Wikipedia:Peer review/Opus Dei/archive1

Opus Dei

I would like to request other Wikipedians to see if the objective of the editors to make the article npov has been reached and if there are other improvements that can be suggested by our peers for it to become a feature article.

Kindly read the talk page. A good starting point is the latest discussion entitled "Seems a bit POVish" which explains the edits done by some of the editors.

Thanks a lot in advance to people who come to check the article with those who have been working on it. R Davidson 09:58, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

NPOV problems

Still seems largely promotional. A very large fraction of the article consists of quotations from official society documentation. This article (and associated sub-articles) should not be an annotated guide to Opus Dei doctrine. Instead, the doctrines should be briefly summarized.

The article has further NPOV problems, for example, the numerous photographs of smiling children and large families make it seem like a brochure. I suggest a large amount of this stuff be cut. The article is already 58 kB, far too large. (The inclusion of the photo of the NYC skyline is not POV, just... odd...)

Statements about the "sign of contradiction" are kooky, and should appear once, perhaps in the introduction to a future top-level "Criticisms" heading, not all over the article and in the caption to a photograph of the Shroud of Turin (WTF?).

Take a look at the sub-subsection "Miseducation on the Christian vocation"; this six-paragraph POV section has nothing specific to say about Opus Dei or allegations against it, and is instead a general rant about... well... it's hard to say. In general, responses to criticisms should be short and to the point. They should not be taken as an opportunity to further explain how wonderful Opus Dei is. Responses to the responses, etc., should not be included.

In general, these criticisms of Opus Dei appear randomly sprinkled throughout the article, and the whole article is very confusing because of it. They should all be under a separate top-level heading "Criticisms of Opus Dei", with subheadings to organize them thematically. Each subheading should refer to a specific criticism of the group, and brief responses to those criticisms should appear within the same subheading. The titles of the subsections should be "Allegations of X" not "X or Y" where X is the criticism and Y is the response.

The first thing, I would say, however, is slim this article down. It is far, far too long. Much of the bulk is taken up with rather non-specific stuff, and could be cut very easily.

Sdedeo 19:38, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Follows NPOV game rules

I like this article very much. I do believe it is following the NPOV game rules to a tee. It is facing a major challenge though since it is dealing with material that's "holy" or "wonderful". I buy the explanations given by those writing it. Even the photos of the girls have a basis! Keep it up!! This encyclopedia will be great if theological science is taken seriously here as the article does. Arturo Cruz 01:42, 10 September 2005 (UTC) The article also nicely puts in the criticisms in a rational framework all throughout. Most importantly, it considers them. I just had a horrible experience trying to put in criticism from a great evolutionary biologist (JMS) into the Evolution article. And the majority there treated me like a rag, like a man condemned by the Spanish Inquisition. Worse, they did not listen to the voice of reason. So, my sincerest congratulations go to the editors of the Opus Dei article for their open-minded treatment of all sides! The OD responses are also sober and answers the copious accusations quite thoroughly. That's fair. Arturo Cruz 08:53, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Pictures are at least as informational as SP

I still don't understand why many Wikipedians think that the pictures of Sex Positions are informational, while pictures of God's works (large families, smiling young girls doing good) are promotional. The photos of the latter are at least as informational as the sex positions. Rabadur 15:29, 10 September 2005 (UTC) I'd like to add that the photo of the supernumerary family provides information on the statistically normal Opus Dei member: supernumeraries who want to have a big family, if possible. The photo of the girls club provides information on the statistically normal apostolic activity of the prelature: youth clubs, schools, student centres, student residences, etc. Rabadur 13:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for feedback

Thanks to everyone who gave feedback about the article. Thank you, Sdedeo, for your frank comments. I agree that the NYC skyline should be removed. I also checked the Miseducation part and I plan to strike out the items which do not constitute a response to the numerous ODAN and the ICSA allegations. One such response is about the threats on false righteousness. Thank you, Arturo, for your emphasis on theological science. There is a theologian working on the article and yes, he has done a remarkable work of synthesis of the Catholic theological science behind Opus Dei. Thanks, Rabadur. I saw what you have just done in the Opus Dei article: placing it under four new categories: Catholic doctrines, Christian theology, Catholic theology and the Roman Catholic Church. I suppose that in the same way as the evolutionist scientists in the Evolution article say that the article is for the real scientists to contribute in, those who understand Catholic theological science are those who can understand and provide meaningful and interesting texts in the Opus Dei article. And as the evolution scientists's presentations are not POV, the Catholic theologians's presentations, especially if they accept criticisms and are not presented as the encyclopedia's stand, are not POV. I will await for other feedback. R Davidson 02:37, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Responses are needed and brief enough

On the specific point about length: I have not been involved in recent edits, but I think the piece now responds to each one of the allegations in the anti-cult section. Each paragraph and sentence in these responses is necessary, and they are brief enough, and they read well.

The references in the article to other aspects of (Catholic-style) Christianity, tradition, theology, etc are also needed: they provide context. By themselves the specific responses couched only in the negative (because the criticisms require an answer) would lead to a negative/defensive presentation of Catholicism (and Opus Dei) as a whole. Criticisms usually focus in on negative aspects and a response in kind usually makes the respondent appear defensive unless the greater context is also provided. So I would disagree that the article spreads itself unnecessarily. Asoane 16:47, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Criticism under one heading/SOC is POV

Hi Davidson, thanks for your response. I don't think you've responded to the bulk of my criticisms, however, which remain in place. The main one is that the description of OD needs to be disentangled from the criticisms of OD, in my opinion by creating a top-level heading "Criticisms" and organizing things under that. I am not alleging that the current confused state of the article has anything to do with POV.

Other criticisms that need a response include the stuff on the Shroud of Turin and the sign of contradiction; the SoC is given great promenance in the article, but it appears that only one person thinks it is relevant. This needs to be toned down. The relevance of the shroud to OD is tenuous and kooky at best. Declaring that opposition to OD is comparable to the trials of Jesus Christ is strongly POV; it needs to be sourced every time it appears.

I usually like to get involved in editing articles that come up for Peer Review, but I think the other responses on this review indicate why it is probably unhelpful. In my opinion, the editing of this article has been dominated by people with a deep personal connections to Opus Dei. This has inhibited the usual wikipedia process. The unusual length and confused organization of the article inhibits the participation of more neutral editors.

It should be unnecessary to say this (assume good faith), but I hold no brief for OD pro or con. Sdedeo 20:06, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia article on Wikipedia distributes criticisms

Hi again, Sdedeo! With all due respects to you, my friend, I tend to disagree that (a) there is a need for a separate criticism section. Kindly look at the comment from one of Wikipedia's respected neutral editors, Samuel Howard. It appears in the talk page. The title is Revising. I believe Samuel does not have any "deep personal connections to Opus Dei." He says:

One thing I really like about the article is that it doesn't have a criticisms section but addresses criticisms organically. It talks about the doctrine of OD and then about objections to that doctrine. It talks about the demands made on members and then about how those demands may be excessive or cultic. It talks about the members political and charitable activities and then about how those are seen as right wing or reactionary campaigning.

Please also see the Wikipedia article on Wikipedia, where the criticisms are distributed all throughout the article. It has 46 kb.

(b) OD as sign of contradiction is pov. The OD as SOC was mentioned by many Catholic bishops --including cardinals, mind you-- and Catholic theologians. Opus Dei did not say it. The article is just quoting these experts who are speaking on their field of expertise. Isn't that what neutrality means? Isn't that what an informative encyclopedia (a written compendium of knowledge) means? Isn't that the Wikipedia NPOV policy of quoting "important" views of credible experts? It is very important that you read: Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Please, please, please, before we can proceed to a logical discussion of NPOV; (c) it is easy to cut the article to make it slim. You yourself saw my attempts to cut it. I've thought hard about what can be cut in the cult discussions. But a dilemma always crops up: there are 7 ODAN accusations, each of which is multi-faceted plus the accusations from former members, and from ICSA and RRI. If the Opus Dei camp is given the right to self-defense, then it will have to answer all of those accusations. One accusation, even if it is only a short one-liner, is a question. And questions to be answered well, thoroughly and giving justice to the question, should be more than one line. See, for example, the google FAQ: [[1]] or Wikipedia:Overview FAQ which let's say has around 8-10 lines per one line question. The Opus Dei response to the cult accusations right now is around 2.4 lines per one line accusation. That's a miracle of brevity. And the agreed upon ratio is 95-5 in favor of the majority position which has far more credible experts. The present ratio in the cult section is around 63-37! So the dilemma is either we cut down the accusations placed and worked on by the anti-cult camp (disregarding their right to be heard) or further cut down the OD responses (disregarding their right to a brief but thorough self-defense and disregarding their having the majority position in terms of credible experts). Lastly, let me just say that there are 500 articles which are at least 63.7 kb long: Long pages in Special pages. Not that I would like the OD article to be like that, but vis-a-vis these articles, the OD article is at 58 kb? WTF? :) Cheers! Lafem 07:04, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Some corrections made

Thanks, Lafem, for taking care of the bulk of Sdedeo's criticisms. That was nice of you.

I appreciate your comments, Sdedeo, and your effort to follow them up. I do see your sincere effort to be of help. :-) For your info, I've already fixed the parts I promised to fix, plus I removed one unnecessary link to SOC article. SOC appears in only one section and is part of the intro-summary. I also removed any mention of the Shroud of Turin in the photo caption. You are right, it is Jesus Christ and not the shroud which is the SOC; and Lafem is right that there are quite a number of bishops and scholars who have said that OD is a sign of contradiction. Thanks again. R Davidson 13:53, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Lafem is incorrect

Lafem, you are entirely incorrect to say that 95/5 is the "agreed upon ratio" of criticisms. You are also incorrect to make the analogy between a wikipedia article and a FAQ.

Let's examine the "cult" section. As far as I can tell, there are five paragraphs about people who claim Opus Dei is a cult. There are nineteen paragraphs responding to this criticism. (These responses are also reiterated in a separate article.) This response includes a photograph of an Opus Dei supporter Bryan Wilson; the photo appears to be there because he likes Opus Dei. This is crazy.

Lafem I have already encountered when he was cutting and pasting sections from Opus Dei's promotional material into articles as fact (I was browsing recent changes looking for vandalism.) Davidson, your response to my criticisms has been underwhelming. I think your intentions are well meaning however, and so I can only assume that you are too close to your subject to see what is going on in this article. I don't want to dominate this peer review, and I have no desire to "negotiate" with people whose plain and obvious desire is to promote Opus Dei, so I will bow out now, with the remark that my concerns remain. Sdedeo 17:15, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Struck out official Opus Dei texts

I am grateful for your feedback, Sdedeo. I am one of the those who have helped in the article. Please have patience with Lafem. I don't think his last phrase was to put you down or anything of that sort. He was just stressing a point. Thank you for your densely packed comment and feedback. I took note of your comment that there is so much reference to official Opus Dei texts. I just struck out two such references and replaced them with references from experts (one a theologian and the other a famous journalist). All the best! Thomas S. Major 01:46, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Too defensive

Best of luck to you as well. I'm not unfamiliar with working on contentious articles (ACLU, CAIR, Sean Howard, Kate McMillan), but it seems like there's a task ahead of you here I couldn't handle. Try to keep in mind how this article would appear to an "outsider" like myself. If anything, the end effect of this article to date is to sound very defensive.

I looked around at a number of different religious organization articles, and a few struck me as useful models: Southern Baptist Convention, Society of Jesus and Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. These are very different articles, but they are all about organizations that some (not me!) would consider controversial.

Note that each of those articles handles criticisms very differently, but they are all IMO very well done. I would strongly suggest you compare them to the current state of the Opus Dei article to see how the latter could be improved and slimmed. OK, I really will bow out now. Sdedeo 02:06, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry, Sdedeo, if I came in too strongly at the end of my argumentation. Nothing personal, man! Peace! :) Lafem 03:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

POV problems

• This article has some POV problems. Please see my comments on the article's talk page. I tagged the article as POV. --Zantastik talk 10:57, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Corrections on defensive tone and POV problems/Added headings

I fixed the POV problems mentioned by Zantastik and commented on some which I don't understand. I hope that we can collaborate to turn the OD article into a nice NPOV-based piece.

I also added headings to this peer review. It appears confusing to me. If someone doesn't agree with the headings or titles I placed, please change them at will. Thomas S. Major 02:00, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Removed tag

I removed the POV tag and did more Npoving. Added a criticism by Kenneth Woodward of Newsweek on Escriva. Thanks for all the feedback. Sdedeo, Davidson is not the only one working on this (see his request). I suppose he just wanted to wake us all up, that's why he made the request! I'll continue to look for points for Npoving and for improvements. Thomas S. Major 09:56, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Some featured articles have 56kb

I checked out the sizes of current feature articles and some are quite big: Tony Blair (56kb) and Margaret Thatcher (55kb), and I just checked out but a few examples. I have high hopes that the Opus Dei article can become a featured article. It can attract to Wikipedia the big Catholic and Christian readership. And because it is a currently controversial topic, it will attract the Dan Brown fans as well. Marax 03:29, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Added paragraphs which break defensive tone/new article on OD as cult

The defensive tone which Sdedeo mentioned is something I looked into yesterday. The problem IMO is that the OD responses end abruptly, and the whole section ends there. I placed an additional paragraph to end the cult section and to end the secrecy section. I hope this helps to give a more objective tone to these sections. I agree with Marax that this can now be proposed as a feature article. Walter Ching 08:48, 17 September 2005 (UTC) I also added a link to a new article on OD as cult. Walter Ching 09:39, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Opus Dei article appeared as top reference in Australia Broadcasting Corporation and another article on David Clarke

Please check these sites. The Wikipedia article on Opus Dei is number one reference in the list of ABC, Australia's national public broadcaster. The ABC provides television, radio and online services throughout metropolitan and regional Australia, and overseas via its Asia-Pacific Television service and Radio Australia.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/relrpt/stories/s1459799.htm

In another article, it is also described as an "even-handed" treatment of the subject:

http://crikey.com.au/articles/2005/09/14-1340-3926.html

Walter Ching 10:34, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Article is now at 52kb

The article is now at 52kb, despite the addition of a new sub-section. To slim it down, I summarized the cult issue and made another article. I also removed some unnecessary links. R Davidson also removed quite a number of non-essentials as Sdedeo recommended. Thanks, Sdedeo, challenging the editors to slim down the article. Marax 06:04, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Cult issue ratio is now at 5 par vs 7 par

I followed up the work of Marax and added additional info on the anti-cult issue. Sdedeo was right that the disparity was too much. Lafem 07:15, 23 September 2005 (UTC)