Talk:Opus Dei: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 14:46, 26 February 2023 editDeadbeefBot (talk \| contribs)Bots8,123 editsm merged OTD/ITN/DYK templates to {{article history}} (BRFA)← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 23:00, 21 November 2024 edit undoDarknipples (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users7,356 edits →Proposed new lede (just first sentence): ReplyTag: Reply
(24 intermediate revisions by 15 users not shown)
Line 87:		Line 87:
	}}		}}

	{{WikiProject banner shell\|1=		{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=C\|1=
	{{WikiProject Christianity~~\|class=C~~\|importance=mid\|catholicism=yes\|catholicism-importance=high}}		{{WikiProject Christianity\|importance=mid\|catholicism=yes\|catholicism-importance=high}}
	{{WikiProject Religion~~\|class=C~~\|importance=low}}		{{WikiProject Religion\|importance=low}}
	{{WikiProject Organizations}}		{{WikiProject Organizations\|importance=mid}}
	{{WikiProject Politics}}		{{WikiProject Politics\|importance=mid}}
	{{WikiProject Spain~~\|class=C~~\|importance=mid}}		{{WikiProject Spain\|importance=mid}}
			{{WikiProject Italy\|importance=mid}}
			{{WikiProject Catholicism\|importance=Top}}
	}}		}}

Line 118:		Line 120:

	{{Archives\|auto=yes\|search=yes}}		{{Archives\|auto=yes\|search=yes}}

	== Lead issues: neutral summary ==

	===Reliable Sources===

	Misplaced Pages guidelines state that the lede has to be neutral: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Content

	NPR and El Pais are biased sources, as seen from these articles:
	*https://nypost.com/2017/10/21/the-other-half-of-america-that-the-liberal-media-doesnt-cover/ - the former CEO himself says NPR has liberal bias
	*https://en.wikipedia.org/El_Pa%C3%ADs Misplaced Pages uses 4 sources to say that El Pais is center-left

	Misplaced Pages itself says that "According to several journalists who have worked independently on Opus Dei, such as John L. Allen Jr., Vittorio Messori, Patrice de Plunkett, Maggy Whitehouse, Noam Friedlander many of the criticisms against Opus Dei are myths and unproven tales."

	This lede has been the result of long work of consensus, as mentioned by other editors. Please discuss any changes to this critical part of the article. ] (]) 03:40, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
	:NPR is probably the most respected US media source whatsoever as it’s publicly funded (I have a German background so obviously NPR is very much respected in Europe) and El País might be good for anybody using the thing between his or her ears – so let’s say intellectuals – just stop bullshitting around here – don’t delete relevant information – Opus Dei is accused of being a “brainwashing” cult with a right-wing agenda – who else than liberal and left-wing sources are supposed to say that? So stop bullshitting and accept that NPOV means presenting relevant sources prominent in the article to create a neutral point of view. --] (]) 08:06, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
	::Michael Waslh is very poor source compared to John Allen, Messori, Plunkett--and the Catholic Church, and governments around the world that do not hold Opus Dei a secret society because it has websites and its activities are out in the open. So who is bullshitting? ] (]) 08:38, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
	:::According to multiple authors it’s considered a „secret society“ – membership is mostly unknown and kept a secret to name the main characteristic of a secret society. --] (]) 09:23, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
	:::These appear to be excellent sources, also bias does not generally effect reliability btw. I also don’t think you understand what a ] is. ] (]) 17:38, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
	:::Obviously NPR is a RS. OP misunderstands policy. ] (]) 20:03, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
	* {{Ping\|Marax}} what specific issues do you have in mind? When I look at ] I see that NPR is generally reliable by consensus, did you check there before asking this question here? Also just FYI in general bias does not effect reliability, you appear to be mistaken both in your overall framework and in the granular details. ] (]) 17:48, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

	Sorry, I made a mistake for I thought that NPR and El Pais were used to reference secret society, but they do not say this. The main reference for secret society used by CarlPhilippTrump is Walsh, and as Lafem pointed out, Walsh is an unreliable source. His work on Opus Dei was thoroughly debunked. Anyway, I have renamed the title and made sub-titles for this section to ensure clarity. The main point in this sub-section is that the idea of Opus Dei as a secret society and many other criticisms have been debunked by very reliable sources. ] (]) 02:29, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
	:Please also take note that the reference is to an old NPR article of 2005 and it says "critics and some former members have accused the group of having cult-like practices and promoting a right-wing agenda." So it is not NPR declaring this, but it is only quoting "critics". This can't be the basis of a lede of an encyclopedic article. ] (]) 03:21, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
	::{{Ping\|Marax\|Lafem}} Note that as Walsh appears to be living so per ] statements like "His work on Opus Dei was thoroughly debunked.” need to be strongly supported by impeccable sources. Neither you or Lafem have done so... BLP violations are very serious, you need to correct this immediately or I will do it for you both. ] (]) 18:07, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
	:::As I said, Walsh does not compare with John Allen, Messori, Plunkett. Check out the . ] (]) 07:38, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
	::::You said "thoroughly debunked” not “does not compare with” Either support or strike, no mention of debunking in that book btw. Also note that its google books category is “Secret societies” which undermines your argument that OD is not a secret society. ] (]) 13:41, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
	:::::Read Allen's book, "widely regarded as the definitive book on Opus Dei". ] (]) 03:18, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
	::::::I don’t have time, what does it say about Walsh? ] (]) 13:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
	Regarding John Allen, it is important to know that he is a journalist in the mainstream media with tremendous prestige. He is a former reporter for the Boston Globe, is perhaps the most go-to religion commentator on CNN, and is widely praised for his knowledge and fairness. The John Allen book debunks thoroughly the points put forth in the Walsh book. Regarding secrecy, for example, John Allen's book has a whole chapter on this subject which pretty much debunks the accusation -- it makes clear that Opus Dei is not a secret society. For example, John Allen notes that he has spoken to hundreds of members of Opus Dei, and nobody was ever reluctant to say they were members of Opus Dei. He has also said that in his interviews for the book, all his questions were answered. I think it is clear, given all this, that the edits identifying Opus Dei as a secret society are simply not true, and, at best, represent an extreme POV. ] (]) 14:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
	: Disagreeing is not the same as debunking (and in any event we would need an independent third party to make that claim), if there are multiple notable opinions presented in reliable sources then we should also present multiple opinions. ] (]) 14:35, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
	::As mentioned, there are multiple independent third-party researches that have the same conclusion as Allen's: Messori (Italian), Plunkett (French), Friedlander and Whitehouse (both UK). If you read them, they debunk Walsh etc. NPOV proportion means these being the most reliable source have the biggest chunk of space in the article and in the lead. Your multiple opinions are found in the Controversy section and in other parts of the article. ] (]) 00:45, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
	::: Who says they debunk Walsh etc? ] (]) 01:03, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
	For example, Allen's conclusion: "there’s nothing inherently secretive about Opus Dei." "Opus Dei’s officers and the locations of its centers are matters of public record, its activities are registered under relevant civil laws, and its information offices will answer virtually any question one puts to them. The fact that they do not answer a limited number of questions—most prominently, who’s a member and who isn’t—makes Opus Dei secretive no more than Alcoholics Anonymous. Other groups in the Church, such as secular institutes, also have policies of discretion about membership." ] (]) 03:36, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
	:That doesn’t work, you need a third party source to say that Allen debunked Walsh. Our job isn’t to present the “truth” its to present the range of notable opinions. I know you’re an ] and you have almost no experience outside of this space but this is highly abnormal and simply will not be tolerated. ] (]) 05:32, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
	::Misplaced Pages says of SPA: their comments be given full weight regardless of any tag placed on them. Your third-party is ] (one of the Big Three) which testified that . ] (]) 06:32, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
	::: I have not placed an SPA tag on your comments. Walsh isn’t mentioned in that article. Did you link the wrong one? ] (]) 15:06, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
	::::The quote "widely considered the definitive book on Opus Dei" is found in that CBS article. Just do a search. ] (]) 01:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
	::::: This third party source has nothing to say about Walsh, that sentence is clearly about Allen and Walsh is never even mentioned in the article. ] (]) 15:11, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
	::::::But my logic was simple. If Allen's work is widely considered as the definitive book on Opus Dei according to a highly reliable third-party source, and Allen debunks Walsh's allegations, then it is right, as you said below, that we "use sources like Allen...for a long time." Again, I agree with you. ] (]) 05:49, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
	:::::::My logic was also simple, unless you can present a source that says that "Allen debunks Walsh's allegations” or something similar we can’t move forward with this. We aren’t allowed to do cross textual analysis like that, see ]. ] (]) 05:55, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
	::::::::But this talk page is about editing Opus Dei, not Walsh's book. And thanks for citing WP:OR because it actually says that ''"If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then—whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not—it doesn't belong in Misplaced Pages, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Misplaced Pages is not the place for original research."'' Given that Allen is widely considered definitive (by CBS et al) and his research is backed up by Messori, Plunkett, Friendlander, Whitehouse and many other observers, and even governments say Opus Dei is no secret society, then Opus Dei secret society has no place in this article. This conclusion should in fact lead us to remove all the other extreme minority views about Opus Dei in the Criticism section. ] (]) 07:45, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
	::::::::: Allen’s book was considered definitive in 2006, we can’t draw a conclusion larger than that from the source you have. The conclusions you are drawing are wild, nothing establishes those as "extreme minority views” although it does certainly reveal how strong your personal POV is. You don't have any ] when it comes to OD right? ] (]) 16:16, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
	::::::::::Nothing wild there, because almost all, if not all, of those criticism were pre-2006! ] (]) 01:10, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
	::::::::::: You’re trying to disqualify other sources because CBS called your source “definitive” yet made no comment on other sources, I know you don’t edit beyond OD much but that is in fact wild by wikipedia standards. You also do need to directly answer the COI question. ] (]) 02:20, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
	::What this controversial article needs more of, imo, are level-headed, fair-minded subject experts with an appreciation of nuance, rather than highly held or partisan opinion. <b>]<small> + ] + ]</small></b> 07:52, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
	:::Thats true, but I assume that we will continue to use sources like Allen and Messori for a long time given the high quality of their work even if they hold strong partisan opinions. ] (]) 15:06, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
	Isn't it clear that, since there are reliable sources -- sources with excellent reputation and credentials -- that have asserted that Opus Dei is not a secret society, to present as fact in a Misplaced Pages article the contrary claim should be regarded not as a verified fact but, at best, as a POV? ] (]) 20:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
	:Agree with Horse Eye's Back and Lionmarble. But contrary to the point of Horse Eye's Back, Allen's work is not partisan opinion, but based on facts. Agenzia Giornalistica Italiana (AGI) described his book on Opus Dei as having an "empirical approach" and that his book is of "great historical and journalistic interest." ] (]) 01:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
	::Partisans tend to base their opinions on facts and are often very usable for our purposes, I don’t think its really possible to argue that someone so vehemently involved in the new evangelization is not a partisan when it comes to Catholic issues. ] (]) 15:14, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
	::: Horse Eye's Back: Why specifically do you say that John Allen is a partisan, vehemently involved in the new evangelization?
	:::John Allen would be the first to insist that it is not his role to evangelize -- he is a journalist respected for his fairness. Somewhere -- if you want I can try to find it - Allen wrote a remarkable account about the evolution of his personal philosophy regarding fairness and journalism. As he recounts, years ago, he wrote a highly negative book on Pope Benedict XVI. A liberal Catholic magazine, Commonweal Magazine -- a publication also highly critical of Pope Benedict -- wrote a critical review of the book, saying the book was too hostile towards Benedict -- Benedict came out absolutely on the losing side of every single argument. Allen said he re-read his own book, reflected on it, and decided that the critical review was correct, and he decided to strive henceforth for objectivity and fairness in his reporting. Based on the reception his reporting has received since then, Allen has been highly successful in this objective. For years he wrote for the left-leaning Catholic publication "National Catholic Reporter", but he was so much respected that his reporting was widely read by people both on the left and the right. He was also frequently quoted as a knowledgeable source by journalists in the secular media -- he was among a handful of the most reliable go to independent sources most frequently quoted by the media. Horse Eye's Back, if you are skeptical about his knowledge and fairness, please, I encourage you not to reject his book for some a priori reasons, but to give his book a look. In it, you will find that he quotes at length sources on both sides of the contentious issues, trying to state their arguments fairly, something which is a hallmark of his reporting. ] (]) 19:42, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
	:::: He is currently a fellow at ], perhaps I misunderstand the mission of that organization? ] (]) 16:19, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
	::::: That is a reasonable question. I don't know what quite to make of it. Yes, you are certainly right that "Word on Fire" is a Catholic organization that seeks to evangelize the culture. What John Allen does there, under the umbrella of "Fellowship of Church and Media", is something I don't know. But my experience in following John Allen's work is that in his reporting he steers clear of advocacy and that he is well regarded for his journalism, including among journalists for major secular publications. For example, in 2015 he received the Religion Newswriters Association "Excellence in Religion Analysis Award". (The Religion Newswriters Association is the main professional association in the United States for journalists covering religion. It's members include journalists from the most respected outlets in the secular media, like the Associated Press, The New York Times, etc.) The Boston Globe, reviewing Allen's book on Pope Francis, opined, "Allen’s strengths are his long background knowledge, his wide range of contacts, and a perspicacity that produces measured judgments." ] (]) 20:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

	===Lede as summary of contents===

	As per Misplaced Pages guideline, the lede has to be a summary or overview of the contents, and clearly secret society and baby-kidnapping do not form a summary of this article and all the reliable sources on which it is based. ] (]) 02:29, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
	:Why not? They both appear to be present in the article and daughter page ]. ] (]) 18:07, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
	::Summaries don't use details. ] (]) 07:43, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
	:::Summaries require the use of details (every sentence does) but they have less granularity. ] (]) 13:41, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
	===Secret society in lede??===
	To those who want to include 'secret society' in lede, what the best source(s) and best way to include that fact? Saying it "is" a secret society is a very high bar that would require multiple very good sources. ] (]) 05:24, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
	: No matter whether its “secret society” or not the first sentence of the lead needs to say what the organization is. Right now it says OD "is an institution of the Catholic Church which teaches that everyone is called to holiness and that ordinary life is a path to sanctity.” which is comically non-descriptive, we need better. We also need to reflect the controversy section and daughter page in the lead, currently its a white wash. ] (]) 07:59, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
	::It looks like for some time you've been trying to alert the project to the fact that this article could be improved. You have our attention. But it's not enough to complain that the existing text is problematic: '''How would you improve it?''' Be specific! ] (]) 08:17, 30 July 2021 (UTC) And obviously, edits are the most specific improvements of all! ] (]) 08:22, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
	:::I’d cut the puffery, just say “is a ] of the ].” and ditch the two sources attached to the first sentence now, they’re unnecessary and low quality. ] (]) 08:26, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
	::::Sounds good. Type it up, but call institution over prelature? We should define terms before we use them. ] (]) 08:27, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

	==GA Reassessment==		==GA Reassessment==
	{{WP:Good article reassessment/Opus Dei/1}}		{{WP:Good article reassessment/Opus Dei/1}}

			== Members proposed for sainthood ==
	== Introvigne - not spam but scholar ==

	Feoffer, your revert of Introvigne was unfounded. Introvigne is not spam, but a scholar. See these references:

			The Focolare movement has a good section on its members who have been proposed for sainthood. A similar section here would be great.
	https://www.encyclopedia.com/science/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/center-studies-new-religionscesnur
			Here's the Focolare example. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Focolare_Movement ] (]) 02:42, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

			:I think this would be a wonderful idea. It would also help clean up the "Post-foundational years" section that is supposed to be a section under "History". In its present form, the section mentions (lists) various individual members of Opus Dei, but does little to explain the history of the institution as such. Moving some of these names to a separate section alleviate this problem. ] (]) 19:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
	https://euasu.org/academicians/massimo-introvigne-39

			== Problems with Opus, first person testimony ==
	] (]) 10:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

			Opus Dei Awareness Network
	: Introvigne and his website to qualify as a ], per many many discussions. Users tied to Introvigne have been spamming his opinions into wikipedia for over a decade -- that's why the page has a COI warning at the top. ] (]) 18:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
			https://odan.org/ ] (]) 22:57, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

			What is striking about this Awareness Network is its dubious content for the following reason: their testimonies come mostly from 2003-2006 (1 from 1998) and therefor are pretty outdated and limited in scope of contributed years and contributions, considering the website has been started in 1998. The website pretends to offer more testimonies in other languages, but those are dead links or links to game sites. On the maintenance of this website, the owner placed a newsletter in 2016. This source/website is dubious to me. ] (]) 07:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
	:: have no final outcome. Doubt is no decision.

			== Changing the order of the "criticism" and "Supporting views" sections ==
	::Take note: "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Bias_in_sources Introvigne is precisely in the controversy section where there are pros and cons. ] (]) 07:50, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
	:::I think the issue is whether referencing him is ]. I have no comment on that but introducing him as though he was neutral (sociologist of religion) goes against what you just said. If he is referenced it should be clear that he’s a non-neutrl protagonist and describe him something like he is in our article on him: “a Catholic lobbyist”. ] (]) 09:01, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
	:::{{tq\| have no final outcome. }} Yeah, they do. You've been made aware, further attempts to spam introvigne-related content is not welcome. Your continued participation in the project is a privilege contingent upon following community consensus. ] (]) 12:19, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

			Is there any reason why the supporting view section is mentioned first? Normally, the criticism is brought up first, and then the counter-arguments are presented.
	::::Agree on community consensus, as long as it's clear one guy does not make community, nor dictate Misplaced Pages rules and decisions. ] (]) 02:45, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

			If no convincing arguments are presented within the next few days, I will rearrange them.
	:::::De Causa, our article on him puts lobbyist in quotation marks and in the bottom of the lead, while categorically states in the very lead that he is a sociologist of religion. ] (]) 02:56, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
	::::::Introvigne and his associates have never met a NRM they wouldn't defend -- including Aum and Solar Temple. A doctor who gives a clean bill of health to all his patients, even the visibly-sick, may be entitled to his opinion, but it's of limited utility to the rest of us. ] (]) 04:05, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
	:::::::OK, now we know you have a bias against him. That explains many things. ] (]) 08:48, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
	::::::::Introvigne is simply not regarded as a reliable source by our community, period. That he has a long pattern of sending people with a COI to spam him into the encyclopedia only clarifies that he is problematic. To paraphrase one of our admins, Introvigne is a for-pay lobbyist masquerading as a neutral scholar. ] (]) 20:12, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
	:::::::::Looks like that is the conclusion of your sub-community, not Misplaced Pages community. DeCausa agrees with me that Introvigne can be used here in the pros and cons section, so I will put his quote here. Here we follow Misplaced Pages: "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." ] (]) 07:46, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
	::::::::::If you want to rehabilitate Introvigne to the status of RS, you would need to take that up with the people at RSN. Absence such a consensus, re-adding would likely be regarded as a behavior issue. Why is it you want that quote in the article so badly? Are you trying to educate people about Opus Dei and how it's not a "cult" -- If so, John Allen is an actual journalist who '''''is''''' a RS and has written extensively on this point, there are numerous others. Or are you just trying to promote a fringe source? ] (]) 08:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
	:::::::::::It's your behavior that is in question here, Feoffer, as you want to overrule two Wikipedians because you want to impose your biases on Misplaced Pages. I kinda like the quote for it tells of the deep reason behind the opposition against Opus Dei: many, including some Wikipedians, don't want the secular society to return to God. ] (]) 12:35, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
	::::::::::::Who’s the other Wikipedian that’s being “overruled”? ] (]) 12:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::Aside from you, that's me. ] (]) 04:13, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::You’ve misunderstood. I don’t support your addition. ] (]) 07:44, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

			Ideally, however, the entire criticism sections needs to be rewritten and joined together. If anyone has the time and expertise to do so, go ahead. ] (]) 18:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
	== Serious accusation ==

			:I agree that the criticism sections need to be rewritten. Also, some points that arise in other parts of the article should be moved to this section. This would make it easier to identify what the main criticisms are instead of running into them in various other sections of the article. ] (]) 19:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
	Zfish118 wrote above:

			== IP spam adding Opus to ] ==
	:One notable issue is the claim that members were responsible for "babynapping". Such a serious accusation needs multiple citations and better explanation of relevance. –Zfish118⋉talk 14:57, 29 September 2021

			Just wanted to notify, a random IP has been adding Opus and other groups to the ] page. The same IP that added it to this page a while back. ] (]) 17:51, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
	The reference is from El Pais: https://english.elpais.com/elpais/2011/03/07/inenglish/1299478844_850210.html

			== Bad paragraph in the lede ==
	But El Pais later clarified this: El análisis del ADN de 81 casos descarta que fueran bebés robados

			People, myself included, have attempted remove this poorly written, poorly placed paragraph in the lede multiple times. There is no reason for it to be there. Let us take it out. ] (]) 20:43, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
	In here: https://elpais.com/elpais/2018/09/27/ciencia/1538058145_715458.html
			:"The Catholic News Agency website published on 26 August 2024, a report headlined "Opus Dei prelate responds to those who consider group 'conservative powerful and secretive.'" The prelate pointed out in the article; "the main contribution of Opus Dei is to accompany the laity so that they can be protagonists of the evangelizing mission of the Church in the midst of the world, one by one."
			:I agree it is ] in the lead. ] (]) 23:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

			== Rewrite? ==
	I suggest that the part that refers to baby-trafficking should be removed. ] (]) 09:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

			It seems to me that this article needs to be rewritten and reorganized. The lede, for example, does not clearly explain what Opus Dei is, nor what its mission is. Instead, it goes into detail about its juridical approvals and governance structure.
	:I disagree with the removal of the statement, as the allegation is well sourced. The bulk of sources, however, allege participation by many Catholic-sponsored hospitals not solely members of Opus Dei. I have edited the article to better reflect the sourcing. I also edited the the following sentence about the "holy mafia" to remove the baby trafficking statemnt, as neither source for that sentence made any reference to the illegal adaptions. –]<sup>⋉]</sup> 22:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
			Other sections are a hodgepodge of disparate pieces of information loosely gathered together into sections.
			The "post-foundational" sub-section of the "History" section, for example, contains information about its becoming a personal prelature, then goes on to talk about various members, and controversies without any apparent narrative structure. It also focuses on specific events of individual members instead of the history of the institution as such.
			The section on "Relations with Catholic leaders" seems to be more a list of endorsements that does not add much factual content.
			Similarly, the section "Controversy" seems like a list of complaints and counter complaints that mention potentially controversial topics, but does little to elaborate, contextualize, or explain the background of these charges. A similar critique in the other direction can be made with regard to the "Other views" section.
			So, it seems to me that if we want some clear information about Opus Dei, this article needs to be rethought, rewritten, and reorganized.
			I would like to know others' opinions about this and suggestions of what a rewritten article would look like (I have some ideas of my own, but it would be helpful to get others' perspectives as well). ] (]) 19:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
			:I would advise against rewriting the page, I don't think you are the editor for the job (nor am I convinced that this is a job that actually needs to be done). ] (]) 17:12, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

			== Proposed new lede (just first sentence)==
	::You said earlier that there has to be multiple sources for such an accusation, but you are only using one source and even expanding the statement. You seem to be doubly contradicting yourself. Moreover, there are several articles on the other side. See below.

			Hello, I changed the first sentence of the lede to the following, but it was reverted either because it was "promotional" or "unreliable source" or both (sorry, couldn't figure it out. I thought it was an improvement over the current sentence. So, I would like to know what was wrong with it. Here's my proposed text.
	::Because this is a controversy with pro and con side, it seems logical to move this to the controversy section.

			'''Opus Dei''', formally known as ''Prelature of the Holy Cross and Opus Dei'', is an institution of the Catholic Church founded in 1928 by ] in Spain. Its name, ''Opus Dei'', means "Work of God" in Latin and its mission centers on helping ordinary Christians seek holiness in everyday life, particularly through their work and daily routines.
	::On the pro-side put this: As regards the claim that religious people in Spain, including Opus Dei members were involved in ], an investigation found that DNA analysis of 81 cases ruled out that they were stolen babies.<ref>https://elpais.com/elpais/2018/09/27/ciencia/1538058145_715458.html</ref> The supreme court of Spain did not consider the first case of stolen babies to be proven,<ref>https://elpais.com/sociedad/2020-06-11/el-supremo-no-considera-probada-la-detencion-ilegal-en-el-primer-caso-juzgado-de-un-bebe-robado.html</ref> and the chief prosecutor of the Basque Country, said that "not even reasonable evidence" of any abduction of babies had been found, after special investigations of the police.<ref>https://elpais.com/ccaa/2012/12/02/paisvasco/1354473800_513589.html</ref>
			:Per ], the lead should summarize the article and not introduce new points that's not in the article already. The current 2nd sentence replicates the mission stated in the article and cited to Escrivá. I don't see what you want to say in the article. And why is that what you want to say is better? You might have thought it was an improvement but the ] is on you to persuade others why it is. You haven't done that. I don't see it. ] (]) 22:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

			:Agreed. ] (]) 23:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
	::On the con-side, your sentence.

			== Lede: supporters and critics ==
	::But, on second thought, because of the preponderance of evidence on the con-side, it will be better to remove this altogether, lest this become slander. ] (]) 02:04, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
	:::"preponderance of evidence" isn't how wikipedia works, the fact that there is so much coverage means that we have to cover it... Even if what we're covering is that the allegations were unfounded. Please review ], ], and ]. ] (]) 16:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
	::::OK, will just transfer all these to controversy section then. ] (]) 12:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
	{{ping\|Jesuitsj}} I am not contradicting myself. I said the original passage was vague and poorly unsourced, and specifically edited the passage to address that. After examining the underlying source, I found the original text of the passage did not match the source, which made a much narrower and tangential claim about the organization's involvement the purported scandal than the original. Having rewritten the passage to match the source (which no one has claimed to be unreliable), I would find removing it to be extremely inappropriate. As to moving it to the "controversy" section, I am not a fan because the section is poorly written and organized per my comments above in the G.A. reassessment. –]<sup>⋉]</sup> 17:35, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

			Another paragraph I think would be helpful for the lede is this.
	== Plunkett quote removed? ==

			I would change the current sentence that says: While Opus Dei has met controversies, it has strong support from Catholic leadership.
	Someone removed a quote from ] in the Support part of Controversy. He was editor of Le Figaro, one of the most prominent news sources in France.

			To something like the following that fleshes it out a bit more, but doesn't go into details (and can be explained in later sections):
	He has written many books - https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Patrice+de+Plunkett%22+-wikipedia

			The organization has received both support and criticism over the years. Supporters appreciate its emphasis on living out their Christian faith in the world, rather than retreating from it, which aligns with their desire to be active participants in society while maintaining strong Christian values. Critics, on the other hand, view some of its practices are overly strict and accuse it seeking to power and influence through secretive and manipulative means. ] (]) 22:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
	And appears in Google scholar - https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Patrice+de+Plunkett%22 ] (]) 08:45, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 23:00, 21 November 2024

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Opus Dei, or anything not directly related to improving the Misplaced Pages article. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Opus Dei, or anything not directly related to improving the Misplaced Pages article at the Reference desk.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Opus Dei was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 23, 2005	Peer review	Reviewed
September 30, 2005	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
January 22, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
May 18, 2006	Good article reassessment	Delisted
May 18, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
August 14, 2006	Good article reassessment	Kept
November 29, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
November 30, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
December 2, 2006	Good article reassessment	Kept
December 17, 2007	Good article reassessment	Delisted
March 15, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed
October 3, 2021	Good article reassessment	Delisted
Facts from this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on October 2, 2005, October 2, 2006, October 2, 2007, October 2, 2008, October 2, 2009, October 2, 2010, October 2, 2012, and October 2, 2018.
Current status: Delisted good article

This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Christianity: Catholicism Mid‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Catholic Church portal This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (assessed as High-importance).

Religion Low‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organizations Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Spain Mid‑importance

	Spain portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Italy Mid‑importance

	Italy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Catholicism Top‑importance

Opus Dei is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the Catholic Church. For more information, visit the project page.CatholicismWikipedia:WikiProject CatholicismTemplate:WikiProject CatholicismCatholicism

Top

This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Catholicism task list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : see Draft articles
Assess : see Category:Unassessed Catholicism articles; Category:Unknown-importance Catholicism articles
Cleanup : Blessed Virgin Mary (see the talk page)
Collaborate : Invitation template needed, see Category:WikiProject invitation templates
Copyedit : Cuthbert Tunstall
Expand : Angelus; Roman Catholicism in Kosovo; Bishop Adolph John Paschang; Cum sæpe accidere; Altar Society; American Board of Catholic Missions; Bernard Häring
NPOV : Americanism (heresy); Ensoulment
Photo : see Category:Misplaced Pages requested photographs of Catholicism
Stubs : see Category:Stub-Class Catholicism articles; Category:Catholic Church stubs
Update : Peer review; John Aloysius Maguire
Verify : Archdiocese of Glasgow; Archbishop of Westminster; Bishop; Saint Mungo; Sanctification; Westminster Cathedral
Other : Watch recent changes for Catholicism articles

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 210 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 210 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 210 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

GA Reassessment

Opus Dei

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted (t · c) buidhe 02:56, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I have started this reassessment proposal not because I have any ill will towards the article as is, but because it has been 13 years since it passed its GA nom and thought it prudent for the community to reassess its state. My rationale for reassessment is as follows:

It lacks enough depth discussing the highly publicized role it had in Franco's government, especially its war crimes and unique legal procedures
The history section is quite short.
The criticism section reads more like a "he-said/she-said" (MOS:WEASEL). While I can understand how this balance of statements would help preserve neutrality, I personally feel that dividing the criticism sections into supporters and opponents rather than topic-by-topic means that the reader will not be able to gain a coherent understanding of the controversies surrounding Opus. By this I mean that the current section just floods the reader with various opinions and perspectives, meaning there is an overall sense of conflict but no actual understanding. For example, if the section was divided into:
- Secrecy
- Membership rules
- Recruitment practices
- Sexual abuse
- Collaboration with dictatorships
- etc.

it would be much better.

The members proposed for beatification part does not feel very relevant to the main article. I believe it should be linked within the history or spirituality sections.
Not going to lie I think the organization of the article makes for immensely dense reading.
The relations with catholic leaders should be in my opinion part of the history section. See point above.

Please do reply with your thoughts on the matter. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 16:26, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

I have been looking at the past GA history of this article and wanted to add the following text by Geometry guy from Misplaced Pages:Good_article_reassessment/Archive_33#Opus_Dei:

Controversy sections are not a great idea at the best of times: when they are of the form "Criticism - Rebuttal" they are particularly unhelpful at achieving NPOV.
WP:NPOV is, in my opinion, one of the most misunderstood of Misplaced Pages policies. I have said this here many times before: NPOV is not primarily achieved via a contest between pro- and anti- viewpoints, it is primarily achieved by writing and structuring the entire article from a neutral perspective.

While I dont necessarily agree with the first comment, I think their points are important to consider in this discussion.A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 16:58, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Another important point I forgot to mention is the COI of major contributors to the article, especially Marax (15% authorship, second biggest), Lafem (7.2% authorship, 3rd biggest), Walter Ching (5.5% authorship, 4th biggest), Arturo Cruz (3.3% authorship, 6th biggest), StatutesMan (2.7%, 9th biggest), and so on. Just these examples alone (definitely not all the COI or possible WP:Sockpuppet edits) account for over a third of all authorship to the article.

In regards to account just for text-added percentage, Thomas S. Major, IP 1, IP 2 plus the users mentioned above account for 62.3% of added text.

This is positively insane. I have never seen such a massive COI situation. I honestly don't even know what to do. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 17:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I feel your frustration A.C. Santacruz... If I may paraphrase my thoughts when I first looked into the situation “F*cking hell thats a lot of COI.” Like you my conclusion is I honestly don't even know what to do. I personally don’t have the time to rewrite this clusterf*ck of a page and I’m genuinely concerned that I may have inadvertently killed Lafem by taking them to task so taking the rest to task is not high on my to do list. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:34, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

- Question What is the basis of the conflict if interest? Are these editors known members of Opus Dei? –Zfish118 19:03, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
  - Zfish118 Some are (members of Parents for Education) while others' only editing activity is within Opus Dei-related articles.A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 19:30, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

These COI seem minor at worst, especially if the content is otherwise acceptable. From a GAR perspective, however, I agree the article is not really there as noted below. –Zfish118 14:57, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

@Zfish118: A._C._Santacruz linked the wrong group, its actually Parents for Education Foundation so there is a very real and significant COI issue here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 12:11, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Delist: I agree with most of the issues previously stated about the article, particularly that controversy section should be arranged by topic, rather than defenders and detractors. Without substantial revisions to this section, the article cannot stay listed as GAR. Procedure wise, I don't see any substantial edits between the article being delisted in December 2007, and being relisted four months later in March 2008. If nothing improved after delisting, relisting would have been inappropriate. However the December 2007 decision appears to have been closed early before a consensus was reach, making it easy to challenge and reinstate. Other issues of concern I see: the list of members proposed for beatification should be limited to those where a case was formally opened by relevant bishop, and the list should include the date the case was opened and by whom. Otherwise it should be renamed as notable members, as many have an article (whether those articles are appropriate, I have not assessed). A list of canonized and beatified members would be appropriate as well, as it is a Catholic organization. The "Relations with Catholic leaders" section reads like a list of endorsements, with little substance. The history section is also weak, and redundant to the above list of proposed beauti. One notable issue is the claim that members were responsible for "babynapping". Such a serious accusation needs multiple citations and better explanation of relevance. –Zfish118 14:57, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Pilapil, Vicente R. (1971). "Opus Dei in Spain". Royal Institute of International Affairs. doi:10.2307/40394504.
"On the trail of Spain's stolen children".

Members proposed for sainthood

The Focolare movement has a good section on its members who have been proposed for sainthood. A similar section here would be great. Here's the Focolare example. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Focolare_Movement 2600:4040:279C:2700:6C00:5E7A:8D15:832D (talk) 02:42, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I think this would be a wonderful idea. It would also help clean up the "Post-foundational years" section that is supposed to be a section under "History". In its present form, the section mentions (lists) various individual members of Opus Dei, but does little to explain the history of the institution as such. Moving some of these names to a separate section alleviate this problem. Zosima13 (talk) 19:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Problems with Opus, first person testimony

Opus Dei Awareness Network https://odan.org/ Murphy1492 (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

What is striking about this Awareness Network is its dubious content for the following reason: their testimonies come mostly from 2003-2006 (1 from 1998) and therefor are pretty outdated and limited in scope of contributed years and contributions, considering the website has been started in 1998. The website pretends to offer more testimonies in other languages, but those are dead links or links to game sites. On the maintenance of this website, the owner placed a newsletter in 2016. This source/website is dubious to me. Deomglor (talk) 07:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Changing the order of the "criticism" and "Supporting views" sections

Is there any reason why the supporting view section is mentioned first? Normally, the criticism is brought up first, and then the counter-arguments are presented.

If no convincing arguments are presented within the next few days, I will rearrange them.

Ideally, however, the entire criticism sections needs to be rewritten and joined together. If anyone has the time and expertise to do so, go ahead. Arsaces (talk) 18:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the criticism sections need to be rewritten. Also, some points that arise in other parts of the article should be moved to this section. This would make it easier to identify what the main criticisms are instead of running into them in various other sections of the article. Zosima13 (talk) 19:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

IP spam adding Opus to Sect

Just wanted to notify, a random IP has been adding Opus and other groups to the Sect page. The same IP that added it to this page a while back. Ncwfl (talk) 17:51, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Bad paragraph in the lede

People, myself included, have attempted remove this poorly written, poorly placed paragraph in the lede multiple times. There is no reason for it to be there. Let us take it out. IronicUsername44 (talk) 20:43, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

"The Catholic News Agency website published on 26 August 2024, a report headlined "Opus Dei prelate responds to those who consider group 'conservative powerful and secretive.'" The prelate pointed out in the article; "the main contribution of Opus Dei is to accompany the laity so that they can be protagonists of the evangelizing mission of the Church in the midst of the world, one by one."

I agree it is WP:UNDUE in the lead. DN (talk) 23:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Rewrite?

It seems to me that this article needs to be rewritten and reorganized. The lede, for example, does not clearly explain what Opus Dei is, nor what its mission is. Instead, it goes into detail about its juridical approvals and governance structure. Other sections are a hodgepodge of disparate pieces of information loosely gathered together into sections. The "post-foundational" sub-section of the "History" section, for example, contains information about its becoming a personal prelature, then goes on to talk about various members, and controversies without any apparent narrative structure. It also focuses on specific events of individual members instead of the history of the institution as such. The section on "Relations with Catholic leaders" seems to be more a list of endorsements that does not add much factual content. Similarly, the section "Controversy" seems like a list of complaints and counter complaints that mention potentially controversial topics, but does little to elaborate, contextualize, or explain the background of these charges. A similar critique in the other direction can be made with regard to the "Other views" section. So, it seems to me that if we want some clear information about Opus Dei, this article needs to be rethought, rewritten, and reorganized. I would like to know others' opinions about this and suggestions of what a rewritten article would look like (I have some ideas of my own, but it would be helpful to get others' perspectives as well). Zosima13 (talk) 19:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I would advise against rewriting the page, I don't think you are the editor for the job (nor am I convinced that this is a job that actually needs to be done). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:12, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Proposed new lede (just first sentence)

Hello, I changed the first sentence of the lede to the following, but it was reverted either because it was "promotional" or "unreliable source" or both (sorry, couldn't figure it out. I thought it was an improvement over the current sentence. So, I would like to know what was wrong with it. Here's my proposed text.

Opus Dei, formally known as Prelature of the Holy Cross and Opus Dei, is an institution of the Catholic Church founded in 1928 by Josemaría Escrivá in Spain. Its name, Opus Dei, means "Work of God" in Latin and its mission centers on helping ordinary Christians seek holiness in everyday life, particularly through their work and daily routines.

Per WP:LEAD, the lead should summarize the article and not introduce new points that's not in the article already. The current 2nd sentence replicates the mission stated in the article and cited to Escrivá. I don't see what you want to say in the article. And why is that what you want to say is better? You might have thought it was an improvement but the WP:ONUS is on you to persuade others why it is. You haven't done that. I don't see it. DeCausa (talk) 22:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. DN (talk) 23:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Lede: supporters and critics

Another paragraph I think would be helpful for the lede is this.

I would change the current sentence that says: While Opus Dei has met controversies, it has strong support from Catholic leadership.

To something like the following that fleshes it out a bit more, but doesn't go into details (and can be explained in later sections):

The organization has received both support and criticism over the years. Supporters appreciate its emphasis on living out their Christian faith in the world, rather than retreating from it, which aligns with their desire to be active participants in society while maintaining strong Christian values. Critics, on the other hand, view some of its practices are overly strict and accuse it seeking to power and influence through secretive and manipulative means. Zosima13 (talk) 22:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Categories: