Talk:Controversies about Opus Dei
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information. |
 |
Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette. |
 Archives |
|---|
Contents |
[edit] Under construction
As people may have noticed, this article is under major construction. I know major problems do still exist within the article, but I hope to have resolved them soon. --Alecmconroy 15:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Attack site used for reference
Under Controversies about Opus Dei#Ex-members as unreliable witnesses a link used for an online copy of a reference is to the Scientology Parishioners' Committee site www.religiousfreedomwatch.org. Surely there are more reliable sites with an online copy of this paper? AndroidCat 22:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- Fixed. I generally don't mind linking to partisan sites which mirror third party sources, but I also don't mind linking to non-partisan mirrors instead if they exist. But since we're talking about that Brian Wilson essay, does anyone know where it came from, i.e. what journal was it published in? I've looked and looked and I did find out it was from 1984, but no journal name so far. --Alecmconroy 15:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Intro paragraph lacks a neutral point of view
I find that the initial paragraphs lack a neutral point of view. Anyone else? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.21.96.49 (talk) 14:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Pictures
I've deleted the picture of an opened letter with a caption saying OD has been accused of reading its members' letters. The picture is rather misleading; what is shown is not, as far as I can tell, evidence of the practice, for which no source is provided anyway. It's just an unrelated opened letter. Its purpose is basically decorative and people don't need illustrations of letters to tell them what letters are. We don't insert a picture of an apple into the article about Isaac Newton for the same reason. --Lo2u (T • C) 03:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
The pictures are free and suitable to use in wikipedia.--85.60.227.173 20:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Obviously you don't know the difference between copyright and personality rights. "Free" in the wiki world means free only of copyright. Your insertion ([1]) of the image of two identifiable women plus the added caption clearly violates their personality rights. -- Túrelio 21:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
Thanks Túrelio. I'm deleting the letter too. It's not enough for an image to be free. It should also be appropriate. As I said before, this image is misleading. The letter has nothing to do with Opus Dei but the caption implies it's a picture of one belonging to an OD member. These sorts of decorative images are also very silly. They insult readers' intelligence. It's like me illustrating the article on Nixon in China with this image. Find an image of an illegally opened letter and source your allegation too or else explain your rationale on the talk page.--Lo2u (T • C) 01:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
President Nixon flew to China by aeroplane
-
- Sorry but Opus Dei recognizes the allegations about opened letters. Please see here. If you do not understand Spanish language, I put the automatic translation below.:
Los críticos mencionan el presunto control absoluto sobre las actividades diarias de estos integrantes, quienes de por sí ya tienen estipuladas una serie de actividades diarias (ir a misa, orar, rezar el Rosario, realizar su encargo apostólico -por ejemplo, participar en la formación de otros-).
Se refieren, por ejemplo, a la lectura del correo personal (enviado y recibido) por parte de los directores de los centros del Opus Dei.
El sacerdote José Carlos Martín de la Hoz, de la prelatura en España, admite a BBC Mundo que esta práctica existe, pero aclara que es una manifestación de apertura y confianza de los fieles de la “Obra”.
Sin embargo, hay quienes ven en esto una invasión injustificada de la privacidad, más aún cuando quienes envían el correo –por ejemplo, familiares- no tienen conocimiento de ello.
- Translation (automatic but sufficient) Túrelio do not need translation ;-):
Critics mention the allegedly absolute control on the daily activities of these members, that in case they already have stipulated a series of daily activities (to go to mass, to pray, to say the Rosary, to make its apostolic order - for example, to participate in the formation of others).
They claims, for example, the reading of the personal mail (sent and received) by directors of the centers of the Opus Dei.
Jose Carlos Martin de la Hoz, priest of the prelature in Spain, admits to BBC World that this practice exists, but clarifies that it is a manifestation of opening and confidence of the faithfuls of the Opus Dei
Nevertheless, there are some people who see in this practice an unjustifiable invasion of the privacy, when who sends the mail – for example, family do not have knowledge of this.
- Well, allegations have reliable source. An Opus Dei priest asked by BBC, recognizes the practice. --85.57.4.109 21:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] External links
The links on this page could use a review with a mind to our guidelines, for instance blogs, other self published sites and foreign language sites really have no place. On something as controversial as a "Controversies about" article it is particularly important to ensure the information presented is reliable, balanced and of a high quality. -- SiobhanHansa 22:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] POV fork
This article is simply a POV fork of Opus_dei. Much of the critical material in it is repeated wholesale from that article. Where Opus_dei attributes criticisms of Opus Dei directly to sources in the text, this article uses weasel terms like "critics allege". Numerous passages in the article are inline-tagged as unsourced.
This article should be deleted, and any salvageable content noted so it can be rewritten neutrally in the main article. This talk page message is a first step towards that; without any response or correction, my next step will be to WP:PROD the article, and, if necessary, take it to WP:AFD.
--- tqbf 04:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Atrocity stories and apostasy
Again, I notice that the treatment of the article apostasy and atrocity stories is one sided and in the case of atrocity story erroneous. First of all atrocity stories can be completely based on verifiable factual events; they are not necessarily fictional. What sets them apart from other narratives is the degree of moral condemnation and horror that is often highly dependent on the context and the current world view of the narrator and current affiliations. It has been argued that the anti-cult view strongly influences the narratives of the former member. For example, the same factual events can be either interpreted as horrifying brainwashing and indoctrination or as accepting Jesus, the savior, and the mother church. With regards to one-sided view, the article should not quote only Wilson. He voiced only one among many viewpoints in this debate abour the reliabilty of former members and should be treated as such. Andries (talk) 20:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Why are you writing about this here, and not on Opus Dei? If Opus Dei is behind atrocities, surely that merits coverage in the main article, not a fork. --- tqbf 21:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- May be this article should be merged back, because it is unsourced, so bad and needs more eyeballs and maintenance to fix it and keep it in reasonable state. Andries (talk) 23:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- I agree; I don't even think it needs a merge; compare the two articles, and there is little verifiable information here that isn't already written better in the main article. Like I said, I'm going to have this article deleted if nobody speaks up for it. --- tqbf 23:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- May be this article should be merged back, because it is unsourced, so bad and needs more eyeballs and maintenance to fix it and keep it in reasonable state. Andries (talk) 23:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
