Talk:Opus Dei/Archive 2006-3

This is an archive of past discussions about Opus Dei. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Mediation

I went ahead and did a request for mediation. I only listed myself and NDSS as parties, since he had expressed interest in talking to a mediator-- but anyone else who wants to participate should feel very free to just go ahead and add yourself to the parties list and sign that you agree to participate: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Opus Dei. The more the merrier. --Alecmconroy 09:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I just added myself to the list. Pvazz 08:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't studied this issue, but I corrected the link to the mediation page. Art LaPella 21:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm in. :) Thomas 01:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello, the Mediation Committee accepted your request for mediation. I would like to offer to mediate. (You should note, however, that I am not actually a member of the Mediation Committee, though I would like to be.) See Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Opus Dei for more information and to respond. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 21:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. Thanks for helping out.--Alecmconroy 22:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Armedblowfish, for your initiative and kind heart! :) I would prefer though that we go through a more official mediation. Thanks! Thomas 02:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! It isn't exactly unofficial, persay. It is encouraged for current nominees for the Mediation Committee (of which I am one) to mediate a case, which allows us to be evaluated. Of course, you probably mean you want someone more experienced (my experience being... limitted), so I wish you the best of luck in resolving your dispute! Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 02:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Recent vandalism

Starting on 28 May 2006 an anonymous user with unallocated IPs 58.160.194.19 [1] and 58.160.192.10[2] has repeatedly vandalised the article Opus Dei and even used false edit summaries. In order to avoid more time spend for reverting, I propose a temporary semi-protection of the page. Any ADMIN hearing? --Túrelio 14:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I added a semi-protection request to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. I figured this sort of thing would happen at some point during the run of the movie. --Alecmconroy 02:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Escriva, pain, and mortification of the flesh

This article has again been rewritten to be almost entirely from the Opus Dei POV. An example:

I see that material on Josemaría Escrivá's obsession with pain and mortification of the flesh has again been removed. It's a bit like having an article about a masochist cult without mentioning Sacher-Masoch's masochistic life and writings. Presumably this removal is because some contributors see this as embarrassing to Opus Dei. Why? Surely they should be proud of Escrivá's torn flesh and blood-spattered walls, both of which he relates enthusiastically in his writings? -- The Anome 09:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey that's a good point, The Anome! Check out my solution. I've done some editing to please both Alec and Rabadur. It's sure is bloody risky to walk between two combatants! Ndss 01:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Input on Order of Supports and Criticisms

In general, when it comes to conveying opinions about OD, do people have a preference on which side should go first: Supporters of OD then Critics, or vice versa. Whenever I do a controversial subject, this debate always comes up. In general, I don't much care, but there is a certain "Chi" that each ordering gives.

"Supporters first Critics second" tends to convey the feel that that suppporters are the first position, and that critics replying to the claims of the supporters. Here, critics have the last word.

"Critics first, Supporters second" tends to convey the feel that critics "speak first", and that supporters are then replying to the claims of the critics. Here, supporters have the last word.

I've been trying to get a feel for what style is more popular when applied to this article. Rabadur has, I believe, expressed a strong preference that Suppporters go second, Lafem seems to have agreed. Ndss at some point made changes putting critics last. Does anyone else have a preference one way or the other? (and of course, do the people I listed indeed feel that way). --Alecmconroy 10:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

What I did is part of proportionality. Majority pov should have the last word in most of the sections. Minority pov in minority of the sections. Ndss 05:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

A Roundup of Sources

By special request, here is my assessment of the sources related to this article:

Pro-OD

The first group of sources are who are Pro-OD. The editors responsible for the bulk of this article have regarded these as the very best sources, and as such, the opinions of these sources dominate the article now by a 90:10 or so ratio.

Opus Dei, and its members
The Catholic Church, and its leaders and members (e.g. John Paul and Benedict)
Introvigne
Allen
Messori

Here are some commonalities to these sources:

They all deeply feel that Opus Dei is a very good thing. They write from this opinion.
They are all members of the religion being discussed. This raises questions of their objectivity.
Their credibilty is more or less limited to the sphere of Catholicism and Catholic Theology. They are not generally credible outside of these areas.
Opus Dei members are described as "good people", "dedicate", "smart", "very hardworking", etc.
The general focus is on a) What a good organization OD is, and 2) how wrong the critics are.

Anti-OD

The second group of sources are those who are strongly Anti-OD. I won't speak for who regards these as the best source, but certainly some editors do (the vandals we've seen, for example, certainly hold these sources as most reputable). Some of their opinions are included in the current article, but quickly dismissed by the deluge of Pro-OD material.

Opus Dei Awareness Network. Opus Libre
Ex-members who had bad experiences
Maria del Carmen Tapia, Beyond the Threshold: A Life in Opus Dei
Robert Hutchison, Their Kingdom Come: Inside the Secret World of Opus Dei
Steve Hassan, Combatting Cult Mind Control
Michael Walsh, Opus Dei : An Investigation into the Secret Society Struggling for Power Within the Roman Catholic Church
Joan Estruch, Saints and Schemers: Opus Dei and its Paradoxes
Fr. James Martin, SJ
Hans Küng

Here are some commonalities to these sources:

They all deeply feel that Opus Dei is a very bad thing. They write from this opinion.
Many are former members of the religion being discussed. This raises questions of their objectivity.
Their credibilty is more or less limited to the sphere of Opus Dei and Theology. They are not generally credible outside of these areas.
Opus Dei is described as "controlling", "cult-like", "dangerous", etc.
The focus is on OD's controversial practices, OD's control and it's far-reaching influence.

Journalistic

Lastly, we come to Journalistic sources. They do not overtly endorse or condemn Opus Dei. These are the sources I've turned to as I've written my own contrbutions to the article:

Time Magazine, "The Ways of Opus Dei", David Van Biema. [3]
CNN, "An In-Depth Look At Opus Dei: A Conservative Catholic Group", [4]
CNN, "Controversial Figure Canonized", [5]
NBC News, "Does Opus Dei Have a Dark Side?" [6]
ABC News, "Ex-Opus Dei Members Decry Blind Obedience" [7]
CBS News,"Behind The Secret Sect Of Opus Dei" [8]
BBC News, "Decoding secret world of Opus Dei" [9]
MSNBC News, "A day in the life of an Opus Dei supernumerary"
Tucker Carlson (MSNBC), "A look inside Opus Dei" [10]
NYTimes, "Catholic Group Says of 'Da Vinci Code' Film: It's Just Fiction", [11]
Bloomberg, "Opus Dei, Vilified in `Da Vinci Code,' Runs Global MBA Schools" [12]
Washington Monthly, "Let There Be Light: A look inside the hidden world of Opus Dei." [13]
AP, "Opus Dei aims to improve its public image ahead of 'Da Vinci Code' movie" [14]
History Channel Special: "Opus Dei Unveiled"
NY Daily News, "Inside Opus Dei" [15]
WHDH News, "Decoding Opus Dei" [16]
The Daily Princetonian, "Spotted history aside, Opus Dei forges close campus links" [17]
Harvard Crimson "Opening the Doors of Opus Dei" [18],[19]

When you look at all these sources, here are some things that stand out:

They do not overtly express an opinion on whether Opus Dei is good OR bad. They are not using "persuasive style".
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.
Opus Dei is not described as good or bad. Some words that do come out to describe Opus Dei are "controversial", "hot-debated", "not well understood, secretic/private", and "conservative".
The focus is on objective facts about Opus Dei--- not on value judgements. OD's history, it's types of membership, it's use of mortification, its role in the Da Vinci Code, and the existence of a controversy are discussed. For the subset of the article that contains the opinions of the Pro- and Anti- sides, the sides are presented roughly equally.

The reporting of every major US news organization(as well as many international ones) demonstrates that there is certainly no consensus that OD is good OR bad. There is no justification for letting the opinions of either the Pro-Opus Dei sources or the Anti-Opus Dei sources dominate the article. Our focus should be the objective facts of Opus Dei, the existence of the controversy, and a brief summation of each side in the controversy.

I hope this puts to rest the myth that there exists some sort of "universal consensus" among "experts" that Opus Dei is a undoubtedly amazingly wonderful group and that its critics are mentally ill atheists who hate Christianity. Similarly, there is no universal consensus that Opus Dei is an evil cult that dominates the minds of innnocent youth. The only consensus is that Opus Dei is very controversial, much loved by some, much hated by others.

--Alecmconroy 13:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Alec, this is the first significant progress we've had in this dispute. I will add many more sources to this list over the next few weeks. Important documentaries have been produced in South America, and numerous shorter articles published in the UK, also in France, and some in Italy. You've done exactly what I intended to do a few weeks ago, and remained cool-headed too. I think that the third category can also include scholarly works that don't fall into the first two categories. Thanks for your hard work. Pvazz 15:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Allen as a Source?

Thanks for the list above. However, I do not think that Allen, a major source for the article is appropriately listed as a pro-Opus Dei source. It would be more suitable to list his book as a journalistic source for a number of reasons. First, he is NOT a member of Opus Dei. Second, he is a very reputable and respected journalist. Third, though his book is favourable to Opus Dei, he notes in his introduction that he did not expect to be in favour of Opus Dei, but his experience and research led him to these conclusions - surely that is a sign of objectivity. The criticism of Allen below is hardly neutral or objective, it is rather a refusal to accept the recognized standards of the journalistic profession. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.12.90 (talk • contribs)

Well, a lot of people agree with you on that point. But I find it very easy to see that it was inevitable Allen would reach the conclusions he did. To use a metaphor from U.S. politics-- let's say a journalist, who is a registered Republican, for the paper "Conservative Republican Reporter" were to write a book on the Republican U.S. President George W. Bush. While there is always the slimmest of chances that the book would a critcism Bush, I think most people would agree that it's a foregone conclusion that the author, an avowed member of the Republican Party and a correspondent for a Republican publication, would ultimately report favorably on the Republican president?

Now, when a Catholic reporter for a Catholic publication sets out to write a book on a Catholic organization that is deeplpy beloved by the last two popes-- I think it's a foregone conclusion that the report will be favorable. Maybe not-- but, probably so.

Keep in mind, I don't bring up Allen's bias to in any way marginalize his opinion-- being catholic doesn't DISQUALIFY him from being able to share his views-- but I just think we should be very cautious about looking upon his as a neutral, dispassionate source-- he's clearly not. He is a member of a religious minority who is reporting on an organization within that religion-- not a truly neutral expert.

If you look at some of the interviews he's given, this is VERY clear. For example, he routinely describes members of Opus Dei as "very good, kind people, who are very hardworking". I'm not denying this is true, but real journalists don't make these kinds of value judgements about controversial organizations. That's more a pundit/partisan role, not a journalist.

But, of course-- I'm just talking to myself here for the moment, so.. I should stop. :)

--Alecmconroy 12:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

What are reliable sources?

Take note: Wikipedian consensus on what are reliable sources.

Wikipedia:Reliable sources#History: Scholars doing research publish their results in books and journal articles. The books are usually published by university presses or by commercial houses like W.W. Norton and Greenwood which emulate the university press standards. Reputable history books and journal articles always include footnotes and bibliographies giving the sources used in great detail.

The general public mostly gets its history from novels, films, TV shows, or tour guides at various sites. These sources are full of rumor and gossip and false or exaggerated tales. They tend to present rosy-colored histories in which the well-known names are portrayed heroically. Almost always editors can find much more authoritative sources.

Didn't you write above that endorsement for Allen in the US popular press vindicated his reputability? Pvazz 08:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Avoid_citing_the_popular_press. This guideline is for physical sciences, but it will be very useful to keep in mind. Remember this topic falls under sociology of religion, a social science: The popular press generally does not cover science well. Articles in newspapers and popular magazines generally lack the context to judge experimental results. They tend to overemphasize the certainty of any result, for instance presenting a new experimental medicine as the "discovery of the cure" of a disease. Also, newspapers and magazines frequently publish articles about scientific results before those results have been peer-reviewed or reproduced by other experimenters. They also tend not to report adequately on the methodology of scientific work, or the degree of experimental error. Thus, popular newspaper and magazine sources are generally not reliable sources for science and medicine articles.

Yes we are agreed, in the physical sciences, and most certainly in Mathematics, the popular press lacks both expertise and methodological imperative. However, the claims made in sociology are only distantly related to these fields. They employ rudimentary statistics, tables, and graphs; their methodology doesn't even remotely achieve the transparent, transmissable rigour of mathematics, and that of the physical/experimental sciences. Sociology is radically more accessible to the popular press, and compared to mathematics or physics, readily lends itself to that format. In any case, just as there are accessible and popular science magazines like New Scientist, so in the so called 'social sciences' like economics, sociology, there are popular magazines, journals, and other material published both outside and inside the academy, for example The Economist. I'm not suggesting too much credence for US popular media, but this doesn't restrict us to academic journals either; sociology is not a science in the sense it was intended in the wikipedia guidline you have cited. Pvazz 09:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

What can a popular-press article provide? Often, the most useful thing is the name of the head researcher involved in a project, and the name of his or her institution. For instance, a newspaper article quoting Joe Smith of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution regarding whales' response to sonar gives you a strong suggestion of where to go to find more: look up his work on the subject. Rather than citing the newspaper article, cite his published papers.

Sorry, but throughout this policy guideline, the emphasis is on reputable works, and short journalistic works are frowned upon. Tis an encyclopedia after all. Ndss 07:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, you must accept the Constitutions and Statutes of Opus Dei (1950 and 1982) and other similar documents like very reliable sources too. Are you in agreement with this?--Heavyrock 08:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It will be the end of Wikipedia if newspaper and magazine articles become its major source of evidence. R Davidson 09:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

If you've really come to believe that Pro-OD sources are infinitely more reliable than anyone else, that's your opinion, and you're welcome to it. But don't try to pass it off as a universal consensus of some sort. The notion that all reliable sources agree OD is wonderful (or evil) has been smashed to pieces. Most sources report no such thing.

If you try to make the argument that the Pro-OD sources, every single one of them members of the very church being discussed, are somehow more reliable than every major news organization... well, you're facing an uphill battle to be sure. I doubt anyone will come to share that belief, unless they themselves are members of OD, Catholicism, or have already decided that OD is wonderful on their own.--Alecmconroy 21:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, R and Pvazz/alec!

Question to Pvazz/alec: Are you now pro-newspapers and pro-CBS? Or pro-newspapers and anti-CBS?

Ndss, I should ask you the same, after you repeatedly give examples of applause for Allen in the mainstream press, and then turn around and say they are disreputable. Your argument reduced goes thus: A disreputable source acclaims Allen's reputability, hence he is reputable. My position above goes directly to your comments about 'scientificity' in sociology. I notice you have ignored those arguments. My point was simple: comparisons between social sciences and mathetmatics/physical sciences should lead you to conclude that they differ greatly in their accessibility to non-experts. The former are all but inaccesible, the latter widely accessible given an adequate level of literacy. Secondly, your question is poorly formulated. Support/Opposition for 'newspapers' is not measured absolutely, it varies depending on the newspaper (Le Monde Diplomatique or The National Inquirer), and for CBSTV, depending on the program. So again, I don't accept your question; it is a naive ultimatum which you have tried to use as the foundation for your argument below. Sophism. Pvazz 06:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

If the former, then the article continues basically as it is, neutral, non-partisan, showing either side of the debate, but Wikipedianly proportionate to reputable sources.

Ndss, your conclusion here is completely unrelated to the premises you have tried to have accepted above. Non-Sequitur. You have merely inserted what you would like us to believe (undisputed neutrality, non-partisanship) as the conlcusion to an unaccepted, disputed, premise.Pvazz 06:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

If the latter, where, may I ask, is the consistency? Does the consistency lie in your notion that neutrality is the POV of an atheist? the POV of secularists like many American newspapers?

Perhaps you might consider being consistent with your pro-newspaper stand when you find out that Martha Teichner of CBS, who said that Allen's book is "widely considered as the definitive book" on Opus Dei, has won four Emmy Awards. A tough lady who researches what she reports on. [20]

Well, Teichner's word is borne out by wide praise received by Allen's book:

Piers Paul Read of the Telegraph called it "definitive, persuasive and absorbing."
The Sunday Times said it is "An admirable book the first stop for anyone interested in Opus Dei."
Times Magazine called it "most informed and sympathetic" account of Opus Dei.
Ed Dobeas of Amazon.com called it "balanced, perceptive inquiry," "exhaustive research, interviews and careful analysis"
Publishers weekly said "Allen thoroughly explains the group's history and motivating ideas and carefully addresses such questions as its treatment of women, secrecy, financial holdings, wielding of church and political influence and recruiting practices, concluding with recommendations for ways to improve Opus Dei's image. Allen's balanced, even reporting sometimes borders on the clinical, as when he lists the numbers of Opus Dei members inside the Vatican or analyzes the group's finances. Harsh critics of the group and those expecting more titillating details may be disappointed, but readers who are curious about this often mysterious organization will find Allen's opus on "the Work of God" most informative."
Fr. John Neuhaus said it is a "a candid and careful assessment of what Opus Dei is and isn’t."
Christopher Howse says it is a "determinedly unsensationalist but deeply intriguing study."
Joe Szimhart says: "What he put in should go a long way to explain many facets of the Escrivà movement in Catholicism."

Check out too the varied and spontaneous reviews from readers at Amazon.com. It's a interesting display of the bell curve at work! But even Dennis Dubro a former member gave it five stars! [21]

Hardly anybody ever brought up John's Catholic background. Only Pvazz/alec tries to put him down. Many people put their trust on reliable professionals. Even the anti-OD Kenneth Woodward has high respect for Allen. Called National Catholic Reported an independent weekly newspaper. [22] Even Allen's harshest critic Damian Thompson said that "his column is a byword for objectivity" and agreed with Allen on several counts.

Ndss, reviews of books, films are subject to constant pressure to become advertisements. I would be wary of using 'reviews' to assess the worth of a book. There are numerous reasons: (1) if you've read the book, why not use its arguments to prove its worth (2) For every good review there is a bad review somewhere, its like Newton's second law (3) Collecting favourable reviews is in itself an exercise in rhetoric, that is, you haven't sought out unfavourable reviews for Allen, and answered their criticism, so why should we argue point by point against the favourable ones? It would devolve into an unfounded difference of opinion about reviews, instead of a difference in positions on the article, and on the value of Allen or whoever it may be. (4)Reviews are tainted more than most parts of the mainstream press by their complicity with advertising. Pvazz 07:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

One can act like many secularists and imagine all sorts of hanky panky between Catholics without any shred of evidence, and alleged some kind "conflict of interest" against a journalist known for his objectivity, even by his harshest critics. Or instead keep one's foot on the ground, and look at the evidence that Allen is respected, professional, balanced, and objective, and his book is widely considered as well-researched, documented, definitive book on Opus Dei. Widely does not mean 100% but 70-80% is wide enough.

Allen's books is important, as I wrote in my first contribution to this discussion. It is important because it systematizes, according to the rules of evidence and investigation, an official view on Opus Dei espoused by RC Church. Allen fetishizes his evidence. In many of the reviews mentioned above, the preponderance of numbers, documents, the unabating inundation of 'evidence' in Allen's book, is cited as symbol of a will to legitimatize Opus Dei; it is especially apparent in Howse's reveiw which I would liken to a spontaneous regurgitation. Allen's books has colonized the article to an unhealthy degree. No disputes Allen's intelligence, his charisma, and his homely likeable brand of humour. However, after reading his book, there is little question that Allen manipulates his reputation for objectivity and his ability to amass raw data (a dangerous proclivity of the 'bureaucratic' journalism he has developed), in order to displace debate on the Opus, in order to be 'definitive', to finish the debate, to silence the critics, to convince Joe Blow Catholicism of the importance of its newest wronged off-spring, and to hawk his so-called non-ideological conservative politics in the guise of capital 'T' Truth about Opus Dei. Pvazz 08:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I was surprised earlier, pvazz, to read that you consider John Allen biased just on the evidence of his book. This looks like circular reasoning. Knowing his reputation some journalists were obviously surprised that his book did not turn out hostile to Opus Dei, and that says it all. He presumably modified his opinion while he was researching and writing the book. They haven't dared to call him biased because the charge is laughable. Anonimus 10:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Noticed the difference between pre-Allen stories and post-Allen stories, e.g. Ostling article in Time Magazine as reported by the Religious Movements Home Page, and the Van Biema article of May 2006? Ostling --negative, Van Biema -- positive, quite positive many people commented. In your list there are a number of pre-Allen and non-Allen articles. You even avoided his Newsweek interview last year. I wonder why.

Why? In accordance with what you wrote above, it is because they don't do any research, and regurgitate the conjectures of recently published books, without having the means to investigate their claims. Your credibility erodes somewhat when you employ popular media only when it suits you. Pvazz 08:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, out of respect for our readers, we use the best and the latest. Shouldn't we? Ndss 10:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I am happy to see your response, Alec. Journalistic accounts though are usually put together in a rush. I am acquainted with many journalists and how they work. Their analyses are usually superficial. They are no match for the high-level, reasoned, scientific analysis of social scientists, and the tranquil exposition of facts done by investigative journalists who spend months sifting various pieces of information. They at least can do a serious job, assuming they want to be and are competent at their work.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a repositary of serious, in-depth knowledge. Researchers do not usually read an encyclopedia to obtain a re-hash of newspaper and TV reports. They prefer a conclusive synthesis put together by highly reputable experts. In accord with Wikipedia policy, my vote goes to a disproportioning between expert, scholarly opinion and non-scholarly opinion. Short journalistic accounts should be considered of lower reliability in Wikipedia. Anonimus 10:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a well-pondered consideration, Anonimus. A tranquil and weighty argument.

Grateful for your lively remarks, Pvazz, I am most interested to know more regarding the evidence behind your interesting statement: "However, after reading his book, there is little question that Allen manipulates his reputation for objectivity and his ability to amass raw data (a dangerous proclivity of the 'bureaucratic' journalism he has developed), in order to displace debate on the Opus, in order to be 'definitive', to finish the debate, to silence the critics, to convince Joe Blow Catholicism of the importance of its newest wronged off-spring, and to hawk his so-called non-ideological conservative politics in the guise of capital 'T' Truth about Opus Dei."

I looked into Ndss's empirical data and I'm jolly impressed by his evidence and how they coincide. He referenced Teichner's statement, the Amazon readers's reviews, and the journalistic reviews. On the other hand, you assert that you've reached a clear conclusion that there is now "little question" that Allen has "manipulated" his reputation for objectivity. I am seriously and keenly interested to hear a presentation of the facts behind your assertion. Please allow me the pleasure to hear your evidence. Thank you. R Davidson 09:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Appropriateness of using Allen?

Although I had no part in writing the article, I would like to respond to the question on using Allen's book. I have reviewed Allen's book for a major national newspaper in Canada. I would argue that it is quite appropriate to rely on his work. I think it is a helpful point of reference because the author is an acclaimed reporter well versed in Catholic issues with no ties to Opus Dei. His research is far more thorough than any other book on the topic, and he had much greater access to information than anyone not a member of Opus Dei has had before. The problem with so many of the sources on this topic is that they have vested interests in the dispute. I don't think you would find any experts at least writing in English of Allen's stature who are not also engaged in a polemic on one side or the other. Allen is unique in this respect. So I think it is important to consider not primarily the diversity of the sources, but their relation to the dispute.

Finally as to the testimony of critics there is a section on this which cites Walsh, whose book is probably the most influential source of criticism, which many mainstream journalists seem to have used until quite recently. Also there is a Wikipedia article on Opposition to Opus Dei which is linked and which does go into this in significant detail, I'm not sure that it is necessary to repeat this in the present article.

(Unsigned edit by Jlawest as of 20:38, 6 June 2006. --Túrelio 20:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC))

John Paul II -> John Paul?

When referencing him multiple times in one paragraph, is it acceptable to refer to him as "John Paul" rather than "John Paul II"? or should you really include the II in every reference? --Alecmconroy 03:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

As pope "John Paul I" might also be cited as a reference, it's probably safer to write "John Paul II", besides it would save only 3 characters per citation. But that's just my opinion. --Túrelio 08:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

One more diatribe

We're probably starting to get to the point where discussion without the aid of a mediator probably isn't going to help. I probably won't convince you to change the article, you probably won't convince me to accept the current one. We may just come from two different worlds, or perhaps I'm not doing a very good job of explaining my own thoughts or seeing things from ya'lls point of view. Ever since we got accepted for mediation, I've instituted a cease-fire-- I won't edit the article again in ways I think likely to be reverted.

But, I'll try to explain where I'm coming from one more time:

If Allen's book is the end-all be-all of OD scholarship, why don't the major journalistic reports mirror Allen's own point of view? Why are all the articles equally reporting both sides of the controversy without themselves taking sides? If everyone agrees with Allen how come the artcles aren't all entitled "Wonderful Humanitarian Organization Slandered by Extremists"? If you look at organizations that society truly _has_ come to a geniune moral consensus about-- entites like "Special Olympics", "Habitat for Humanity", "Al Qaeda" and "Adolph Hitler", you'll find the journalists reporting from a distinct point of view, rather than a neutral one. But all the major news organizations do not report Opus Dei is wonderful, or evil. They report both sides.

Listen, I know you like Allen's book. I know some other people like Allen's book. Allen was granted unprecedented access, and I'm sure his book has many qualities that other books do not. But at the end of the day, Allen is just one man. He's not even a particularly famous man. He's just a dude who wrote a book. That book didn't suddenly change everyone's mind on Opus Dei-- it didn't suddenly create some "universal consensus" that OD is wonderful.

This is like any other major religious or political debate. Some people thing abortion is right, some people think it is wrong. People have been arguing about it for decades. If one day someone writes a book entitled "An Objective Look at Abortion" and describes how, after doing research, he has come to the decision that the right answer is Pro-Choice-- That's good for him. He may be a reputable author, he may have spent quite a lot of time on his book. But his book isn't going to suddenly change everyone's opinions. It's not as if his book comes out on monday, and by tuesday the whole world is suddenly Pro-Choice.

Not even if he does get some good book reviews. Not even if he did work harder as his book than any previous author. Not even if some people call his book "definitive", not even if some people call him reputable. Not even if he has impeccable grammar and exhibits a masterful use of the ellipsis!

He's just not going to suddenly change everyone's mind. He's not going to suddenly be the only person you can quote about abortion. News articles are still going to talk neutrally about the abortion controversy, encyclopedias are still going to present both sides equally.

Allen's just a guy who wrote a book. It's not the first book on the subject, it won't be the last book on the subject. If you try to argue that everyone in the world has suddenly come to agree this one author, you're wrong. You can talk till you're blue in the face that his book should be the one everyone should believe in because of X, Y, Z. And maybe you're right, maybe people _should_ believe in his book cause it's the coolest ever, and he's the bestest author in the world. But the fact is... right now... Everyone doesn't believe him.

The world does not believe Allen. The world doesn't believe ODAN either. The world has not made up its mind. There is no consensus. Not a consensus of experts, not a consensus of journalists, not a consensus of Wikipedians, not a consensus of humans. You cannot pretend that the world has made up it's mind, and that they agree with your side. We don't! Not yet. On this controversy, we don't want just your side or Allen's side, or just odan's side, or 90% of Odann's side. We want both sides, presented absolutely equally, so that we can decide for ourselves.

Now let me change gears for a second and try a different approach.

I address all the OD supporters out there who are actively trying to promote OD using wikipedia (if, indeed, there are any-- I absolutely am not insisting that there are, or pointing any fingers at anyone in particular):

I'm sure OD is something you personally feel is very good, and something you personally know about a lot better than Pvazz or I probably ever will. I'm sure it's very difficult to see critics, most of whom know so little about OD from your point of view, malign a life-changing and life-saving organization that is like a family to it's members. For my part, I personally do not, in fact, believe OD is a cult-- and what is a "cult" anyway but a religion that's unpopular and scary to non-members. Judaism was a cult, Christainity was a cult. The Jesuits were cultists.

I'm sure that you'd want to be sure any organization and any teachings you love get presented in the best light, rather than slandered by people who don't know what they're talking about. You wouldn't be human if you didn't, you wouldn't be doing a good job if you didn't try to share what you know with other people.

But please, believe me when I say, to the outside reader-- someone who doesn't already know about OD, this article makes the organization look very, very bad. Very bad. When you don't treat both sides in a reasonable debate equally, when you include 9 positive opinions for every negative one, the reader does see what you're doing. He doesn't think "Wow, there must be 9 positive opinions for every negative one". He thinks "Wow.. the author of this article really wants me to think positively about this organization.. I wonder what they're not telling me". To the outside reader, it looks like a propaganda piece. It looks like a cover-up, it looks like a snow job. That why people keep coming here and say it looks like a "OD Brochure" or a "Catholic Encyclopedia". The impression you get when you read this article isn't that OD is good-- the impression is that OD has a lot to hide. And I don't think that reflects the truth behind OD very well at all.

If you really want to promote OD... then present the arguments equally. First present the neutral facts everyone, critics and supporters, can agree on-- being infinitely careful not to include opinions or theological assumptions. Then admit OD is very controversial, and say it upfront, don't be afraid of it. Then honestly, without trying to smash their arguments into bits, tell the reader what it is that the critics say. Then, when they've had their say, just as honestly, present what the supporters say. Show them that John Paul II was a fan. Show them that Benedict XVI is a fan. Have faith that people are smart. Have faith that when both sides are presented completely equally, Truth will always win out over Falsehood.

There's one other thing to consider. We all want this article to be a Good Article. We all want this article to wind up on Featured Articles. We all want this article to be the #2 hit on Google when you type in "Opus Dei" (#1, I expect, will always be the organization's official site). And if you want this to wind up on Featured Articles, then "I am the way-- no article cometh unto the Featured Articles but by me". By which I don't mean me personally, I just mean critics in general. Pvazz, and all the others who come here and post their dissent. Every article must answer its critics, work with them, incorporate them, until finally you have an article that _both_ sides agree to call neutral. Only when all sides are happy is an article Good. This article, as it currently, will always have a huge faction that finds it non-neutral. You can revert them, you can debate with them, but there will always be more. The NPOV will be added time, and time, and time again. The peer reviews will fail. The FA candidacies will be opposed. The Good Article statuses will be revoked. The article must be re-written.

(Lastly, I should take an aside to apologize even speaking from this point of view. I do not wish to imply that any specific editor is, in fact, editing wikipedia for the purposes of promoting OD. I'm a little embarassed, because it's quite rude to speak about other editors potential motives. I am not saying anyone out there IS trying just to promote OD-- disputes happen all the time without anyone trying to promote anything, just because we all have our own worldviews and our own biases. Maybe, seen from a truly neutral point of view, I and all the other critics are the biased ones-- for you can never see your own bias. So please, don't take this as an accusation that anyone lacks good faith. But all the same, I thought I'd take a few paragraphs to say that, just in case, by some chance, there's anyone who reads this page who is, in fact, actively trying to promote OD. If so, I swear to you-- the current article is working against your interests.)

--Alecmconroy 12:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Alec, this all seems a bit unwikipedian to me. The entry should be good, and I wouldn't like anyone to be unhappy with such an article. I don't think you or I can safely go further than that. Wikipedia has criteria for deciding what good entries are, which are objective rather than subjective. Anonimus 11:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Two opus dei

There are as the bard says (hehe) two opus dei.

An opus dei for it members and one for non members. Opus dei for its members is all about becoming a saint but for non members that almost unimportant what they care about is what opus has done good and bad in pursuit of this goal which is why no non religious encyclopedia talks much about opus dei theology .

Marax ndss others I know you disagree I have a hunch that even after alice`s impassioned plea (which no surprise I completely agree with) you still don’t agree but hopefully you do agree with the stuff on making this a good article and what it will take.

The thing is I’m not against an article on the theology of opus dei and clearly you guys can write a good one might I suggest that you write one and limit your contribution to this one too advising alice/pvazz. Not forever but let them with your help (and I hope my suggestion that they do this conforms to there wishes) rewrite the whole piece and then if you wont you can critique it.

I know that sound harsh honesty I don’t intend it to be but I don’t think you will ever see the middle ground on this one. Maybe i`m wrong:).Ansolin 04:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

... And I thought the article was already occupying the middle ground. It has been stable for several months, during which time it has been consulted many times. :-) Anonimus 11:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Lot of fallacies floating around, this is one of them. "The article has been stable, therefore there must be a consensus behind it and it must be NPOV". People have been complaining about this article for months and months. Changes to it have consistently been reverted, complaints consistently (and quite expertly) rebutted. I've completely lost count of how many different readers had to add NPOV tag to it before it stopped being revert-warred, and I wouldn't be surprised if it disappeared from the page again tommorrow. I can't argue about whether the page is "True" or "Accurate"-- those are big concepts, and who can reveal what truth is? But the page is not stable, there is a huge and persistent NPOV-dispute about it, and has been since long, long before I ever heard the phrase Opus Dei. --Alecmconroy 00:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Eight (8) months without any NPOV tag is quite a long time for a five year old encyclopedia and for a controversial topic in Wikipedia. R Davidson 11:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I encourage you to discuss this in mediation, assuming, of course, that you are willing to agree to mediation, and that you and everyone else are willing accept me as a mediator. And yes, I noticed you weren't on the list of people who originally agreed to mediation, but all who are concerned about this are welcome. : ) Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 11:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

This article was mentioned in New York Times

Along with Tony Blair and sex... Might be useless info... just thought you might find it cool to be in the news... http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/17/technology/17wiki.html?_r=1&oref=slogin --Nino Gonzales 01:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Feedback

My two cents worth:

Is there any way to make it shorter? I know Wikipedia is not paper, but shorter is many times better...
I think the current one should be improved rather than starting from scratch
I'm sure Opus Dei has a wonderful spirituality. However, I think some sections could be better worded... the "Analysis" part, I think, could use some clearer language. I don't know its history (maybe it's the best compromise) but "Analysis of the message and actual practice" sounds weird to me.
I prefer the criticisms and praises to be distributed rather than limited to their own sections
For controversial topics such as this one, I prefer to know who said what quotation up front, as well as who these people are.
It's difficult to detect the POV that the neutrality tag indicates... maybe it's because one expects da vinci code, and you read some nice things about being Catholic and see smiling happy people?... Perhaps the focus on certain controveries is POV? A western POV perhaps? For instance, the self-flaggelation is hardly an issue for most people in the Philippines, where people whip themselves in the streets during holy week. (To make sure it's bloody, they make small cuts in their backs with shaving blades [after drinking a whole bottle of a potent native coconut wine]). People also have themselves crucified with tiny nails... (I'm sure most Americans would think these people are sick barbarians... hehe).
This has more criticism and counter-criticism than George W. Bush... I don't know if that is a good thing or a bad thing...

--Nino Gonzales 05:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Crux of the matter

Thank you so much to everyone who are contributing to this discussion!! :) Thanks especially for the impartial editors who are putting in their comments, and for the continuance of good faith in our discussions.

I totally agree with Alec that there is no consensus on Opus Dei. The article itself does not take any final stand. As Davidson once clarified, there are around 800 words of criticisms here, perhaps much more than in another article. I’ve seen some blogs that say that this article just shows the debate and allows the reader to decide: [23]. There is also a blog of people who are critical of Opus Dei and who describe the article as the one of the few objective accounts on Opus Dei. [24].

I also agree with Alec that there is no basis within Wikipedia to delineate expertise on moral issues such as abortion, although even in this issues Wikipedia points to the need to make a list of important contributions.

However, the crux of the matter as Ndss has shown is proportionality. Wikipedia’s standards of neutrality accept expertise in social sciences and mandates that articles are written in proportion to the representation among experts. And it is here that Introvigne comes in. And also Allen. It is clear to me that Allen’s main contribution is not theological but sociological. His main contribution is an empirical analysis of OD’s social issues: politics, secrecy, power and money, women, freedom and obedience, recruitment.

However, IMHO, it is becoming clearer through this discussion that there is much more evidence showing the strength and importance of Allen’s work, and through the same movement, the strength of other writers’s who support his empirical findings are further enhanced. Even comments from Pvazz acknowledge the importance of these authors. I go with Davidson’s request that Pvazz should further elucidate her insinuation that Allen “manipulated” his data. In academic work such as this, there should be clear evidence for assertions we make. Unless Alec and Pvazz are able to counter Ndss’s evidence and show more concrete evidence that the pro-OD writings are unreliable and that anti-OD and the magazine articles have greater reliability and expertise, I am afraid eventual arbitration will not be in favor of their premises.

I am totally opposed to a 50:50 distribution between criticisms and responses, or in Allen's expression, between myth and reality. The world has not made a final decision on this, and so does the article. But the Wikipedia world wants to grant more weight to the ideas of writers whom the world highly regards (as evidenced by the press, the professionals, the public or the three Ps covered by Ndss’s evidence). Of course, the article should continue showing that there is no 100% consensus on Opus Dei, a neutral pov which the article continues to have as observed by Geo.plrd from the Mediation Cabal, but neither should the article give undue space to non-expert opinion. The crux of the matter is that more space should be given to experts in this field.

In the practical language of Anonimus, the next step would be for Pvazz and Allec to produce evidence which counter Ndss's basis for proportionality. :) Thomas 03:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Crux of the matter

Hmm. well, hopefully the mediation will start shortly, but in the mean time, everyone's being exceptionally civil, so I don't suppose it hurts to discuss more until mediation kicks in. AS usual.. . brevity is not one of my strong suits.. I apologize :).

The Blogs

The blogs you cited are perfect example of what's wrong with this article. Let me quote two comments from the first blog you cited:

Raymond G said,"You can check out the Wikipedia article on Opus Dei.It was written by both sides of the debate. And you find out for yourself who wins in the debate."

Matthew replies"If I'm not mistaken any conspiracy-monger can get on Wikipedia and write anything they want. That doesn't bode well for the veracity of the article."

I couldn't have found such a great quote to demonstrate what's wrong with article myself if I had searched for days. One pro-OD blogger points someone to our article, pointing out that OD clearly "wins" in our article. Another blogger replies that the bias makes him doubt the truth of the whole article. EXACTLY. These are two different readers, from opposite sides of the debate, and BOTH characterized our article as being "biased" and having a "clear winner".

When our article is NPOV-- there will be no clear winner. When our article is NPOV, people won't be able to figure out which point of view our editors had.

"Equal" vs "Proportional"

I think we can all agree that the current article does indeed favor the Pro-OD opinions and treat the two sides in the debate un-equally. The question is whether this inequality is NPOV or not. If I understand ya'll correctly, you accord the Pro-OD opinions with great reliability, luminosity, and reputability. Accordingly, you feel the current article is NPOV because it favors the Pro-OD opinions over the Anti-OD opinions, do to the percieved disparity in expertise. I feel this argument is in error.

When we talk about the "proportionality" argument used to justify the current article, what you're in essence saying is this: We do not want this article to treat the Pro-OD and Con-OD sides equally. We want this article to be inherently 'biased (albeit NPOV)' or 'unequal'. We want MORE Pro-OD space, we want Pro-OD to have the last word, and we want the Pro-OD opinions to dominate, to be able to reply to every single criticism and to criticize the critics. We want an article that is distinctly favoring the Pro-OD sources.

The proportionality argument is an argument to try to treat two sides in a debate un-equally. To overtly and intentionally favor one side over the other, to give one side more space. The proportionality argument is an argument that says Wikipedia's article SHOULD choose sides to some extent, should have a favorite side in this debate, and should give that side special treatment.

To me, if you want to make an article that deviates from 50:50 or "equal" treatment, you have a HUGE burden of proof that you have to meet. If you want us to favor one side over the other, you have to come up with a huge amount of evidence showing that society has come down on one side of this issue. If you really want this article to be un-equal, you have to be able to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that almost everyone who knows anything agrees with your side.

The proportionality argument may be valid in a few isolated cases where we should deviate from 50:50. Issues like "Nazis" or "Al Qaeda" or "Flat Earth Society". But Opus Dei isn't one of those issues. There is no consensus that OD is good (or bad). There is no consensus that Allen is the most reliable author. If you want to make an "unequal" article, you have to be able to prove beyond all shadow of doubt that everyone reliable agrees OD/Allen is wonderful-- and you can't prove that, because it's not true. If you personally believe Allen is the most reliable, it's your opinion, but it's your original research and is barred. The preponderance of sources neither agree with Allen's conclusions, nor do they agree with your conlusions that Allen is the only reliable expert. The sources come down in the middle.

Ulimately, if you want to make an "unequal" article like the current version, you have to have an overwhelming preponderance of sources agree with you. But you don't. I rattled off like 20 major news sources after about just ten mintues of googling, and they all have a point of view that doen't agree with Allen.

If you really want to make an unequal article, it is incumbent upon you to prove that there is a consesus that Allen is the only reliable source on this-- that he is more reliable than CNN,NBC,CBS,ABC,BBC, etc. A half dozen people who write nice reviews for Allen's book isn't going to do this-- you have to be able to prove a huge consensus of sources accept Allen as the best. Your personal opinion on the subject isn't going to do it-- that's just your original research. You need to be able to cite that the overwhelming consensus of news sources say Allen's views are correct-- but you can't, because they don't say that.

Ultimately, it comes down to this:

We should treat both sides in a debate equally unless we have an incredibly good reason not to.
We do not have a consensus of authors who have written on the subject.
We do not have a consensus of theologians or sociologists.
We do not have a consensus of members of the public.
We do not have a consensus of wikipedians.
We do not have a consensus of journalistic sources.
We do not have any kind of consensus.
Therefore, we should try to treat both sides of the debate fairly and equitably.

Without an overwhelming, indisputable, undeniable consensus of these groups, it is not justifiable to overtly try to give preferential treatment to one side of a debate over another. You do not have any kind of consensus to justify this. All you have is one book, written by one author Allen, and all you have to justify him are the opinions of a few isolated readers and reviewers. There is no consensus here-- just your personal insistance that Allen is the most reputable.

Take home message: if there is no consensus, there can be no proportionality argument for unequal treatment. If there is no consensus, then we have to fall back on the old principle of treating both sides in a debate equally and fairly.

Burdens of Proof

You say "the next step would be for Pvazz and Allec to produce evidence which counter Ndss's basis for proportionality.". But the burden of proof is not on us to disprove your claims about Allen's credibilty-- I just want the default equal treatment, unbiased article-- in the event of a hung jury, equality and non-biasedness wins. If you want to make an article that does favor Allen and OD over everyone else, the burden of proof is upon you to demonstrate that Allen's views dominate the field-- something the journalistic souces clearly show, he does not. IF you want to create an unequal article, it is you who have to prove Allen is the only reputable source-- more reputable than CNN. And that is an impossible task.

It's not enough for you to argue Allen's views should be universally accepted-- you have to prove Allen HAS been universally accepted. But they haven't been been.

For every source you cite calling Allen "definitive" or "respected", I can cite another source calling him "biased" and "a mouthpiece for the catholic church". For every source that mention Allen's name, I can give you five that mention ODAN. And for every article you can cite that quotes Allen as the only expert, I can cite you twenty sources that do not share his view but instead treat the issues neutrally and journalistically.

Allen himself

It's not enough for you to explain your opinion about Allen's expertise being greater than CNNs-- rather you have to cite a consensus of society that Allen's expertise is greater than CNN. But even setting that burden of proof aside-- explain to me again why Allen, the journalist from a small catholic newspaper, is a better expert than all the other journalists from all the other papers combined?? He's less famous, he's less well-known, he's less respected than the major news sources. He is catholic, could be a member of OD itself for all we know, writes for a Catholic paper-- Am I the only one who notices this is a serious potential bias that casts doubt on him as an objective expert?

As best I can tell, Allen's only claim to fame in this subject is that OD picked him to be the one to write a book and to grant him exclusive access. This hardly qualifies him as the world's greatest expert on OD. During the US-Vietnam War, the famous actress Joan Fonda traveled to Communist North Vietnam, met with their leaders, and then spoke out against the United States. She too was granted unprecedented access-- but no one ever accused her of being the world's greatest expert on the Vietnam War. Many people regarded her as a mouthpiece for the North Vietnamese-- someone who was granted unprecendented access only because it was clear what her conclusions would be once granted that access. Many people feel the same way about Allen.

Allen is one man. Not a world-famous man, not the end all be all of journalists. He's not a PhD, he's never won a Pullitzer Prize or a Peabody Award. He writes for the National Catholic Reporter, not the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal. He's been interviewed on CNN occasionally, but he's not one of their reporters. Allen is a man who once wrote an article entitled "Three Cardinals Who WON'T Become Pope". Guess who topped the list-- you guessed it: Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger aka Pope Benedict XVI. <sarcasm>Yes, Allen obviously is the world's greatest journalist, whose opinions should be trusted over all others</sarcasm>. If he now writes a book entitled "Three Organizations that are definitely NOT cults" and includes Opus Dei at the top of the list, does that mean everyone now believes him?

Furthermore, I can swear to you that if Allen had written a book entitled Opus Dei: A Dangerous Cult--- I _still_ wouldn't let his opinions dominate the article, because I do not regard him as the world's greatest expert whose opinions outweighs all others. But if Allen had written a book calling OD a cult-- can you honestly promise me that you would agree with him, and still insist that his opinion that OD is a cult dominate the article because he is such an expert?

Surely not. It isn't that his overwhelming expertise compels you to agree with him, not matter what his conclusions. Rather, I suspect it is the very fact that you agree with his conclusions that compels you to believe in his expertise.

Allen is no universally accepted expert-- he's just a guy with an opinion. And even if he should be a universally accepted expert, he isn't seen as one now. It's not enough to insist he should be seen that way, or to reiterate that you see him that way-- right now, as of 2006, he isn't seen that way by a consensus of anyone. Right now, his opinion cannot dominate.

Mind you-- I don't mean to dismiss Allen to the point that his opinions should be excluded. If you look at the article I submitted, his opinions are indeed in there, as are those of John Paul II and Benedict XVI. But I do not think Allen's opinions are so universally accepted as to allow him to have more than his equal fair share of the article.

A Different Next Step

One thing we can do is try to improve the Suggested Replacement to help find those parts of it we can reach consensus on. We can do this in mediation, of course, but we can try to do the non-controversial parts while we wait.

Keeping in mind that we're probably going to have to "agree to disagree" on the proportion of the Pro- and Con- section lengths, I think (hope) we can all agree that we'll need something LIKE the suggested replacement if for no other reason than that our current article isn't in summary style and is WAY WAY WAY longer than the recommended article length.

So, aside from the issue of Pro-/Con- space balancing issue, which I know is controversial, how about the non-controversy parts-- the parts that are just condensed & summarized versions of the existing article.

Is there anything else that you think absolutely should be in it that currently isn't?
The "new" article includes one block quote of support each from John Paul II and Benedict XVI-- are these the "right" quotes, or would there be better ones to use. I don't think the Benedict XVI quote really captures the extent of his support-- but is there a better one we could use?
Are there any other particularly famous corporate works-- the University of Navarra is the one mentioned, but if there's a more represetantive example we could use it.
Setting aside the issue of how much space is devoted to it, does the summation of the "Support for Opus Dei" mention the right "top five" counter-arguments?
Does anyone have a preference for what three or so "Pro-OD" sites are listed in the links? I picked a few for structure, but if there are better ones.
Is it okay to not mention the criticism of OD's treatment of women? I excluded it, because I think it's more of a Catholicism criticism than an OD criticism.
Do we have a citation for how many OD there are in the US? IS it apppropriate to include that in the article? or would that be too US-centric.
For the Theology sub-article-- what would ya'll think about including an Escriva quote from The Way that sums up each of the the five or so major "highlights"? That would be too verbose for the main page, but it seems like that would be a really great way for us to convey the theology without us trying to have to block quote a entire OD page or else just paraphrase it all on our own. That idea hit me in the middle of the night last week and I got out of bed just to write it down because I thought (hoped) you guys would all like it. If so-- man... help me out with which short maxims you think are "most representative" of those five or so "big highlights" of OD.
Am I missing any of Opus Dei sub-articles? I put all the ones I've found in a list on the "new" main page-- but there are a lot of them, so I worry I'm missing some.
Are we okay with the Da Vinci Code section being so dismissive of the idea of a global OD conspiracy trying to exterminate the bloodline of Christ? I'm fine with being dismissive because I _think_ nobody seriously believes that, right?
Do we have a direct quote where Escriva talks about why he/God chose the name "Opus Dei"?

--Alecmconroy 08:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Theology Sub-Article

moved from above. Arturus replies to a comment in which Alecmconroy called the current article's theology section a "unsourced rewrite of an Opus Dei web brochure".

I don't see how it can be an unsourced rewrite of an Opus Dei web brochure. It's the most sourced of all sections and it's a splendid Christocentric, scriptural Catholic theological synthesis of Opus Dei's spirituality. I love it. In a few lines, it presents Opus Dei's features and heavy theological underpinnings in common language:

holiness in ordinary life for the laity via the imitatio Christi (in his hidden life),
the doctrine of human perfection in the sanctification of work and Escriva's original interpretation of "bene omnia fecit",
freewill and personal responsibility for sanctification via Christ's incarnation of human freedom and its salvational effects. The interplay between divine freedom and human freedom underpinning the doctrine of personal sanctification. The two ways, a favorite of Escriva.
Sanctity as love, and love as flowing from contemplation and prayer. (See Deus Caritas Est). With divine filiation flavor. Norms of piety seen from Escriva's eyes. Not as mere structure but as relational piety.
mortification as a continuation and fulfillment of prayer. Not an additional means. Not detached from ordinary duties but as fulfillment of duties. Connection with the doctrine of little things as means of sanctification. Connection with the Mass, sacrifice of calvary, and center of prayer and worship. Parallel with Christ's freedom on the cross, center of his salvational work.
charity as understanding. Not merely official almsgiving. But humane compassion coupled with fraternal correction. Soft and tough love is synthesized. Connection with apostolate and its motivations.
unity of life as a result of practicing the aforementioned. Profound meeaning of unity of life as union with one person of Christ, God and man, ie. sanctity is both human and supernatural fullness. Christocentric approach. Work as redemptive. Meaning of Opus Dei.
divine filiation and cheerfulness. Links with above but also shows St. Thomas's doctrine that joy is result of love and sanctity. And for Escriva a result of divine filiation.

Knowledge of theology is essential in writing an encyclopedic article on Opus Dei theology. A secular viewpoint wouldn't make it encyclopedic, id est, profound and enlightening. A secular viewpoint will only give it a secular tone. Will not necessarily give it an encyclopedic tone. Arturo Cruz 07:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

First off, I moved this to a new section because I need a lot of help on what the Theology sub-page should look like. I think we can improve on the curent version a lot, but I personally wouldn't know how to sum up a whole religious group I've only read about in Time Magazine and the like. I don't know that the Theology sub-article will get done to FAC quality, but.. hey-- let's give it a shot.

So, I called it an "unsource rewrite" because I think the current article's theology section is basically original work / non-verifiable / a paraphrased extended quote. It's similar to the web-brochure, so perhaps it's an extended quote. But it has a LOT of new content added into it, and I'm not sure where that information came from, or why that exact sentence is being used where it is. If I picked any random sentence in "Message and Spirituality" and asked you to "verify" it and it's location in the article, I don't know how you could do it. Similarly, if I tried to argue any given sentence should be moved to a different part, I don't know how I could justify it.

The theology section, as is, has sentence after sentence that states as fact things that simply aren't facts. "All Christians are called to a life of holiness.", "they follow Jesus who worked as a carpenter and lived as a son in a Jewish family in a small village for 30 years.", "Christians should love personal freedom", etc. By all means, OD may believe these things-- but I don't know Jesus really worked as a carpenter, or that Christians _should_ love personal freedom. Maybe Christians should love servitude, as Jesus was a servant, and maybe they should eschew freedom in lieu of total servitude to the Divine. Maybe only SOME christians are called to holiness. You can't just SAY these things-- you have to say "Opus Dei emphasizes a 'universal call to holiness'". Ya see what I mean? The tone doesn't have to be secular exactly, but it definitely has to be verifiable.

Additionaly, I can't stress enough how impenetrable the style of language used by Arturo or by the current article's theology section is. The language is very poetic, very powerful, very christocentric. But very little of it is comprehensible to a lay audience. Bits of latin are indecipherable. Other phrases' true meanings are very difficult to discern. I'll take for example the phrase "incarnation of human freedom and its salvational effects"-- I have absolutely no idea what you mean by this phrase. I could make an educated guess, but I'm totally guessing. I understand each word, but i'm hard pressed to say what you actually mean by it. This goes for the bulk of what Arturo said, and a little too much of what is in the current article's theology section.

Additionally, we have to be aware pur readers are going to have a hard time understanding a lot of christian catholic terminiology. "laity", "Eucharist", "sanctification", "apostolate", "filiation", etc.. As hard as it is for us to imagine-- the reader won't know these terms, and if we absolutely must use them, we must clearly explain them first.

A lot of this article feels very sermon like. What a typical reader really wants from a Theology of Opus Dei article are the answers to questions like:

What are the top five things Opus Dei believes in, as opposed to the catholic church.

Opus Dei's beliefs "belong to the common patrimony of the Church" (see article please, Message and Spirituality). Opus Dei is "absolute fidelity to the Church" (see article on Revolutionary etc)

How does Opus Dei's beliefs differ from those of the Jesuits or the Franciscans, or Catholicism as a whole.

The five or six features express the distinctive thing. (see Catholic spirituality.

If an OD adherent and a lay catholic get into a theological debate-- what is it they're debating about?

OD members are lay catholics.

What holy texts are particularly important to OD as compared with other catholics? Are some parts of the bible more important than others to OD vs Catholicism.

see first above.

Does OD even HAVE it's own theology? Or is it sufficient to say OD=Theology _is_ Catholicism theology and we don't even need a special OD Theology article?

Good point. Le Tourneau said that Opus Dei's message is part of the perennial patrimony but sheds special light on secularity. (John Paul II's beginning statement in Message and Spirituality expresses something similar)

What theological objections do some catholics have to OD theology? What does OD have to say about those objections?

See spiritual practice section.

What does OD believe in that most catholics don't believe in?
Who were Escriva's most immediate inspirations. How is OD different from typical Spanish Catholicism.
How has OD's theology evolved over the years? or has it remained virtually identical to is initial foundings?

Opus Dei does not not have any doctrine outside of Catholicism. (See Faith and Novelty)

These are the sorts of questions a theology sub-article should address. As it is, the theology article GIVE me a lot of OD-style sentences, but it's up to the reader to try to find the pattern or to figure out how OD is different from other orders. Ideally, the answers come NOT from OD itself, but from comparative religion scholars that talk ABOUT OD without exactly trying to promote (or disparage) it. Because if I ask a Jesuit and an OD member to describe their theological differences-- I'm liable to get two different answers-- and the Theology of OD article ideally would summarize all point of view / those aspects of all points of view which are in agreement.

Similarly-- I don't need to know EVERYTHING about OD. I don't need to know that they believe Jesus was a carpenter, or that Jesus was Logos, or that Jesus rose again on the third day. I need to know the things UNIQUE to OD-- and leave the catholic theology to the catholic theology pages.

But more than anything, I feel like a theology article should talk ABOUT OD's theology-- not be an EXAMPLE of OD's theology. Do you see the difference? an article that IS theology conveys OD's beliefs in a very raw fashion-- directly expressed beliefs, direct bible quotes and cites, latin phrases, a poetic/emotional language. An article that is ABOUT the theology contains declarative statements that summarize, highlight, compare/contrast, and analysis the theology, without asserting the veracity of that theology.

Put another way-- if we're not going to summarize or talk ABOUT OD's theology critically/analytically, wouldn't the reader be better off just going to OD's official site and reading about OD theology there? When I look at the current theology section, I can't help but feel that all we're doing is block-quoting an OD sermon, while re-wording it along the way due to copyright concerns. And if we're going to do that-- if we're not going to summarize or anaylze, but we're just going to convey-- wouldn't the reader be better off just going to OD's site? I don't feel the current section and subpage really "add alot" that couldn't be found on OD's site.

Our current theology section does almost nothing to summarize, compare/contrast. It just IS an example of what an OD theology brochure looks like. And that's not what wikipedia's about-- we should leave that to OD's site: they will do much better job of it than we ever possibly can.

Through reading enough journalistics sources, I do feel comfortable saying a few sentences summarize the "top five" OD theology traits: universal call to holiness, laity-focus, unity of life, ordinary life focus and sanctification of work. So, for the main article, I sorta feel like I have good handle on the "ultra-brief super-concise summary of the most salient details". I feel like each of those five are extremely verifiable (almost all sources mention them as being highlights of OD), and I feel like those are sufficiently clear and simple that we can summarize them easily. So, the section, okay. But the sub-article should go into a lot more. And I don't have to the answers to those questions, so.. I doubt I'll edit the Theology sub-page much myself. Not unless I do a lot,lot more reading, starting off with Allen's book. :).

--Alecmconroy 09:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Please read Holiness and World (the symposium), William May's writing, Jesus as Friend by Canals. These sources are duly referenced somewhere in the article, footnotes and bibliography. Walter Ching 13:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Opus Dei Not A Cult

I find it shocking that Opus Dei has been listed on this site as a cult. This could not be more wrong. Opus Dei has the support of the Papacy and, therefore, is not a cult. Opus Dei is just a wing of the Catholic Church. Thus, it IS catholic and NOT a cult. --Unsigned commment left by 24.43.53.43

Welcome to Wikipedia. Ideally, this article shouldn't say that Opus Dei IS a cult. But it does have a duty to say that some people feel Opus Dei is a cult.--Alecmconroy 17:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Thats not quite correct. See WP:WEASEL for more. Roodog2k 21:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay-- strictly speaking the duty is to say that some people feel Opus Dei is a cult and then cite a source verifying that that is true. :) --Alecmconroy 22:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I can see some cult like aspects to opus dei same as scientology but cult is to vague a term you first need to define what makes a cult then see how opus dei stacks up.Ansolin 03:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you try to see Wikipedia:Words to avoid. Thomas 04:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't find the word cult to be particularly helpful. 9 times out of 10, it just means "religion I think is bad" or "religion whose adherents are fanatical in my eyes". I think we have to mention it here once or twice, because the word does come up, but I don't think it's a word we should use ourselves. It suffices to talk about "Support and Criticism for Opus Dei" and in that way only get into the whole "is it a cult thing". --Alecmconroy 04:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Hear what your saying Thomas “cult” is negative and isn’t used in the technical sense but a couple of points. first there’s an article “Opus Dei: Responses to Cult Accusations” so the doors open on the word second and more important people hearing story’s of opus dei cult like activity and they come here looking for answers, they need to be able to find the right section then you can (or not) prove that it isn’t, using the word “sect “wouldn’t help remember this isn’t a book were trying to answer specific questions as well as give general information.Ansolin 04:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Crux of the Matter II: fine distinction

Hi Alec, thank you so much for your clarification and your kindness!

Let me explain myself some more:

I see a fine distinction between what society thinks of Opus Dei and what the writers have written about Opus Dei, in as much as there is a fine intelletual distinction between what the world thinks of the United States, the weather and world climate, the Loch Ness monster, Australia, and what the serious writers have written about them. Wikipedia with its NOR policy is after the latter. This is our starting point, and what we have to determine.

I suppose you were joking when you compared Allen to Jane Fonda. She's a political activist with an agenda while Allen's only agenda is to ensure an objective neutral take of Opus Dei, based on empirical facts.

I suppose you also understand that CNN has used Allen mainly in their reporting on Opus Dei, thus further strengthening Allen rather than weakening him.

As I mentioned above, Allen is not the only writer which strengthens the majority opinion: Messori and Introvigne further strengthen him. So do West and Thierry, both spent more than year studying Opus Dei.

I don't know if you were joking that you can show one serious review against Allen for every review that is pro-Allen. For the sake of coming up with a clear next step, I'd take your proposal. Ndss has produced a formidable list. He also has a list at John Allen, Jr. which shows that even his critics respect him. I hope you were not joking because this is the only way to move forward. I acknowledge the wisdom of both Anonimus (short journalistic accounts are no match for serious well-reasoned books) and Davidson (need for empirical proofs versus Allen). The 3 Ps of Ndss are serious proofs given Wikipedia NOR. Thomas 04:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's hard leg to stand on to claim we should only count book-length expositions as experts. As the recent furor surrounding Dan Brown, A Million Little Pieces, the like remind us-- books are subject to almost no peer review. In this case, it seems like all the books have been written by some of the most partisan members of the debate, both for and against OD. To be sure, they count as sources-- but they don't count as the ONLY sources like you claim. Furthermore, even if we only looked at book-length expositions devoted entirely to OD-- the sources are still roughly 50-50, Pro- and Con-. You're asking that we construct a rule whereby the only sources who count are not Time Magazine, not CNN, not any of the Anti-OD groups, not any of the former numerary testimonies or any of the anti-OD books, but only the pro-OD sources.

It is a tiny bit of a hyperbole for me to liken Allen to Fonda. He is at least a journalist, while she was just an actress. My point is just that you can't use the unprecedented access Allen had to justify that his opinions are somehow better. Unprecedented access is no proof that the resultant work is of high quality-- for no one accuses Fonda of being the only expert on the Vietnam war.

But of course Allen has an agenda! How can you deny he has an agenda? Allen _IS_ a member of the Catholic church, Allen is an employee of a Catholic organization, Allen writes for a Catholic publication. Allen has a moral duty to promote the Catholic church, the Catholic viewpoint, and to obey the will of the Pope. I mean-- Allen personally believes that the Catholic religion is the right one-- he would be horrible person if he DIDN'T try to promote it. To quote Escriva, do you really believe Allen should (and does) lead a double life, refusing to let his religious duty to promote the church ever interfere with his professional life as a author? Do you think Allen should (and does) "leave one's catholicism aside on entering a university, or a professional association, or a scholarly meeting, or Congress, as if you were checking your hat at the door?" Surely not!

I don't blame Allen for having an agenda-- given his beliefs, he has a moral duty to promote his religion. The Anti-ODAN people have an agenda too, and given what they believe, they have a moral duty to promote criticism of OD. I don't object to the inclusion of their opinions, but I do object to the domination of their opinions. All the truly objective sources, the journalistic sources, report both sides roughly equally.

Sure, I could come up with a list of people who don't like Allen's book. But tell me-- why should I be particularly inclined to take the time to do that? My overwhelming list of journalistic sources for Opus Dei only produced the ad hoc conclusion that journalistic source are no longer going to be accepted as reliable evidence for the purposes of Wikipedia articles. If I produce a list of people who don't like Allen's book-- won't they, too, be dismissed out of hand as not proper sources based on some criteria? If you're curious, you can do googles for "'John Allen' 'Opus Dei' whitewash" and you'll find lots for starters. Off the top of my head, I can tell you that even the editor of the Catholic Herald has denounced the book as a whitewash. ODAN of course has some things to say about Allen, as do the other major anti-od sources. What I suspect is that all those reviewers don't count-- they aren't sufficiently luminous, or sufficiently educated, or sufficiently something.

But, I do think we are making progress. We agree that the current article is not equitable (though some think this inequality is NPOV), and I think we agree there is no consensus of society in general or of journalistic sources that Opus Dei is wonderful. We're now down to whether Allen's expertise (along with the few other catholic authors) outweigh the combined expertise of all the anti-OD authors and all the major international news networks. I think very few people would agree that Allen is more of an expert than anyone else (though admittedly, practically all of those people seem to have found their way to this article hehe).

Some other points to consider as we look foward towards Mediation:

Can we agree that the suggested replacement article is "equitable", roughly 50-50. (keeping in mind that we don't all agree that an equitable article is NPOV in this case?) I'd hate for us to have a second edit war flare up disputing what 50-50 looks like, if it comes down that the article SHOULD be equitable.
Are we going to agree to abide by the Mediation Committe's ruling, and carry the philosophy of that ruling to our other edits on all the other OD and similar articles? If the rule is that the major news stories don't count, am I going to stop quoting them in other articles? If the rule is that OD articles should be equally balanced-- are we all going to aggressively help to weed out the systemic bias that currently exists in all the OD articles?
Once mediation is over, are we all going to chip in to defend the result from future vandalism and errosion away from the consensus version? There are a lot of people, Pro- and Anti- OD who come here, and whatever we decide in mediation will have a lot of people trying to put their own bias back into the article. Its easy to do this when the bias goes against your own, but it will be harder for us when the bias being put back in is the same kind of bias as we have.

--Alecmconroy

Hey Tom!! Thanks a lot for supporting my thesis! Do it more often, please! ;-)

Hey Alec!! It's a pity you won't take our challenge. I'm researching more reviews of Allen. Their pretty cool!

Do you both realize that in post-Allen Time Magazine and Bloomberg, there are more pro-OD lines than anti-OD lines? Could be around 80-20! Well, just by that count Alec your suggestion is not equitable doing 50:50? Equitable means fair, isn't it? And if it's 80:20, then this article is on the right course! Following both experts and journalistic sources. Agree much with Nino Gonzalez and Anonimus then! Improve the article. That's the battle cry. Nothing from scratch, please. A new article is almost an insult on thousands of edits and hundreds of editors who have pored over these page! Ndss 10:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean this Time article??!? If you read that article and come away thinking that 80% of the article is a glowing endorsement of Opus Dei-- I don't know what to say to ya! :) We just live in very different universes, I suppose. NDSSes are from Mars, Alecs are from Venus, as they say. I think it's clear the Time article is very neutral towards OD, not taking one side or the other in the debate. If you read the very same words I am reading, and can somehow manage to see in the article in which the author spends 80% of his time issuing a glowing endorsement of the world's most clear-cutly good and obviously wonderful religious organization... well, I guess it's an example of the saying "Through faith, all things are possible".

Thank God for Mediation! If we can't even agree on what a simple article means, I don't think we'd ever reach consensus on our own. :) I can honestly say, this is one of the most interestingly difficult communication experiences I've ever had online. We don't see eye-to-eye on almost anything! :) Given what different worlds we come from, I have to really applaud everyone's civility. Given our differences, you must be probably expecting me to cite some sort of numerological proof that Escriva was the anti-Christ. And I wouldn't be surprised if you started citing the Opus Dei Awareness Network as an organization that exists to promote awareness of how great and wonderful Opus Dei is. hehehe.

--Alecmconroy 11:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Ndss if nothing else (and there lots) the current article is way to long if you want to save it try paring it down to 32k.

About the time piece if were talking about the same one most of it is full of fact facts (secular facts) when Allen was born when opus dei was founded you can have as many as you want of them the 20% you talk of is belief, criticism and response to that criticism.Ansolin 15:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Ndss has proofs. Alec and Pvazz have many complaints but no proofs. Whom should we believe? Cabanes 07:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe Alec and Pvazz. The article it seems a brochure --150.214.40.24 13:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

In general, Cabanes, it seems very indefensible for you to try to remove the NPOV Dispute tag from the page. It's all well and good for you to believe the page is Neutral, but I don't see how you can deny that there is an on-going dispute about that subject. You know? There's a mediation going on soon, after all. There's obviously a dispute-- so, let the dispute tag stay up. --Alecmconroy 13:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Alec, here are some reviews that I have found of John Allen's book, most of them from the internet. As you appeared to cite a British paper (the Catholic Herald), these are all UK examples, which makes the comparison manageable.

The Catholic Herald, Whips, wealth and women, by Austen Ivereigh (book dispels all the myths - it's the book that was needed)

Daily Telegraph, You can trust them to sell you a car, by Piers Paul Read (for those interested in a dispassionate assessment of Opus Dei, Allen's study is definitive, persuasive and absorbing)

Sunday Times, History: Opus Dei by John Allen, by Peter Stanford (it's an admirable book and should be the first stop for anyone interested in a dispassionate overview of the subject)

The Independent, What's with the whips, by Catherine Pepinster (book has lots of facts, including that there are only 85k members, so can we all calm down please)

The Times, A wholesome reality shines beyond the dark conspiracy, by Ruth Gledhill, (Opus Dei is much less lurid than its image...)

Sunday Telegraph, A veiled approach to the Vatican, by Damian Thompson (the author, known for his objectivity, has been fooled, so the book is a whitewash)

Belfast Telegraph, anon (a fascinating study)

New Statesman, Holy order, by Mary Kenny (a comprehensive study of a now global movement... Allen has done a service in providing so much information about it)

Commonweal, What's the fuss, by Michael Walsh (various comments but definitely not a whitewash)

[many months later] Times Literary Supplement, Big on wounds, by John Cornwell (critical of Opus Dei but states that the book is not a whitewash)

The Tablet, Out of the Shadows, by Christopher Howse (book packed with interesting information - very useful)

The Tablet is a Catholic publication, and there were also positive reviews also in the other Catholic papers in Britain: the Universe and the Catholic Times.

In summary, the reception was broadly positive. One person, a regular critic of Opus Dei as it happens (though I don't think it matters), appeared to call the book a whitewash, and that was all.

Alec, to be honest I don't think each positive review of the book could be balanced by a negative one.

But the main points are that:

a) Opus Dei did not choose John Allen to write the book: it was an initiative from John Allen himself. The members of Opus Dei that I know were quite relieved at the outcome, which does not amount to a ringing endorsement but is fair to them, and in the context of the Da Vinci Code the effect was positive.

b) What might be called the middle position seems to shift. John Allen's book occupies a balanced "compromise" position, so it gets quoted a lot. It should not be portrayed as being the Opus Dei position, to be balanced against, say, ODAN's, between which a new compromise position can be generated. I think the existing entry is correct in treating the book as marking the middle ground.

Finally, here are a couple of reviews from US Catholic papers, well known to be at opposite ends of the "Catholic" spectrum:

National Catholic Reporter (USA), The facts and fiction about Opus Dei, by Fr John Jay Hughes (The Work's reception of this brilliant book, Mr Allen's best work to date, will furnish the answer)

First Things, by Richard John Neuhaus (this is a book that has been needed for a very long time)

Anonimus 12:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Animonius, look at it from my point of view:

First, and foremost, I argue that Wikipedia should treat both sides of any religious/moral/political debate equally on principle alone. But ya'll say that the principle of equality and non-bias isn't what NPOV means to you, so the principle of not favoring either side in a religious debate doesn't count.
So I say that there hasn't been any consensus among Wikipedians that your interpretation of NPOV is correct. That there isn't any consensus of Wikipedians that this article should indeed be biased in favor of OD-- but you say they're just Wikipedians not experts, so that lack of consensus doesn't count.
So I show evidence that the population at large hasn't reached a consensus about OD-- but you say the population's views shouldn't count because they're not experts on Opus Dei, so that lack of consensus doesn't count.
So I show evidence that the journalistic sources haven't reached a consensus about OD-- but you say journalists aren't serious in-depth researchers because they write articles, not books. So their opinions don't count.
So I show evidence that even among book authors there hasn't been a consensus about OD. But you say that the Anti-OD authors aren't as good as Allen, so their opinions shouldn't count.

So now we find ourselves arguing about whether or not there is a consensus among the opinions of the reviewers of Allen's own opinions of Opus Dei. The theory being that if there is some major consensus among the reviewers of Allen's book that Allen's opinions of Opus Dei are correct, then that's a "consensus of experts" and the opinions of those reviewers should therefore dominate the article and count more than all the other books, more than all the other journalistic sources, more than the views of the population at large, more than the views of Wikipedians, and more than the general principle that Wikipedia should treat both sides in any religious debate equally.

So let me ask: if I take the time to search around and find you a half dozen or so other sources who read Allen's book but didn't agree with his conclusions, does that mean that you'll all agree that there is no consensus of book reviewers of Allen's book, and therefore that the lack of consensus among reviewers of Allen's book, book authors in general, journalists from major news organizations, wikipedians, and humans means we can finally have an article that treats both sides in this religious debate equally?

If everyone agrees that that's the last hurdle I have to meet in order to have a new Opus Dei article that treats both sides equally, then I'll be happy to take the time to find some people who read the Allen's book but still didn't agree with Allen's conclusions that Opus Dei is a wonderful group. I have no doubt that we could find a lack of consensus about Allen's conclusions, for after all, his book is widely read, but I don't see the whole world running out and joining Opus Dei because of it. So, NDSS, Thomas, Anonimus-- is it a deal? Do I really just have to show you a couple folks who didn't agree with Allen's conclusions in order to solve this whole thing?

Or is it the case that even if I present evidence of people who read Allen's book and disagree with it, that that too won't be enough-- that that evidence too won't be sufficient, and that there will again be some new set of criteria that makes those opinions not count, and some new sets of hoops I have to jump through before there can be a Wikipedia article that treats both sides in a religious debate equally. Obviously, I suspect that's exactly what will happen if I come up with some reviewers who agree with Allen. I suspect that this is one issue that just will have to be decided by the good folks of Mediation or Arbitration.

--Alecmconroy 08:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey Anonimus!! That list is fantastic!! And it's from the UK, a country considered one of the most secular in the world!! Thanks, man! Have been working on other countries, but am not done yet...

Hey Alec!! Anonimus's list is just the exact complement to what I just got. Just asked an important journalist and he said that John Allen works for secular media outlets such as CNN, NPR, and Random House, who do not care one whit if he's Catholic or not, but who evaluate his work on the basis of secular journalistic principles. Well, what are these principles? Just check out journalism ethics and standards and you'll find out.

Alec, your use of "a couple" (two or indefinite) seems to sound to me just like your use of "equitable" (equal or fair). This type of word usage is called equivocation. Do you know what the dictionary says about equivocation? It's language that can be understood in more than one way, at times with some intention (that I will not mention here, because I don't want to judge any intention). ;)

Anyways, to be clear the proposal is this: if you want to prove that professionals are 50:50 on Allen, and therefore the article should be 50:50 pro and anti-OD, then for every serious professional review supporting Allen's work, there should be a corresponding serious professional review countering Allen's work. Ok? And the reviews should match the prestige of the reviewers. There should be a corresponding review, for example, as prestigious as Publishers Weekly of the Reed Business Information's Publishing Group. Remember: Allen was used by New York Times (see bibliography), CNN, NPR, Times Magazine.

I've said it before, the key is proportionality: articles are written in proportion to the representation of experts in the field. So we take into account proportionality between Massimo Introvigne and Moncada, between Vittorio Messori and Moreno, Allen and Walsh, Peter Berglar and DiNicola, John Paul II/Benedict XVI and Maria Carmen del Tapia on Catholic theology as you said in your summary, etc. Everything's simple if we just follow Wikipedia. Everything's convoluted if we don't, isn't it? ;-) Ndss 10:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

You comments about prestige of the reviewers are exactly what I expected you to say. Having already established lack of consensus about OD among Humans, Wikipedians, Journalists, and Authors, if I then prove there's a lack of consensus of Book Reviewers of Allen's book, the debate will just proceed to a new level, and you will argue that the negative reviewers are not sufficently luminous, reputable, prestigious, etc., so THEIR opinions won't count either. Next, I'll be spending my time searching for a lack on consensus of the REVIEWERS of the REVIEWERS, trying to prove there's no consensus among the Reviewers of the Reviewers that the Pro-Allen reviewers opinions should dominate over the Anti-Allen reviewers. In America, this sort of thing is called Whack a mole-- if you successfully crush one thing, a new issue will instantly pop up elsewhere. When you crush that one, a new one will pop up elsewhere, and then you have to crush THAT one. On and on, to infinity. You can play as long as you like, but you can never win.

You've got to be careful when you say Allen "works for CNN"-- they have certainly asked him to share his opinions-- but they probably do not endorse or agree with all his opinions in the way they would one of their anchors. Usually, his positive opinions on Opus Dei have been balanced with criticism of the organization. As I showed above, the reporting on this issue, while MENTION Allens opinion, does not share it.

Similarly, you have to be careful before saying a reviewer agrees with Allen's opinions. Certainly, many reviewers have called Allen's book "fascinating", "worth reading" or "the definitive book on Opus Dei"-- but it's not clear they agree with his opinions. Almost everyone can agree Hitler's Mein Kampf is fascinating, worth reading, and the definitive book on Nazism-- but few would agree with the author's opinions. (Not to liken Allen to Hitler, mind you). I would call Allen's books all of those things, I'm sure the members of ODAN found it worth reading too. But worth reading doesn't mean "True"

What it all boils down to is that I don't really believe there ARE any experts on whether Opus Dei is a cult or not. Or whether it is Good or Bad, Sacred or Heretical, Divinely inspired or Satanic. There are only opinions, and everyone's got on one. There are only experts on questions of fact, not of questions of faith. To try to determine the proportion of the total number of experts that are in favor of Opus Dei is to try to divide by zero.

Ultimately, there's a difference between fact and opinion. When Allen says Escriva was born in 1902, he's stating a fact. When he says Opus Dei is good, that it's members are happy and hard-working, and that Escriva is holy-- he's stating an opinion. When you look at the edits I want made to the article, you see I have no problem citing Allen for facts that aren't disputed by others. In the Support and Criticism section, I have no problem mentioning his opinions, when properly balanced by critical opinions. But Allen's opinions are just opinions-- and there's no reason to let his be the only voice that counts.

What you're trying to tell me is that an article on Ice Cream should talk more about chocolate, because all experts agree it's the best flavor. Or that an article on Colors should talk about how wonderful Blue is, because all the experts agree that Blue is their favorite color. For one, I don't really believe that everyone actually SAYS that, and I've cite journalistic sources and book authors to show that in fact, there is no consensus among ANY group. But moreover-- there ARE no freakin' experts on what my favorite color should be! It's not a matter of fact, it's just a matter of opinion.

It's just not fair to let one opinion dominate-- which is what everyone agrees is happpening in the current article.

--Alecmconroy 12:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Expertise, credibility, and proportionality

I'm glad everyone continues to focus on the crux of the matter and to work with due determination to come up with the most reasonable and appropriate decision on this article. Thanks! Thanks as well to everyone for keeping calm. :)

In the interest of helping mediation, for which we all committed to work, let me put forward some Wikipedia policies and guidelines to shed light on what we are doing.

On social science and social issues, there can be experts, Wikipedia states. And Wikipedia states there there should be proportionality.

Proportionality among experts is mainly determined by their credibility. Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial says as much. See below.

"On many scientific, technical or social problems, different points of view may be held by different experts. This is especially the case, for instance, in areas of conjecture (e.g. estimating the future importance of global warming). Wikipedia should report all major points of views; however, it should do so in proportion to the credibility of the experts holding the various theses.

One measure of a view's importance is the credibility of the experts who hold that view. What makes an expert credible? Some criteria include:

The reputation of the expert, the reputation of the tradition within which he or she works, the reputation of the group or institution for which the expert works
Whether the expert uses the common methods of the field or completely different ones
Whether the expert has or has not failed to respond to criticisms
Whether the expert has reputable supporters of his or her claims
Whether the expert's point of view belongs in a different article (e.g. evolution vs. creationism)

In other words, an idea's popularity alone does not determine its importance. Few people may know that a belief is wrong, but sometimes that is because most are unaware of the evidence against it. If you are not an expert in a subject yourself, your intuition that an article is biased may not be reliable. Keep an open mind and ask others about the evidence.

Points of view held as having little credibility by experts, but with wide popular appeal (e.g.: the belief in astrology, considered as irrational and incorrect by the vast majority of scientists and astronomers), should be reported, but as such: that is, we should expose the point of view and its popular appeal, but also the opinion held by the vast majority of experts."

IMO, if the proportions are based on credibility, then the present discussion on Allen is but a way of determining his credibility, i.e. his reputation (or what people say about his professional work as a journalist), the reputation of group or institution for which he works (Publishing houses or media outlets for whom he has written), whether he has reputable supporters (this is where the professional reviews of his works are relevant, i.e. an expert is credible if people in the field do believe in him).

However, I think this is just one step. The proportioning depends also on the credibility of the anti-Opus Dei experts. Thus, aside from determining the lack of reputable supporters for Allen, the burden of proof is to also show that the Opus Dei critics and their supporters are of the same level of credibility and reputation as Allen, Introvigne, Messori, Cornelio Fabro, etc. IMHO, I think some more work can be done in this area. I am open to listen to any proofs in this regard, so we can proceed to establish an appropriate comparison and proportioning. :) Thomas 01:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

But the NPOV tutorial you cite is quite clear that the expert rule applies to issues of Science, not Religion.

On many scientific, technical or social problems, different points of view may be held by different experts. ... Wikipedia should report all major points of views; however, it should do so in proportion to the credibility of the experts holding the various theses....

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

Religion and morality are explicitly singled out as areas where there aren't experts, just opinions. The expertise rule does not apply to matters of religion, morality, and politics. And I think this is clearly a case of religion and morality, not "social science". Whether OD is good or bad, sacred or heretical, wheter or not it's a "cult"-- these are religious and moral questions. What could possibly be more clearly a moral issue than whether or not OD and Escriva were good or bad. What could possibly be a more clearly religious issue than whether or not we should call OD a cult?

--Alecmconroy 02:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Alec, for response. I appreciate your interest.

Let me explain myself further.

Proportioning is focused on disputes, i.e. criticism versus response. If one looks at the list you made on criticism against Opus Dei, one can find the nature of these disputes or issues.

control.
recruitment.
social contact.
mortification.
secrecy.
church within a church.
influence, e.g. rapid canonization of Escriva.
far-right politics and fascism. Franco and Hitler.

There are other points in the beginning and ending paragraphs:

ex-members
liberation theology
cult
birth control
patriarchal governance

If one analzes these points where there should a proportioning of expertise opinion, one can conclude they are mainly sociological. The four religious and moral topics also have social, scientific content: mortification (widespread or not, physically or psycologically damaging or not), liberation theology (Does Opus Dei help the poor or not), cult (does society's response to Opus Dei practices make it a cult? what do sociologists say about the term cult?), and birth control (how does Opus Dei treat women in general?).

These issues you listed down are precisely the things that Allen studied. His study as I already said somewhere is mainly sociological. And so is the study of Introvigne (he is a sociologist of religion; you might want to check Category:Branches of sociology), study of William West (he went around the world studying the social iniatives of Opus Dei). To a certain extent, the study of Peter Berglar (he is a historian), of Thierry, and of Messori, also have sociological content.

Hope this helps! Thomas 02:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

To be sure, a sociogist can study questions ASSOCIATED with religious and moral topics, but ultimately, the question here is a religious/moral one. For example, abortion is a religious/moral issue. Recently one very prominent, very famous social scientist published a study (and a best-selling book that won lots of awards) where he found that the legalized abortion causes a HUGE drop in crime-- because the aborted fetuses, had they lived, would have had a high chance of growing up and becoming criminals, but if society allows impovershed mothers to abort those fetuses, then statistically we decrease the future population of criminals.

Suppose I want to go to the article on abortion, and insist that the Pro-Choice size be allowed to dominate the article, because this social scientist and other social scientists have studied the issue and found all these wonderful benefits abortion has on society. Would I be justified in creating an unbalanced article merely because a bunch of social scientists have said that abortion has positive effects? Or should I still treat both sides in the abortion debate equally?

I say-- I still have to treat them equally. No matter what the social scientists say, the question "Is abortion good or bad?" is fundamentally a religious/moral one-- not a social science one. Suppose abortion really does cause drops in crime-- does that make it right? Of course not. If it's bad, it's still bad, no matter what the social scientists say about it.

Here, in the criticism and support sections, we're fundamentally asking "Is Opus Dei good or bad?". Lots of people feel it is good, lots of people feel it is bad, most people are in the middle. Just like the abortion debate, there have been social scientists who have asked factual questions ABOUT Opus Dei. Just as someone can ask the factual question "Does legalized abortion cause a drop in crime?" so too someone can ask "Is mortification widespread or not? Does Opus Dei do charity work or not? What are Opus Dei's net assets, etc".

But just as sociologists can never do a study to prove whether abortion is Good or Evil, whether homosexuality is admirable or an abomnination, or any other religious/moral issues. This include the question in this article "Is Opus Dei good or bad?"

Of course, sociologists WILL weigh in on this issue. Sociologists are humans too and when they're done asking factual questions that have verifiable answers, they can share their opinions on the big question "Is Opus Dei good or bad?". Introvigne can write article saying his opinion is that it's good. Sociologist Joan Estruch can write a whole book saying in her opinion it's bad. But when these people cross from asking verifiable factual questions into answering religious/ethical questiosn, they're no longer in the realm of science, they're in the realm of morality, politics, and religion.

If "Is Opus Dei Good or Bad?" is now a social science question, the why shouldn't the "Is Abortion Good or Bad?" be re-written "in proportion to the scientific experts"? In such a case, the end result would overwhelmingly be pro-choice-- for the only arguments against abortion are moral and religious ones. No scientific study can show me the fetus has a soul. No socioogist can do a study proving God disapproves of abortion. But economists could prove abortion is somehow good for the economy show me how much money is spent on abortion, how much extra money is earned by would-be mothers who don't take maternity leave, or how much money it saves the government in child welfare costs and education costs. If we used the "in proportion to the experts rule" on all wikipedia articles, the result would be an article on Abortion where a cold, calculating social scientists study only the verifiable facts of the issue, and after looking the balance sheet, writes a glowing endorsement of the practice as an efficient and cost-effective method of population control. The people who argue against it would be shut out-- for they speak from a moral and religious-- not a social science one. But I think everyone could see that Wikipedia would be wrong to use the "In proportion to experts" rule on "Is Abortion Good or Bad?", even though there ARE social science questions LINKED to that topic.

It's exactly the same with the "Is Opus Dei Good or Bad?" section. Certainly, there is sociological content associated with that religious/moral question, but the question is fundamentally just as much one of religion and morality as the abortion question is. When you look at the points, you can see that these are question of religious and moral opinion, not fact:

Highly controlling-- what's highly? How much control is too much control? Is this control good or bad? Opinion, not social science.
Aggressive recruitment-- what is aggressive? is it too aggressive or merely zealous? Is that kind of recruitment good or bad? Matter of opinion.
Cut off contact. Does this part of OD make it good or bad? Parts of the bible 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 opinion, not social science.
Mortification is a "startling" and "questionable" practice. What social scientist could prove to me that mortification is good OR bad? If the practice helps people achieve a closeness with god, maybe it's good-- ala "if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell". On the other hand, maybe it's a bad practice that is part of brainwashing. Matter of religion and morality, not science.
Intensely secretive. The question here is: is it secretive or 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, not to science.
Church within a Church. What this really means is does OD have "too much independence"? 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.
Influential. Does Opus Dei have "too much influence"? 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.
Franco and Hitler. This one is the most historical of the criticisms, but it's still fundamentally a matter of moral opinion, 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. Social scientists, as human beings, can have opinions on it, but science cannot.

No matter how you swing it, "Is Opus Dei Good or Bad?" is simply not a scientific question. There are no experts on this. And if you think there are-- you'd better get to work on the article "Abortion debate"-- it's filled with the opinions of non-sociologists and treats the Pro-Life side and the Pro-Choice side equally.

Seriously.. applying the "in proportion to experts" rule to religious and moral issues is a horrible idea. The NPOV tutorial says so, I say so, and I think you'd say so too if you tried to imagine us replacing all the articles on religious/moral debates with the opinions of economists and sociologists. It's a bad idea.

--Alecmconroy

I afraid I don’t completely agree with you either alec there no question that deciding wither something is good or bad other then in the most extreme case is opinion not fact but do most of the issues mentioned have to be done that way?.

Highly controlling

State what methods are used to control opus dei member (by all means use the most reliable sources) then have a small comment at the end related to wither its good or bad. This part is opinion and should be treated as such.

(An argument could be made that such control could be proven to be scientifically beneficial by using 100 identical twins separated at birth one brought up in a good family the other in an identical family that was in opus dei and after say 40 years you could see if there were and significant differences by all means put in such a study.(mostly joking there but you see how hard it would be and keep in mind I’m not sure the study would be conclusive)).

The same method can be used for the other items Franco and Hitler, Church within a Church, Mortification, Intensely secretive, Cut off contact, Aggressive recruitment and monetary fund available tell wikipedions what happened or what is happening then give brief opinion from both sides on wither its good or bad.Ansolin 13:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's at all an easy thing to decide whether something is good or bad. After all, why haven't we been able to decide, as a society, whether abortion is right or wrong, what the one true religion is, or what political parties we should support, or any of the trillions of other things people fight about.

Yes, right now, the suggested replacement article only very briefly mentions the support and criticism and provides, say, the top ten things each side would say-- it doesnt go in-depth. Certainly, we could make a special controvery article that go in-depth about the controversy, and tells (1) the universally-agreed upon verifiable facts, (2) both sides of the debated facts, and (3) the different opinions both sides have about the facts. Given the difficulty we have had in writing THIS article, I don't have a lot of confidence that we could write a whole controversy article that is in-line with NPOV. May be too hot a topic.... we'll see how mediation goes.

--Alecmconroy 14:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Alec. I understand where you are coming from. :)

I just have three comments.

First, in my opinion, it would be reductive or an over-simplification to reduce all issues of a group to moral/religious issues. It would be unfair to George Bush or to the United States or Roman Catholics or Mormons to have an article divided into two equal parts on whether this person or group of persons is good or bad, because their life and doctrine are more complex and more multi-faceted than morality or spirituality. The world as you say do not have any consensus on these social groups, but it does not mean the knowledge about them is 50:50 good or bad. Temporal affairs (the world of matter, of human beings) admit of degrees, of grays, and colors. In my opinion, not everything is black or white.

Second, the research you referred to is on one particular aspect of abortion. Allen's research is on almost all social issues of OD and it was praised by the secular media.

Third, I now tend to believe that Cabanes may be right. It would indeed take more than newspaper accounts to get to know these issues in-depth. Thus, I am happy to know you are obtaining copies of Allen and of Walsh. As you have been reading some criticism of Allen, I would recommend you also read O'Connor's critique of Walsh's book. You may find it at Biblio.com since it is out of print. P.S. I am not a stockholder of biblio.com, I just wanted to help you find it more easily. Regards, :) Thomas 07:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm trying to understand what you're saying. Do we at least have agreement that when something IS a religious or moral debate, we should treat both sides equally? I think what you're saying is that we should be equal on religious/moral debates, but this article isn't one. Am I understanding you? Or are you saying this is a religious/moral debate, but the religious/moral opinions of sociologists should outweight the religious/moral opinions of others.

Now as to whether this article is a religious/moral debate: Tis true, not all of the things about Opus Dei are religious/moral opinions. There's also a set of non-controversial, verifiable facts. When making my proposed edits to the article, the first half or 2/3rds of the article is Fact. Ideally, each line is verifiable, uncontroversial, and devoid of moral or religious opinion. If I did it right, critics and supporters alike could agree that every sentence in the first major part of that article is a fact. Hopefully, that section neither endorses nor opposes OD. The bulk of the article isn't about whether Opus Dei is bad or whether it is good.

And then, there IS the religious/moral debate of whether OD is good or bad. And that part of the article concerns opinions, not facts, and that part of the article tries to treat both opinions equally.

Instead, let's look at the current version of the article. It lacks any clear distinction between fact and opinion and intermingles the two until they are blurred beyond recognition. Pro-Opus Dei opinions dominate Anti-Opus Dei opinions. The "quotation mania" is such that it's almost impossible to discern where fact ends and opinion begins. After all this time, I still haven't been able to figure out whether the current "Message and spirituality: an overview" section is one long verbatim quote from some offical Opus Dei document, one a long verbatim quote from some other author, an original research essay written by a wikipedia based on his own readings OD documents, or some amalgam that incorporates all these sources. I do know that it doesn't contain facts and it isn't verifiable that "Christians should love personal freedom", that "All Christians are called to a life of holiness", or that "Love, the essence of sanctity, is nurtured by constant child-like prayer".

Anyway, let me know what you think about the principle of expertise applied to religious/moral issues (admitted the separate question of whether this is one).

--Alecmconroy 08:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello Alec. I answered some of your questions on theology at [25]. Walter Ching 11:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Love the sinner. Hate the sin. I love you Alec! I don't like equivocation though. Neither do I like selective quotations. :)

For a clearer view, here is the complete quotation:

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

We should then list all points of views, according to their importance, and, if possible, be precise as to who holds them. There exist some cases where the vast majority of political parties, politicians and journalists hold a certain opinion, while a sizeable minority do not: both views should be stated.

One common problem with politics is the natural tendency of considering the major political opinions of one's country as "normal", while considering those held in other countries as "abnormal", silly, or misguided. Thus, for instance, an article written from an American point of view may judge that the European fondness for welfare state solutions is misguided, or express this point of view in oblique ways; the same could be true of an article written from a European point of view on justice and firearms in the United States. Writers should thus combat this natural tendency of considering the point of view of one's groups as the "majority" and "natural" point of view, and giving to it more space and more focus."

A certain expertise in religion and morals is foreseen.
POVs on religious moral matters are still stated according to their importance
There can still be majority povs in some cases. This is implied by its connection to the previous sentence and by its juxtaposition in the same paragraph.
Be careful of anglo-saxon povs. We were warned on this by Nino G. My Chinese friends told me no one in China gave a hoot to DVC. He compared Chinese attitudes to Catholic issues to European attitudes to issues related to the Dalai Lama. It's all about indifference. Opposition to OD is basically a phenomenon of the secular west. I said it before and I will say it again: the wild west is not the world. Atheists and seculars might make a lot of noise in the press, but their pov is not the pov of the majority of religious humans. Lafem 09:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the things you quote is a perfect example of what the members of OD are doing on this page-- seeing taking their own POV and believing it to be the correct, true, or majority opinion. Remember-- I'm not trying to have MY or ANY pov dominate-- I just want us to be equitable, fair, and unbiased.

Incidentally, I won't personally make a stink over it, but you probably ought not characterize other editors as "sinners"-- even if you do go on to profess love for them. It didn't particularly offend me-- but it does on the surface sound like a personal attack

I think the suggestions of Alec amount to a strong anti-religious position. In particular, some theological statements that he says are POV (as being theological), are absolutely essential for understanding Opus Dei. The result is that a "neutral" entry on these terms would actually be skewed against Opus Dei. I think the proposed new entry reflects this problem: the source is the proposed ground-rules, which are a) new and b) unnecessary. Looking at some specific issues in more detail:

1) Re Expertise and technical knowledge. Statements have been made to the effect that expertise does not exist in such a subject as theology, on the grounds that they are not science. Hence the criticism of the use of John Allen and other "experts" with reference to Opus Dei, and the recommendation to cut some of the theological statements in the entry. This point of view seems erroneous to me, although a case might be made if one also takes a certain point of view on what constitutes a verifiable statement. Therefore...

2) Re Verifiable statements. Alec objects to statements like "Christians are called to holiness" as being unverifiable. This comes back to the question of the validity of expertise (or "technical knowledge") in theology: in fact this statement can easily be arrived at through very simple theology, e.g. via one or more New Testament quotations. These could be referenced directly, if Bible quotations are allowed, or to any one of several Papal documents - perhaps the Vatican II constitution Lumen Gentium, or Apostolicam Actuositatem. These are secondary (Catholic) references, so perhaps the statement could be nuanced a bit, i.e. according to the Catholic Church, Christians are called to holiness (with a footnote). I don't mind either way, starting from the present entry. Really, I don't think that either method should be necessary.

- But the main point is that the statement is clearly verifiable unless atheism is implicitly adopted as the measure of all belief systems. In contrast, a merely secular or agnostic stance would live and let live, while a merely empiricist approach would at least accept the standard references, if not the statement itself. I don't think an atheistic standpoint is *necessary* in an encyclopedia. It could be *chosen* if the Wiki community decided. In that case everyone would be aware that Wikipedia was an encyclopedia where the rules were skewed against religion and would discount it accordingly. Anyway, this is not the present situation.

3) Re Religious bias. Alec thinks the entry falls foul of Wikipedia rules, and I think this is based on a misunderstanding. It is certainly foreseen that on some subjects members of different religions may think differently. Obviously, religious bias should not be allowed to get into an article on, say, the crusades: an entry should be fair to both sides. Along these lines, if a religion other than Catholicism has put on record a more or less official viewpoint about Opus Dei, it could certainly be mentioned in the entry.

- But this is very different from having an atheistic standpoint dominate and be allowed to stand in judgment, as it were, in an article on an entity that is essentially religious. That would be the result of Alec's proposal. There is already space for that standpoint, and others, in whatever criticisms may be found to be suitable. But work to achieve this can be done already, starting from the present entry.

I think the present entry is a better point than Alec’s proposal, although that is not to say it should not be changed in places. At least it is fundamentally sound, whereas Alec’s attack on proportionality is (I think) based on the erroneous propositions mentioned earlier. The issue is a deep one, so it is difficult to find a compromise point.

Just my opinion. Sorry about the length: it sort of grew in the writing :-) Anonimus 20:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, let me respond point by point. Regarding expertise: you say I claim expertise does not exist in such a subject as theology, on the grounds that they are not science. To put it more clearly, I'm arguing that this is a religious/moral debate, and as such, the opinions of scientists and scholars should not be allowed to dominate over the religious beliefs of others. What supporters of the current article are arguing is: (1) that scientific experts DO exist on th subject of whether OD is good or bad, (2) that all the reputable scientific experts agree Opus Dei is good, and (3) that the opinions of those scientific experts should be allowed to dominate the article to the virtual exclusion of other points of view. I disagree with all three points in that argument. I want to be clear-- I'm not arguing that the opinion of science should dominate over the opinions of the religious-- i'm arguing that there is no scientific expertise in this subject and we shouldn't all anyone to dominate the article.

Regarding verifiability. Yes, I absolutely feel this article contains a huge number of 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. You can quote papal documents, but that won't prove it either, because many people don't believe the pope is God's messenger. Similarly, the statement "Christians are NOT called to holiness" is unprovable and unverifiable too. I could cite the Quran or other religious texts that disagree with Christianity, but that wouldn't not prove it, because those documents aren't universally accepted either.

Consider instead the closely related sentence used in the suggested new version of this 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." This sentence IS verifiable. If you ask me to prove that Opus Dei says this, I can show you proof. It's a subtle distinction, but a very important one. So it's not that I want Opus Dei's theology totally excluded-- it's just that there's a right way and a wrong way to describe it-- and the article is a perfect example of the wrong way.

Regarding religious bias. Animonius, you say that an article on the crusades should be fair to both sides, but an article on the Opus Dei controversy should not. I don't see the difference. Whether Opus Dei is good or bad just like a debate about whether the crusades were good or bad.

You used the word atheistic alot, but I don't really see what bearing atheistism has on this debate. I don't mention atheism in my version of the article. By and large, Opus Dei's critics are other christians, not atheists. I haven't tried to talk about the existence or non-existence of God in the article. I do agree that the 'tone of voice' used by the article should be non-theistic, that is, relgiously neutral, assuming nothing whatsoever about God, so maybe you're talking about the article tone.

--Alecmconroy 13:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who have responded to Alec's question on whether expertise can be applied to moral/religious issues.

To answer this, let me quote the relevant NPOV tutorial regarding this:

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

I have italicized morals or religion, based on faith because it is there precisely where there is less expertise and scientific thinking. For this, is necessary to know what faith means. By checking on the Wikipedia article on faith, we find that it refers to a belief implying a transpersonal relationship with a Deity, from whom is received some information, knowledge, or revelation. Thus, I can see that there is less empirical data or external arbitration that can determine what is more credible. An example of religious issues based on faith are: whether the Jesus Christ is God, whether Christian revelation is better than Mohammedan revelation. These are issues based on faith, and no empirical data can be brought to bear on these things. However, as I have argued above, there can be empirical, sociological data that can brought to bear on Opus Dei power and wealth, Opus Dei influence, Opus Dei members in politics, Opus Dei social attitudes towards the poor, Opus Dei management control, Opus Dei recruitment strategies and results, etc. The 12 issues brought up for proportioning, are not religious issues based on faith. These are issues of a religious, social grouping which can be studied empirically or historically, as Allen has done for Opus Dei. Messori, Introvigne, West and even Peter Berglar have also done this work to a certain extent. Thomas 07:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Tutorial Intepretation

The correct meaning of the "Space and Balance - Expertise & Moral and Political points of view" section of the NPOV tutorial has been integral to this debate. So, I thought I'd ask the original author of the relevant section to see what he has to say about whether there is expertise on religious debates. Here's his reply:

My opinion: Expertise is only of interest in things on which there is a possibility of scientific or technical expertise. For instance, a legal scholar who has studied a particular field of law in a certain country is an expert on that issue compared to a random journalist.

One issue to take into account is whether the experts are neutral; proximity to the topic being studied may lead some to being biased. One can, for instance, argue that experts whose work depends on the well being of an industry may be biased in favor of that industry. This is especially true if the industry is controversial.

With respect to the Opus Dei, it is probably the case that some Opus Dei people are experts as to the history of their own movement. However, it is also fairly reasonable to think that these experts may be biased in favor of their own movement, thus what they say should be taken with a grain of salt. There is a tendency, in similar cases, of conveniently "forgetting" unsavorable issues.

(Similar example: I have seen very detailed biographies of politicians on their own official sites, obviously written with expertise... ignoring things such as criminal convictions.) David.Monniaux 11:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC) (origially posted to User_talk:Alecmconroy)

Similarly, let me quote from the actual NPOV policy itself:

NPOV requires views to be represented without bias. [...] Types of bias include: Religious bias, including bias in which one religious viewpoint is given preference over others.

It really doesn't get any simpler than that. This page is a _textbook_ NPOV violation. But, if we haven't convinced you before now, I doubt these will either.

But my question for ya'll is this: If it turns out in mediation that this page DOES violate NPOV, it will mean you guys have all been dead wrong this whole time, and have been consistently sabotaging the effects of editors who have been trying to bring this page in line with NPOV. IF that happens, are you going to admit your mistakes, admit you've been completely wrong about what a good page looks likes, and make a concerted effor to STOP inserting pro-OD bias into this and all the other OD-related pages, and let the people who were right about this issue work to make a neutral page without further attempts at interference?

(obviously, if the result of mediation/arbitration is that this page is 100% fine as it is, it will be I who has to do all that)

--Alecmconroy 11:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV and knowledge of subject matter and of Wikipedia policy

Alec, with all due respect, could you tell us what books you have read concerning Opus Dei? Maraming salamat! (That's thank you in Filipino). Cabanes 02:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Not as many as ya'll, if that's what your getting at. In the six weeks or so since I came across this article, I've read The Way, The Furrow, parts of Conversations. Thanks to the good people at amazon, the Allen and Walsh books will soon be on that list.

But what does it matter? I assume you're trying to make an ad hominem argument-- that because you've read more on Opus Dei than I have, your opinions on NPOV should outweigh mine. But ad hominem isn't the way to go. Maybe I should ask you how many edits you've made to Wikipedia, or how many of those edits have been on subjects unrelated to Opus Dei. Maybe I should ask you point blank: "Are you or are you not a member of Opus Dei? Do you deny having come to Wikipedia to use it as a soapbox for the explicit purpose of promoting your own religious organization?"

But the thing is-- I shouldn't ask those questions, and I'm not asking those questions. Don't answer them, I don't want to know-- it's none of my business. Don't admit it's true-- who you ARE shouldn't affect how we treat your words. And don't deny it-- some people won't take your word for it anyway. Your motives aren't anyone's business but your own. If your edits are good, that's all that matters.

I'm just saying-- ad hominem attacks are a double-edge sword. What might appear to be my relative lack of knowledge as compared with you might actually be a sign of my objectivity. What appears to be your overwhelming expertise on the subject might actually be evidence of an obsessional POV on this subject. The way to go isn't to fight about who's who-- the way to go is to acknowledge everyone is entitled to their own viewpoint. The way to go isn't to try to erase the NPOV tag from the article, to pretend that other opinions don't exist or that they somehow don't count, or somehow shouldn't be treated equally because the people who hold those opinions don't meet some sort of special criteria. The way to go is to acknowledge everyone has a right to their own religious, moral, and political beliefs, and we should try to treat all such opininons equally, not try to censor some points of view, or to allow one side in a religious debate to out-shout the other?

--Alecmconroy 08:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

should be noted that I don’t disputed the facts put forth in this article (well other then Mortification is fairly widespread in the Catholic Church) there a lot of argument about the important of this sources or that and wither this or that should go in the article but I don’t think that anyone disputes the facts them self’s just how they are used.

So what does it matter how much I read about opus dei I’m happy to use your sources it’s the tone of the article that needs to be changed.Ansolin 12:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if my question troubled you, Alec. My intentions are not mean. My concern is relevant to 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. Probably, such people simply do not understand the NPOV policy."

Thank you for your sincerity, Alec. I have nothing personal against you. I do not intend any personal attack. Wikipedia:No personal attacks. "Disagreements about content such as "Your statement about X is wrong" or "Your statement is a point of view, not fact" are not personal attacks." I hope to help in whatever way I can, Alec. I encourage you to keep reading about Opus Dei. Salamat! :-) Cabanes 02:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

No worries :). In case it wasn't obvious, I was only partially talking about your own comments, but partially talking about the whole debate of whether we treat critical views of OD equally. I wouldn't have been quite so emphatic had I just been responding to your comments-- I apologize if I seemed overzealous in my reply. :) --Alecmconroy 05:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to your last quote, Cabanes, I now feel vindicated. I never thought referring to someone as "my friend" and "man" was something derogatory! Sorry to Pvazz. I took a long wiki-break in order to keep the peace.

Evidently, all these discussions point to the importance of knowing the subject matter. Marax could not have been clearer in his 26 September 2005 intervention at the FAC:

I believe it "reports all major points of the views in proportion to the credibility of the experts holding the various theses." (NPOV policy) If one looks at the extensive bibliography, the proportions and the structure of the article reflect existing scholarship: a great deal of literature on theology, some juridical studies, historical and sociological literature, and some cult and anti-Opus Dei issues. The article also reflects the contents of the monographs.

Anybody who wants to propose changes to the structure of the article should read these books written by credible experts. If calculus, econometrics, molecular biology are not for amateurs, a fortiori dogmatic, moral and ascetical theology, Church history, general history, sociology of religion, and canon law are not. Marax 09:04, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Welcome to the club of Opus Dei students, Alec! A new world of knowledge is waiting! Good luck! Lafem 08:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, but see-- Marax's comment is precisely the sort of "Don't edit the page if you haven't devoted your life to studying OD" argument that I railed against. While Marax might see a lack of expertise by amateur editors as the reason people want to change the article, others could see an Marax's support for the article as someone far too close to this issue, writing about his own organization, trying to use Wikipedia as a soapbox for his own religious beliefs.

There's also the fact that Wikipedia is a tertiary source-- we exist to summarize the summaries of sources. What you are insisting is that editors be well-versed in all the primary sources in order to learn how to balance them in the same way you do. But that's not how we roll-- we're supposed to let the secondary sources do the balancing FOR us. As Wikipedia:Reliable sources says:

"in general, as primary sources are also to be treated with caution, secondary sources are the stock material on which Wikipedia articles depend for their references."

When you insist that we should base the article upon the primary sources you like (i.e. Allen), rather than on the secondary Journalistic sources, you're flying in the face of that-- essentially conducting your own original research based on the primary sources. The whole point of writing an encyclopedia is that you DON'T go to primary sources like Allen and Walsh--- you take your cues from how the secondary sources like CNN have handled the issue.

--Alecmconroy 03:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey Alec! Check out the definition of primary sources and secondary sources. Examples of primary sources? Furrow, Christ is Passing By, Friends of God, all by Escriva. Examples of secondary sources? Allen, Messori, Introvigne, Ratzinger, Thierry, West, May, Holiness in the World, Jesus as Friend, etc.

Take note: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Avoid_citing_the_popular_press. "What can a popular-press article provide? Often, the most useful thing is the name of the head researcher involved in a project, and the name of his or her institution. For instance, a newspaper article quoting Joe Smith of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution regarding whales' response to sonar gives you a strong suggestion of where to go to find more: look up his work on the subject. Rather than citing the newspaper article, cite his published papers." What does this mean? Instead of citing the New York Sun (a tabloid), cite Allen! Not heard your comment on this yet! Ndss 11:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

We've been over that "Avoid citing the popular press", you're taking it out of context. It's when talking about technical discussion of the physical sciences, remember? --Alecmconroy 11:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Check out sociology: "It is a social science involving the study of the social lives of people, groups, and societies, sometimes defined as the study of social interactions." Guidelines in Wikipedia (not non-negotiable policies!) are subject to interpretation. The principle is newspapers are not so reliable in general. Studies are, isn't it? Ndss 11:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Support and criticism for a religion is about as far from science as you're going to get. Science can't make value judgements or evaluate faith. Calling it science don't make it so. --Alecmconroy 11:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by study’s Ndss ?, A man spent a year in opus dei or 1 control group compared to another? I’m all for statistical data. Ansolin 15:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess Ndss might not know anything about William West's 5 year study, Exploding a Myth of 1987, Peter Berglar's more than one year study of 1994, Messori's one year study of 1997, and Allen's one year study of 2005. All of them concluding the same thing. That's a total of 8+ years of study by top-notch men. Two of them ended up members. Rabadur 10:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Number two rank in a google search

This article has recently reached rank number 2 in a google search for Opus Dei. [26] It started out in number 6. While we congratulate those who contributed to this article, we should also thank Alec for the semi-protection tag that he placed. It's then when the New York Times took notice! Cabanes 05:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Sweet! Life's so ironic. Whatever vandal it was that came here trying to call OD "a corrosive narcissistic cult within the Roman Catholic Church masquerading as a "personal prelature"" merely succeeded in not only getting his own remarks reverted, but in getting our article mentioned in the NY Times, thereby generating even more OD publicity. Karma, baby, karma.--Alecmconroy 05:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Wonderful. In Catholic theology, it's called God's capability of drawing good from evil. See Catechism of the Catholic Church 312-313. Thomas 07:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

You guys are freaking me the fuck out. --Cyde↔Weys 19:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Suggest to read WP:CIV or Wikipedia:Profanity before using such language. --Túrelio 20:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

I don’t think I’m the only one who hasn’t seen much change in opinions in a while maybe we should try to speed up the mediation?:)

Might I suggest that every one involved take a look at the members on the mediation commity and see who would be acceptable then together or separately we could as them to help use out?.Ansolin 04:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Wisden17 has offered to mediate-- Thomas, NDSS, and I have accepted him (Pvazz has been MIA for over a month, so we'll probably just go ahead without him.) Wisden is on break but was due back yesterday. Hopefully, it'll start any day now. --Alecmconroy 05:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

No to Walsh

No one should take Michael Walsh seriously. In his book he professed "enmity against Opus Dei." He adopts rumors without verifying them. He reports of traffic in human babies but writes "I couldn’t verify his story.“[loc. cit. p. 8 (German translation)] On the other hand he conceals a statement, issued in Ireland, that proves that there is no relation at all between Opus Dei and this orphanage.

In another passage in his book, Walsh claims that Opus Dei had tried to foil a reorganization of the church-state relations in Spain in order to help the already weakened Franco regime.[loc. cit. p. 158-165; see also Walsh’s remarks #86, p.158 and #87, p. 159] As the only sources for that, he presents a book by Paul Hofmann [Ref: Paul Hofmann. Anatomy of the Vatican. London 1985, p. 229-242] and an article by himself [Ref: Michael Walsh. Spain on the move. In: The Month, June 1972]. In the total passage of Hofmann’s book to that Walsh refers, Hofmann doesn’t say anything about that alleged affair. So Walsh’s only source is his own 1972 article.

The author is obviously convinced that Opus Dei is extremely wealthy, as allegedly in 1982 it promised the Vatican to cover for 30 percent of its annual expenses. In retribution Opus Dei became personal prelature, claims Walsh. But then he retracts somehow: It is extremely uncertain whether this agreement ever came into force. Of course an agreement that does not exist cannot come into force. And, Opus Dei doesn’t have those millions at disposal Walsh talks about.

Walsh also puts words into the founder of Opus Dei’s (Josemaria Escrivá) mouth, that were never said or written by him. By this way he tries to assign rightwing positions to Escrivá. For example, Walsh misquotes point 525 out of Escivá’s collection of aphorisms The Way: „To be „catholic“ means to love your country and to love nobody else.“[loc.cit. p. 33]

In reality Escrivá wrote: „To be 'Catholic' means to love your country and to be second to no one in that love. And at the same time, to hold as your own the noble aspirations of other lands. — So many glories of France are glories of mine! And in the same way, much that makes Germans proud, and the peoples of Italy and of England..., and Americans and Asians and Africans, is a source of pride to me also. Catholic: big heart, broad mind.“ [27]

It's ridiculous to grant 50% of disputed issues to Walsh and his supporters. Pradeshkava 09:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow!! Watta post pradeshkava!! I wanna hear more from ya! To the point, yeah! Far cry from Allen, you bet! Check out his Q and A on his Opus Dei book: Why did you write this book? "My original idea was to write a magazine-style piece on Opus Dei, interviewing the prelate, meaning the bishop in charge, about all the standard debates: secrecy, money, power, women, corporal mortification, and so on. To prepare myself, I looked at what had already been published, assuming that someone would have done a straight-ahead reporter's book to separate fact from fiction. To my surprise, I found that such a book did not exist. There's an ocean of literature that Opus Dei itself has produced, and a few highly critical outsider's books, but little else. That's the hole I wanted to fill -- a book that had no axe to grind, and that didn't carry water for any particular point of view, which would be of use to people in trying to understand what Opus Dei is all about." [28]

And what does internationally known Massimo Introvigne think of Walsh? "Michael Walsh's book is so full of errors and shows such lack of precision that it makes one doubt it has been written in good faith [44]. Michael Walsh's background is significantly more interesting. As an ex-Jesuit, he was already hostile to Opus Dei —and, like many other critics of Opus Dei, a fanatical defender of the "theology of liberation"— even when he was a Catholic religious." [29] What do you think, Alec? Still think Walsh deserves equal space vis-a-vis John Allen, Jr.. Ndss 10:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely still believe that Wikipedia cannot take sides in a religious debate like whether Opus Dei is good or bad. Just because you criticize Walsh, that does not mean that the critics of OD cease to exist, or that we Wikipedias should choose sides in their debate. If you look at User:Alecmconroy/Opus Dei, you'll see that I never even reference Walsh directly-- so stating your criticism of Walsh doesn't affect the article one iota. It's not as if there's only one lone critic of OD out there, if if you just find three things wrong with his book, you can totally dismiss him. Lots, and lots, and lots of people have a problem with OD. This is an undisputed fact. Catholicism itself is controversial. Everyone (including Allen) recognizes that Opus Dei is "the most controversial force within the Catholic church". So there's no question that talking about the controversy is essential to talking about Opus Dei.

In any religious debate, there are going to be people on each side-- and people on one side are going to hate the people on the other and have criticisms. Members of one religion are going to denounce the members of the other as cults or heretics. The theologians of each side of the debate are going to insist their experts are better than the other side's experts. When Pradeshkava shows up and uses his very first edit to tell me that his disagrees with Walsh, he's proving my point exactly. This is a big debate, and both sides have strong opinions.

The question we have to ask is: Is Wikipedia going to take sides on this debate, or are we going to be neutral?

The current article has been written with the explicit purpose to try to make readers believe Opus Dei is good. The current article is not neutral in the debate, it has picked a side. This is exactly what neutral point of view is meant to stop.

The rebuttal I get is this: "Sure-- this article is biased toward my side of the debate. But _MY_ side is right!" I think this argument misses the whole point of NPOV. Everyone thinks their side is right-- that's why it's a debate.

The big question I have is this: what happens if mediation/arbitration says we should not take sides in this debate? Will the partisans in the debate stop trying to create articles that are biased Pro- or Anti- OD? or will there be campaign to try to do insert bias into all the OD-related articles still, but this time not admit it. When an anti-OD partisan comes to Wikipedia with the intention to slander OD, are we all going to pitch in to stop it? When an OD member comes to Wikipedia and tries to promote OD, are we all going to pitch into keep neutrality-- or will we be able to try to keep neutrality, even when we personally agree with the POV being promoted? If med/arb does go that way-- I have no idea how the partisans will respond, and I can't wait to find out.

(obviously... maybe I'm dead wrong about what NPOV means. If NPOV does mean "promote the side you agree with" rather than "try not to promote either side" then I'll be quite busy revising articles messed up during my Wikipedia career).

--Alecmconroy 13:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's not have this subjective, personal Wikipedian standards talk again. "In proportion to the representation among experts" is so far from "promote the side you agree with." Better stick to the objective Wikipedia policy.

Why not just accept it? Walsh, the critic's principal source, is not a reliable expert. Period. A blundering, self-confessed enemy doesn't deserve 0.1 % of Wikipedian space. Rabadur 10:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

"In proportion to the representation among experts" can easily reduce down to "promote the side you agree with", just as it has in this case. Obviously, whichever experts you find to be most reliable are going to be the ones you agree with-- if you didn't think they were the most reliable, you wouldn't agree with them.

"Unbiased" is much better summary of NPOV than "biased, but in proportion to the POV of the experts I regard as most reliable". Right now, Opus Dei is a very controversial organization, and we, like Time and CNN, should present both sides of the controversy as fairly and unbiasedly as possible. "In proportion to experts" may be fine on scientific pages where there isn't a controversy, but in a religious debate, "the most reliable experts" just reduces down to "the side you agree with". Finding that random sentence in the tutorial page certainly has given al lot of fuel to the idea that we don't have to treat both sides equally in this issue, but ultimately, we will have to treat them equally-- no matter what our personal opinions on the merits of each side is. The only alternative is to let our own bias dictate the bias of the article. "You have a persuasive tongue. But in spite of all your talk, you cannot justify what has no justification." (The Way, 37)

--Alecmconroy 12:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Pre-JPII response

Anyone know any really good online sources for responses to OD prior to Pope John Paul II? I've found a few tidbits strewn throughout the article and a couple of references online, but nothing particularly comprehensive. --Alecmconroy 16:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Prelate image

Thom-- you deleted the image of the "Prelate" as "not perennial". Far be it for me to object to any deletions-- cutting is good. But don't you think that if you're going to have this many images, that the current head of the whole thing is way more notable than, say, book covers, random families, or paintings? Don't get me wrong-- I wouldn't want there to be more images-- but, seriously... if we're going to have n, shouldn't the prelate be one, rather than the less notable images? I realize we may have to change the image out every, on, 20 years or so (on average), but I think we can handle that. --Alecmconroy 04:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Alec, for these ideas. I understand where you are coming from. :) My personal opinion is that the other photos are much more informative, being photos of ordinary people and their specific aspects rather than one more priest: priests being in the minority in Opus Dei. IMHO, the photo of John Paul II with the first Prelate will take care of the idea that Opus Dei is run by a prelate. I am more in favor of presenting the organization as an organization with specific aspects--messages, systems, typical people, average activities, average members, perennial Catholic stand on it, etc., rather than informing about personalities who will later change. Thomas 04:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's not the end of the world to not have the Prelate, there are bigger fish to fry with regard to this page. but.. a picture of the most famous living member of Opus Dei vs.. a book cover that's not even in English? A grainy shot of a conference center? Three different pictures of non-notable groups of people? It's just hard to understand-- but, oh well-- the main thing is cutting, toning, NPOVing, and verifying. --Alecmconroy 06:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

links

Thomas, we've discussed the relevance of calling one link a "member of the communist party"-- you have a consensus for the moment, I will not remove it again. In a similar vein, I removed the characterization of one link a website "with anti-semetic content". While I personally find the content of that website deeply troubling, its author explicitly denies being anti-semetic. Again, I feel the inclusion of terms like "communist" and "anti-semetic" is a just a way to attack the critics by linking their unpopular political beliefs to their criticism of Opus Dei. But, if you revert that, I again will not re-revert it. --Alecmconroy 08:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this as regards the "anti-semitic" label.

Anonimus 20:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Recent vandalism

Escriva, pain, and mortification of the flesh

Input on Order of Supports and Criticisms

A Roundup of Sources

Pro-OD

Anti-OD

Journalistic

Allen as a Source?

What are reliable sources?

Appropriateness of using Allen?

John Paul II -> John Paul?

One more diatribe

Two opus dei

Suggested new Opus Dei article

This article was mentioned in New York Times

Feedback

Crux of the matter

Re: Crux of the matter

The Blogs

"Equal" vs "Proportional"

Burdens of Proof

Allen himself

A Different Next Step

Theology Sub-Article

Opus Dei Not A Cult

Crux of the Matter II: fine distinction

Expertise, credibility, and proportionality

NPOV Tutorial Intepretation

NPOV and knowledge of subject matter and of Wikipedia policy

Number two rank in a google search

Mediation

No to Walsh

Pre-JPII response

Prelate image

links