large, the problem isn't WHAT is being said-- the problem is the tone in which it's said, and the sheer amount of it that it is being said. If we can get an article that does have the short criticism section in it intact and is within the space limits, I think those two things right there would be major strides towards NPOV.

So, Thom, decide if you're cool with adding the criticism section (by all means add my support section if you want to too), and doing some very major cuts. If you are, then by going over the remaining material with a really close eye to tone, we might well get ourselves to okay article here. If those are changes you don't think you're prepared to do, then.. yeah, we probably are unlikely to ever reach consensus, and can probably close mediation out. Short of a consensus, I will let the article stand as is (as I have), but I will of course continue to work towards developing a consensus for change.

--Alecmconroy 09:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Great Wisden!! Watta relief!!!

Hey Alec!! Be sure you get books from reputable sources, pal. Allen's from Random House Doubleday, you know. Check out the links, and you'll see prestige! And he is official CNN analyst, he's not from.... Sorry, pal. Wikipedia = proportionality in reputable, reliable sources. There's no going around it. Quality over quantity, really. Ndss 12:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for fielding this discussion, Wisden17: I don't envy you the job at all. I was just wondering whether I had misunderstood the proposal. If the article is in the direction of being balanced and rightly proportioned, and the experts established, is there a need to add in a response section, perhaps with the related potential messiness of a rather sharp POVfork?

I can see the article would benefit with some shortening, so cuts seem to be the right way to go, and that should sort out that particular problem *per se*. I have reservations about creating a new problem though: I doubt a new section would achieve much and it could end up making the article truly unbalanced.

Anonimus 16:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds logical, Anonimus!! Yeah!!

Wisden said-- "The article may end up being biased if there is a shortage of prominent reliable sources for one side of the argument." "the reason for any perceived bias is due to the weight of supporting, reliable evidence."

My suggestion: let's try out cutting. First things, first.

In Wisden's last 2 paragraphs, he used 5 sentences out of 7 to emphasize article length, and that we have to cut. Then he used 1 sentence to suggest a response section. He used 1 to scold us for going ariound in circles. ;)

OK, Tom? Let's cut. Let's start by cutting women issue. Alec suggested it and my pal's right. I'll do it. Ndss 10:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Cutting is good. I can't say I'm surprised you started by cutting criticism, but that's okay-- chucking that section is a definite step in the right direction. The women's section was verbose, and it's really a catholicism issue, not an opus dei issue. I get the vague notion that you expect me to say "Oh no, don't cut that!"-- but, maybe I'm just imagining sarcasm where none exists. The internet is like that-- it's hard to read the emotion in words. But, emotionas aside, good job cutting that section! It's a step. It makes for a better article.

Similarly, I took the liberty of cutting the lengthy list of sites critical of opus dei-- I'm content to let ODAN speak for that. I'd suggest that the lengthy list of other links also be reduced down to a more managable size, rather than being a clearinghouse for links. That'd save some space, and help ensure that visitors go to the site that does the best job of making the case.

While we're cutting-- Heck, ya'll can cut the Da Vinci Code section you guys hate so much if you really want. From the standpoint of writing a good article, I think it'd be a mistake to cut it. From the standpoint of actively trying to promote your religion, I think it'd be a HUGE mistake to cut it. But, there IS a lot of cutting to do-- the article's still more than double the size limit, so.. if you hate it so much, cut it. I just wrote it to try to help OD out by pointing out how silly the Da Vinci Code is. You don't want, you don't gotta take it. An article without it might be worse for wikipedia, it might be worse for OD, but an article that doesn't mention the Da Vinci Code could could certainly still comply with NPOV. If we can get this baby down to a reasonable size, it will be MUCH easier to reach consensus on the stylistic issues of tone, verifiability, and verbosity.

But, don't think that playing sentence-counting games will somehow make it okay to never let the critics have their say. They don't need a long say, a short one will do, but they must have their say. The response section I've written is ULTRA-CONCISE, impeccably cited, and very, very cautious in tone. If it's simply not welcome in your article, don't hem and haw about it, just let me know that's your decision, and we'll see what happens from there.

--Alecmconroy 11:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me just add something else. Whilst the article does need a lot of cutting I think a lot of the information could still be used on Wikipedia, but in sub-pages. I mean just taking the example of the Da Vinci Code above, there could be a whole page devoted to somthing along the line of "OPus Dei in the 21st Century" or "Opus Dei in Popular Culture", with a breif summary of such a page being used in the main OD article. To respond to Anonimus's point above about the use of a response sections: I think that if one was done well it could well add to the article. As I said originally though I'm not a great fan of such sections, and prefer to see criticism weaved into the whole article, it seems a little impractical as the article stands at the moment. The response section is something, which if the article is reduced in size effectively may well not be needed.

I would be happy to close this mediation now, unless anyone has any objections. I'm still happy to help in the future if you are having problems with any particual aspect of the page (and you can just contact me via my talk page, if you need any further assistance). --Wisden17 12:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the helpful response Wisden17 - very much to the point.

Anonimus 20:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

No, no objections to closing. I'm very puzzled, but I do thank you for taking the time to help us out. In light of your most recent comment, I think there is only a very minute probability that the response section will be incorporated into the article, and therefore there is only a very miniscule chance my concerns will be resolved through continued mediation. Thom, ND, et.al.-- if I am incorrect in this assumption and you are/become amienable to the inclusion of the criticism section, please insert it intact within the next few days, so that I can know an incremental improvement of the article is a possibility

However, I accept the outcome of mediation is a clear lack of consensus for change, and as such, there is clearly not impetus on you requiring the inclusion of the criticism section. Barring such a consensus, I will continue to refrain from editting the article in controversial ways. I will, of course, continue to work towards either generating a consensus for bringing the page in line with my understanding of Wikipedia policy or comprehending how my understanding of the policies are flawed.

--Alecmconroy 13:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me clarify a bit my last comment. I think the main task should be reducing the size of the article, to begin with. Once you've managed to achieve this a "reposnses" section should be considered. It may well be the case that information, such as the Da Vinici Code material could be included in a responses/recption section. Quoting from Wikipedia:Criticism: "If the reception (history) of a topic is composed of as well positive and negative criticism, and other significant events that usually aren't qualified as "criticism" (e.g. about a book, notes about when major translations appeared,...), it is often better to have a "Reception (history)" section than a "Criticism" section, and to integrate the "criticism" topics in that Reception (history) section". If you could achieve something along these lines I think it could solve a number of problems on the page. So, first reduce the page lenght (via the use of sub-pages etc.) and then look at ways to factor in criticism in an effective manner. I think a recpetion section is one way to do this, and may well in the case of this article be the easiest way to do it (I think you'll need to discuss that once you've managed to reduce the article length). The advantage of a reception section is that you can combine weave criticism into one section of the article (which is better than having no criticism at all!), but as I've said a number of time not as good as successfuly weaving it into the whole article. With a reception section, you could perhaps use it to record, as I suggested above, OD in popular culture, and/or OD in 21st Century. So in effect you would not have a specific "responses/recetion" section, but instead may have a small number of sections which contain a balance of information. --Wisden17 14:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, Wisd, let me explain my dilemma about interweaving. The "real topic of debate" is that many people regard Opus Dei as heretical, bad, immoral, or more simply put, "a cult"-- by real topic I mean, if I went to most people involved in the anti-OD side of this debate, they would say "I think OD is bad/a cult because of...", and then cite their reasons for judging the organization harshly. They would not, generally, "I think there eight different issues about Opus Dei that I disagree with". Do you see the difference? They feel there is a systemic problem with Opus Dei itself, and they can then cite us 8-10 lines of evidence that they find symptomatic of that fundamental problem. The critics have a thesis and some evidence, and together it forms a connected argument. The supporters, meanwhile, can follow (or precede) with their own counter-argument.

Now, if we chop it up the "eight pieces of evidence" and instead treat them as "eight different issues", and present pro- and con- side on each issue, something has been lost, even if every sentence of support and criticism remains unaltered. Am I making sense? The debate isn't about eight discrete different issues, each with their own side-- neither critics nor supporters describe it that way. There is one basic debate, and if each half of that debate gets chopped up into eight pieces and they pieces are shuffled together, the result is that neither side has a connected series of thoughts supporting a single thesis which together form an argument. A connected argument, chopped up into eight pieces and presented discontinously, is no longer an argument, it is a schiziophrenic series of disconnected complaints.

That's the philsophical problem with interweaving. Here's the pragmatic one:

If there's 20 sentences of criticism followed by 400 sentences of rebuttal-- the criticism may be hard to find, but any reader who stumbles onto it can rapidly process that criticism, and "see the whole argument" right there. If the 20 critical sentences stay grouped together, then no matter how much further rebuttal material is added, the criticism remains comprehensible to readers. But if those 20 sentences of criticism are chopped up and and distributed into the 400 sentence block, suddenly it becomes impossible for anyone to find it. They must sift through the entire interwoven text, mentally pull out the criticisms, and reassemble themselves in to the coherent argument.

If the space ratio is roughly equally balanced between support and criticism, this is a feasible task. However, if the support material is increased and increased, the dilution is such that it becomes utterly impossible to understand the criticism. It becomes diluted to the point of nonexistence--- as it has in this current article.

Now, given the huge disparity of balance views-- some editors literally suggest a 999:1 support to criticism ratio-- I can see no concievable way of interweaving while still preserving the comprehensibility of the criticism. Suppose I create an interwoven response history that is 50:50. The OD suppporters will continue to add supportive material into the text until the amount of critcism approaches 0%. The additions WILL be notable, they will be verifiable-- so I can't simply remove them. I could respond in turn by introducing ever more critical material that also is notable and verifiable-- there's no shortage of evidence on both sides of this thing. But where would that get us? An article that grows limitlessly and quickly becomes utterly unreadable. I am confident of this scenario, because this scenario has already played out over the course of the past year on this article.

Cutting is good, but if there is going to be any continually-comprehensible criticism of what is universally agreed to be "the most controversial organization in all of Catholicism", then sooner or later, we're going to need a cohesive section of about 20 short sentences included somewhere in the article. But if it's not going to be allowed in, then all the cutting in the world probably won't result in a balanced article. I expect people have already made their minds up about whether that criticism is going to be allowed into the article, so, if it IS acceptable, please tell me.

With the agreement on cutting, it sounds like we're on the road to consensus--- but, I suspect this is an illusion that will quickly evaporate. (not that it's a deception, mind you-- i'm not alleging that). I mean, a month ago, I undertook my own attempt to shorten the article and bring the article in line with summary style, and the result is vehemently opposed. This is a good indication that whatever result the cutting has, it probably will not be in line with what I would consider NPOV.

And of course, in terms of POV and balance, why should the resultant article be any different than the current article? The OD-editors have a clear majority at the moment. The mediator clearly does not detect any systemic NPOV problems or detect any major balance issues. The article I created to embody my suggestions has be unilaterally rejected at every turn. I'm still a little shocked by all that-- but the fact remains that at the moment, the article may become slightly shorter, but I'll be most surprised if a coherent criticism section emerges, barring some new larger consensus for change developing in the future.

--Alecmconroy 15:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Alec I understand your concerns, and I can see your point regarding the problem of interweaving criticism into the article. I accept that to do so would be impractical (as I said above), and so I can see the merits of a response/reception section. To have an effect reception section though, it cannot simply be 20 sentences of criticism, as we then have the problems of creating POV-forks. I think the best way to get a balanced "criticism" section, would be to create a section along the lines of "Opus Dei in popular culture", or "OD in the 21st Century", and in that section, (which could be a summary of a longer sub-page) look at modern views of OD, e.g. DVC, 'cult' accusations, etc., and also information which presents OD in a more positive light. So you can have a balanced section, which may contain a number of Alec's points, which will of course be correctly referenced etc., but will also provide the reader with an understanding of the modern reception to OD. So the article can become more NPOV, and also better stylistcally, and the criticism can be introduced (although not as directly as having a section entitiled "Criticism". --Wisden17 15:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm.. well, I'm still not especially clear on WHY Criticism and Support sections are inherently bad, but obviously enough people feel that way that I should definitely do some work weaving together a couple different "patchs" into a woven-together response history section, though not a fully homogonenize interwoven blend. I'll take a crack at it and show you what I come up with. --Alecmconroy 16:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Alec I would go with wizden suggestion I see what you mean about spreading out the criticism diluting it and it true but the big problem is how it hidden away and how the article responds too it, if we first of all reduce the article length to 32k (with use of sub pages keep in mind we already have 27 pages) then you just cant use the 1 complaint to 9 line response method without removing all complains or removing other important points. Aside from that large article have a tendency to ramble space restriction means only the most important points get in and they are addressed concisely that said of course the question is how does Thomas and other feel about that kind of reduction in length?.Ansolin 17:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't realise it was that many sub-pages already, but I mean that doesn't seem to be excessive at all. One thing that might be owrth considering is creating an Opus Dei Portal, to help link all the articles together. If you need a hand doing that I could help. It may just help organise everything a little better. --Wisden17 17:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi everybody. My apologies but I had to speed read all your comments somehow for I still lack time. Thanks again to everyone.

My compromise solution to the response issue is the following. Possibly this puts together everyone's concerns. Please take a look at the Response of Society and Controversies. My plan is to bring that section to the very end, then to extend the second paragraph for it to include some sort of summary of the criticism-- secrecy, church within the church, political agenda, questionable spiritual practices such as too much control. The length should not be too much nor too short.

This might be a good idea, but I think it should be short. We don't go in for mentioning in entries that this or that major religious group is a cult. (Cult is a word to avoid, still I don't suppose that would be used anyway.) So I am not keen on the idea of dwelling on this much. I'd keep it to a very brief sentence.

Anonimus 20:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

For cutting purposes, we can summarize theology, then collapse some part of the Revolutionary vs Conservative into Relation to Politics, or just keep a short version of it. I still don't know for sure. But I hope all the above can solve most of the problems.

Thanks, Wisden17. Yes I think we can close mediation. I hope we can include a link to this in the talk page for future use. It can be useful for the Q&A there. Thanks, Alec, Ansolin, Ndss, and Anonimus for the fun of discussing things with you during mediation. :) We might have to continue some more later at the talk page. Thomas 02:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I've done some initial work. Still more to go. Kindly see if this is heading towards the right direction. Thomas 05:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd change the lead book on the list of "Cat 6" books. Forbidding anyone to read a book by Woody Allen really isn't much. Gustav Flaubert is a better choice. Flaubert is widely recognized as a quality writer whose ideas aren't so controversial today. Madam Bovary is a classic and college women seem to love it.69.255.0.91 03:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no objection to Wisden summarizing his final assessment of the Mediation, or for the individual contributors to quote from their own arguments here, but I was a little more candid and direct than I usually am in Wikipedia discussions, what with this being a mediation an all. Based on Wikipedia:Mediation and some other documents, I had thought the record would be deleted at the conclusion-- though perhaps I waived my confidentiality by agreeing to mediate on this page.

I assure you, though-- this is just my own concern at not having done a slightly better job of civility, and a desire not to have that quoted out of context at some point. I swear, I'm not trying to do a Stalinst purge of the fact that mediation did not go well for me. Nobody's going to be forgetting that part, I am sure-- and Wisden is just a talk page away if anyone wants a reminder of his opinions.

--Alecmconroy 04:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, well I'll close the mediation then (although I'd be happy to wait a little while, see below). I must say we seem to have achieved a lot (and it certainly it s a long mediation page (even longer than the original OD article!). Alec sent me the link to his proposed responses section, and I thought that he had made a good start to the section (although I think a bit more referencing is needed, for example in the first paragraph when you say some have descirbed OD as a "cult" you definitely need to reference it there). I think that a response section would be a useful addition to the slimmed-down article, and that you all ought to take a look at Alec's proposal, here, and discuss it further on the OD talk page, unless you want to perhaps finish the dicussion here (it's up to you)To reply to Alec's point about the page being deleted, this isn't the usual practice, and I mean I can't see anything Alec that you've said that hasn't been constructive. I think that some of the stuff on here could well be useful in a Q&A section on the talk page, but I wouldn't say doing so, unless all particpants are happy with that being the case (as obviously mediation cases are meant to be a relatively private matter). As I've said if you run into any difficulties with the article, or with understanding or applying any policies etc. in the future just leave a message on my talk page, and I'll get back to you. --Wisden17 19:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion: each one cleans up his own little mess. I just did. ;) How about it, Alec? This'll be useful when this thing goes ArbCom, won't it? Hope this goes there soon! Better get it over with ASAP!! ;) Ndss 09:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, there are a couple steps before this hits ArbCom. One is I want to be sure I've given Thomas sufficient time to do all the major cuts he wants-- no sense in trouble ArbCom with things we can reach consensus on by ourselves. I'll probably ask some folks to take a look at the page and see if there's a good consensus that the edits I want to make would harm the page, rather than improve it-- if I'm the only one thinking this is problematic, then there's probably no reason for me to trouble ArbCom with it. Then there's all the work that goes into actually building an ArbCom case, so, I wouldn't expect it to happen today or tommorrow. lol But don't worry, ND, I'm sure somebody will wind up taking this page to ArbCom sooner or later.--Alecmconroy 09:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Right well I think I'll close the case as we seem to have achieved all that we will. --Wisden17 17:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)