Talk:Opus Dei: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 18:52, 24 February 2024 editDragonYak2000 (talk \| contribs)137 edits →Changing the order of the "criticism" and "Supporting views" sections: new sectionTag: New topic ← Previous edit		Revision as of 17:51, 9 June 2024 edit undoNcwfl (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users594 edits →IP spam adding Opus to Sect: new sectionTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit New topic Next edit →
Line 178:		Line 178:

	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)		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)

			== IP spam adding Opus to ] ==

			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)

Revision as of 17:51, 9 June 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.

Conservatism Mid‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism 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.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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".

Serious accusation

Zfish118 wrote above:

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

The reference is from El Pais: https://english.elpais.com/elpais/2011/03/07/inenglish/1299478844_850210.html

But El Pais later clarified this: El análisis del ADN de 81 casos descarta que fueran bebés robados

In here: https://elpais.com/elpais/2018/09/27/ciencia/1538058145_715458.html

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

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. –Zfish118 22:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

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.

Because this is a controversy with pro and con side, it seems logical to move this to the controversy section.

On the pro-side put this: As regards the claim that religious people in Spain, including Opus Dei members were involved in abduction of children during the Franco era, an investigation found that DNA analysis of 81 cases ruled out that they were stolen babies. The supreme court of Spain did not consider the first case of stolen babies to be proven, 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.

On the con-side, your sentence.

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. Jesuitsj (talk) 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 WP:CENSOR, WP:VERIFY, and WP:NPOV. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

OK, will just transfer all these to controversy section then. Jesuitsj (talk) 12:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@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. –Zfish118 17:35, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Plunkett quote removed?

Someone removed a quote from Patrice de Plunkett in the Support part of Controversy. He was editor of Le Figaro, one of the most prominent news sources in France.

He has written many books - https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Patrice+de+Plunkett%22+-wikipedia

And appears in Google scholar - https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Patrice+de+Plunkett%22 124.104.115.5 (talk) 08:45, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

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)

Problems with Opus, first person testimony

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

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)

Categories: