Talk:Opus Dei/Archive 2006-4

Cut down to 70 kb, and improvement of response section; NPOV tag to be removed
I've done more work as promised. I still have to cut more things later. My goal is 67 kb, the same as Shroud of Turin, a featured article on a controversial issue. Kindly take a look. :)

I believe that with mediation done, with a resolution from the mediator that the page has the right balance, and having substantially complied with the suggestions on cutting and improving the response section, I propose that we remove the NPOV tag. Thanks to everyone, specially to Alec who gave many suggestions for improvement, to Ndss for his staunch defense of Wikipedia neutrality and the neutrality of this article, to other contributors who helped such as Pvazz, Ansolin, Anonimus, Cabanes, Rabadur, R Davidson, Lafem, and to Wisden17 who gave wise, impartial comments on this page. Please continue helping because we have to continue working. :) Thomas 03:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I regretfully disgree that the page is NPOV. I strongly disagree that the page is short enough after a miniscule 10K cut.  I will, of course, continue to solicit more opinions on this issue and perhaps ask ArbCom to take a look at some point in the future.  But for now, fair is fair-- I have removed the NPOV tag.  --Alecmconroy 03:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

There are solid Wiki reason for 32k any other number is just arbitrary and we will never be able to control the size the other point is why with so many pages do you need so much space here?.Ansolin 03:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

That's just great, Tom!! Well... buddy Alec. 85 - 67 is not 10kb really. Twas 100 - 67 truly. ;) Great work Tom!! Ndss 10:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The cuts have been very good. I'm not trying to minimize that 70k is an improvement on 100k-- i'm just saying that small cuts of 10k are not all that's necessary.  >60k  is still substantially longer than necessary.  if you look at my oft-mentioned version, you can see  that with a little brevity, it's entirely realistic to summarize all the facts currently on this page without exceeding the page size limit.  You may object to the balance of that article, but regardless of the balance, its' completely possible for us to summmarize the facts on this page in a reasonable amount of space. --Alecmconroy 00:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I brought it down to 64. This page requires more than 30 if it's intent is to enlighten readers on OD. Rabadur 09:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Good job, but there's still a lot more to do. At some point, we'll won't be able to just do simple cuts anymore, but will have to start doing rewrite summarizes-- the Theology section in particular is something we can't just cut ouright, but which could be shorted substantially.  At some point, I'll get around to asking people if my proposed rewrite is in the right direction and worth taking to arbcom if we can't get it done, but in the meantime, keep plugging away at improving this one. --Alecmconroy 10:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, that's a good challenge. It's now down to 57. Rabadur 09:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Pretty good, Rab-- you've taken it down 10K so far. Way to go! We've crossed the point where it was more than double a good size-- now less than half of the article needs to go.  Good, good good.  :).  I have to say, I really didn't expect the article to slim much, but it looks like the process is indeed well underway.
 * But, of course, there's still a lot to do. I'm still under a voluntary ban from editing this article for the moment, but my suggestions for shortening:  I think the theology section is 2-3 times longer than need be.  The "Catholic personal prelature" section isn't very helpful.  The "Instruction and training" section could probably be cut outright-- it doesn't really tell us anything important that isn't conveyed somewhere else.  The "Opus Dei in society" sections are kinda poorly focused--  the "mission and strategy" section talks mostly about allegations of secrecy.  The "profile of members and their activities" devotes most of its space to debating claims of elitism.  The "Revolutionary or Conservative" section doesn't even talk about that issue, and that whole section could probably be cut.
 * As long as the article is headed in the right direction, I'll hold off on doing anything, but I expect some changes will have to go to arbitration if they're going to get implemented. The current article's curious silence on Da Vinci Code, and the lack of a response section where the criticisms are conveyed in a straightforward, uninterrupted fashion, for example.  But, if we can get the article down to 32K, that'll be a huge step towards FAC.
 * --Alecmconroy 22:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey Alec!! Check this out pal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:What_is_a_featured_article%3F/Archive_2 Ndss 10:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, the problem isn't just that the article is long-- the problem is that the article is BAD. There are things said here that just don't need to be said.  There are things said here that are not encyclopedic in tone.  Meanwhile, there are things that NEED to be said that aren't being said.  The article uses five sentence to say what could be said in one.  The article uses lots of peacock terms.  The criticisms are conveyed in intentionally confusing ways.


 * If ya'll don't think the article is long, don't shorten it.  If ya'll don't think anything needs to be cut, don't cut it.  But, the more problems in the current article, the easier it's going to be for me to show this to others if it ever goes that far.  If you think this is a feature article, then nominated it and see if you're right-- but let me tell you, you're not right.  Ultimately, however, I think you'll find that this article DOES need to be more concise, more encyclopedic in tone, and feature a more straight-forward response history.
 * --Alecmconroy 13:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey Alec! Why not try your second option here-- "I will, of course, continue to work towards either generating a consensus for bringing the page in line with my understanding of Wikipedia policy or comprehending how my understanding of the policies are flawed." 2 mediators telling ya article's neutral isn't bad, is it? Well...but continue with first option too! Just don't forget second! 2 Wikimediators might be right after all, really. ;) Ndss 13:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I want to give a heads up that I will be sporadically joining in to help clean up and pare down this article. I have already done a few small edits, so others can get a sense of my style -- feel free to comment to me here.

One of my big WP pet peeves is material which clearly reads as coming from different authors; this is especially notable in articles on so-called controversial issues (I would include this) where there are alternating POVs stacked next to each other like a textual tennis match. What I often will do is rearrange significantly the material and concise it. Often I will leave some poorly written (IMO) content as is but just move it around. So some of my edits may look very substantial in the history section, but are mostly cosmetic rearrangments for style and readability. Baccyak4H 14:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't forget to read the article's Q&A. And the link to other comments at mediation. Cabanes 10:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Next steps
I've completed some further updates to my version of the article-- I, of course, encouraged you to make use of it. If the cutting/summarizing process seems to be actively ongoing, I'll hold off on any further steps. If the goal is 67k, though, then I imagine that the process has almost concluded, and any major changes will have to be made as a result of some future consensus for change. I still strongly advise a 30k length goal and the inclusion of response history. --Alecmconroy 09:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Book cover of the Da Vinci Code
I added an image of the cover of the Da Vinci Code, replacing the book cover of Massimo Introvigne. This is another possible way of acceding to the ideas of Alecmconroy that The Da Vinci Code be given more prominence in the article and that criticism and controversy be given more attention. :) Thomas 02:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, it's a step in the right direction. I still don't see why ya'll don't want the Da Vinci Code section.  The novel has sold 60 million copies, making it the 8th most-read book in human hisory.  The film had the second largest opening weekend sales of any movie in history-- it's made 700 million dollars so far, which I think means it's safe to say that at least 700 million people have seen it.  It may be sad to say, but The Da Vinci Code, in some ways, is more relevant to the public perception of Opus Dei than The Way is. --Alecmconroy 03:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Response history
I expanded the response history for greater coverage. Rabadur 09:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * A response history section! yay-- awesome.   I hope you'll be putting in my coherent summary of the contemporary criticism. :)  --Alecmconroy 11:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Glad to make you happy, Alec. But don't feel put down if I tell you your summary is a POV-fork, a Section to Avoid, etc. Thomas's one paragraph summary is just perfect. Rabadur 12:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * hehehe, no, I kinda figured you'd say that. But, hey, just agreeing we should have a response history is a step in the right direction. --Alecmconroy 12:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Cool Rabadur!!!! Hey, we've been waiting for ya. Great! Ndss 10:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Is this justified?
A user with IP adress 4.236.63.198 added [a paragraph].

This is fairly outlandish and I suggest the user rechecks his/her sources for accuracy. A lot of effort has been put into trying to make this page balanced. Thebike 07:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC) thebike


 * No, that text is definitely inappropriate. As you'll find out, this article attracts a lot of editors who try to inject their own views about Opus Dei in to the text.  We've had to semi-protect the article before because of this sort of thing (making it impossible for anonymous and new users to edit the article).  Good job cutting it out.  --Alecmconroy 11:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

ODAN: Reliable for scholarship?
Hi all. Do you think ODAN should really be cited as a source for the information in the article's opening paragraphs and elsewhere? ODAN is not a widely-recognized organization, and, practically speaking, is little more than a website with unsourced theological musigs about the Catholic Church and about Opus Dei. I'm not sure it's a reliable source of information; additionally, we should be wary since it (along with opus libros) is something of a lone sheep in terms of criticism of Opus Dei; that is, no one else (scholars, etc.) make accusations quite as extreme as those made by ODAN, and ODAN is the least scholarly of them all. What do you think?

Pianoman123 00:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Obviously, I think that there's lots of criticism of OD, and ODAN is one of the more famous group of critics-- as such, their opinions must be included in the page. But, ya'll knew I'd say that. --Alecmconroy 01:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have two concerns with the following:
 * Jesuits were among its most vehement critics. Its opponents accuse it of secrecy, elitism, ultraconservatism, support for the extreme right-wing in politics, cult-like recruitment regime and violations of basic human rights.
 * (1) It could read as if these "opponents" are Jesuits. (2) It could read as if ODAN are representative of the critics - when they are on the fringe.  JASpencer 19:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Nowadays, Jesuits are not the greater source of critics about Opus Dei, that is an old argument. The greater source of critics at the moment are ex-members. ODAN in English and opuslibros in Spanish are (in my opinion) good sources and their opinions must be included in the page.--Heavyrock 21:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Are they representative of the critics of Opus Dei who seem a bit less fringe? JASpencer 21:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's essential to mention the historical criticisms by the Jesuits in the intro-- particularly if doing so is confusing. I do think it's essential to summarize the contemporary criticisms.  As for ODAN-- they're certainly one of the more notable critics, and I'm not sure they're fringe at all.  For example, many people regard Opus Dei as a 'cult', but ODAN holds the position that OD is just 'cult-like'.  You don't have to do too many OD websearches to find a lot of people making a lot more intense accusations than ODAN does. --Alecmconroy 00:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there's a good number of people out there who don't think favorably towards OD, but our responsibility is to make sure our sources for the article are verifiable...and since ODAN is just a website, and a homegrown one at that (it's also not very well-organized, and is pretty sparse on testimonies), I'm just not sure it's up to standard.

I also agree on the point about the Jesuit criticisms...it's not much of an issue anymore, and could be misleading. Pianoman123 01:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, for my part-- i usually like to cite websites over books if it's something very non-controversial like a "critics say". Someone can go do ODAN and regardless of who ODAN is, they can instantly verify that "critics say x,y,z" is true-- critics really are saying that.   The alternative is to cite the many books and news sources that mention the criticism-- you can use those references too if youw want.  See the bibliography and the talk archives for so pretty substantial lists of sources.  --Alecmconroy 01:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, ODAN is not only a website. See this quotes:

"The Opus Dei Awareness Network, Inc. (ODAN) was founded in 1991 to meet the growing demand for accurate information about Opus Dei and to provide education, outreach".

"Since 1991, ODAN has been in contact with countless individuals, families, the secular and religious press, clergy, religious, cult awareness organizations, campus ministers, home-schooling parents and more".

"ODAN is a registered 501(c)3 non-profit organization". --Heavyrock 02:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I'd like to help out. Cutting it down is the current thrust, right? Just wanted to give a heads-up before I start touching this very controversial article.--Nino Gonzales 13:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Good, Nino! That was helpful. Cabanes 07:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Opus Dei and Franco
You might want to check this out:      m--Nino Gonzales 13:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for informing, Nino. I did some changes last week but they were shot down. I did some tweaking a couple of minutes ago. We'll have to see if it holds. Lafem 02:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Quote from anonymous source is unreliable
I will now take out quote from Mr. anonymous. Funny this human rights violation quote appears in intro. An anonymous attack! in Wikipedia intro! Check this out guys:


 * Reports by anonymous individuals, or those without a track record of publication to judge their reliability, do not warrant citation at all, until such time as it is clear that the report has gained cachet, in which case it can be noted as a POV. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources


 * Reliable sources tend to state explicitly who their sources are. Thus quotes with attribution are more reliable than "anonymous sources," particularly when anonymous sources are speaking towards their own interests. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Evaluating_sources

Tis not bigotry. Just plain simple Wiki commonsense. We wanna be a respectable encyclopedia, you know. ;) Ndss 09:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, I do object. ODAN and others certainly do claim OD has human rights abuses.  They may cite anonymous reports to do so, but they also cite other lines of evidence to.  If concerns about the anonymity of that one account lead you to add additional non-anonymous cites, fine.  But erasing the claim entirely isn't called for.  Of course, my suggestion for how to cover OD criticism is just to summarize the broad strokes, and not even get into the vagueness of human rights violations.  But if we arere going to get into the nitty gritty of detail about this, with lots of verbatim quotes from Introvigne, Messori, other supporters and other critics, as the article currently does, then there's no call for erasing outright the claim of OD human rights abuses too.


 * But, I won't get into reverting small changes like this. In my view, the article needs major changes, and if I can't get those made, doesn't make much sense to revert tiny ones.
 * --Alecmconroy 11:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ndss' comment. Contrary to what Alecmconroy said ("doesn't make much sense to revert tiny ones"), a human rights violation is no tiny matter, especially when it is presented in the introduction to the article. We cannot justify anonymous claims in the name of balance in this article.

But more importantly, there's another problem with the human rights violations claims. The claim is made as if OD is committing these alleged human rights violations against the general public. But, as we all know, these allegations (such as those asserted by ODAN) are made against OD by people who were once inside of OD, and who, by some measure of their own free will, became associated with it.  It's terribly misleading the way it stands now...it almost sounds like OD is a terrorist group or something...

Pianoman123 18:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * How about my solution?


 * Liberals and secularists accuse it of secrecy, elitism, ultraconservatism, and support for the extreme right-wing in politics. Ex-members accuse it of violating their human rights and cult-like recruitment.


 * Please improve it as you wish. Cabanes 04:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Another of many problems. This implies that the only people who criticize OD are "liberals" or "secularists".  It  similarly implies that only ex-members accuse them of cult-like recruitment.  --Alecmconroy 07:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Similarly, I noticed a number of books critical of OD were recently purged from the bibliography.(diff)  This is another complicated situation for me-- my suggestion is not to even include a full bibliography in the main article.  But if we ARE going to have one, it seems indefensible to remove a number of published books that are obviously about OD.  That all the removed works happen to be critical of OD is, of course, a little suspicious.  --Alecmconroy 11:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Maitaining right proportion and size
I just transferred the footnote added by editor 150+ to Opus Dei in society (see footnote number 1). The addition has added one whole kb to the article. I think it is better to keep the article at 60 kb or even 59kb. :) And I also agree with Pradeshkava that the article has to keep right proportions based on mediation decisions. Secrecy is already dealt with in another section. Thanks! Thomas 06:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I thought it was a bit much too. The dead constitutions are described in the present tense! Deciding that they are important is using a methodology of suspicion. If the addition is moved to another place, perhaps the bit I added about the statutes can also move with it. Anonimus 20:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks a million for the support, Anonimus! :) It seems Mr. 150+ has just reverted my efforts though. Let me just tell him that this issue is a complicated issue as can be gleaned from the beginning of Allen's chapter on Opus Dei and secrecy that is found online here. Let me quote some portions:


 * Escrivá also insisted that Opus Dei practice what is known as “collective humility,” meaning that it should not seek self-aggrandizement. The point was written into the 1950 “Constitutions” of Opus Dei: “Opus Dei professes collective humility, and consequently ... its members will not use any distinctive insignia, and will be prudent when speaking of the Work to people not belonging to it, since their way of acting should be simple and not call attention to itself. Neither will Opus Dei participate, ordinarily, in social acts or be represented in them.” All of this was designed to ensure that Opus Dei did not become a special interest group, so that members were left free in social affairs. Finally, a historical reason for discretion had to do with the canonical status of Opus Dei. From 1947 to 1982, Opus Dei was classified in canon law as a “secular institute,” which meant that it was treated as a development out of religious life. Among other complications, the Vatican ruled in 1950 that members of secular institutes could not be involved in business, which meant that supernumeraries who had business careers were, technically, in violation of church law. Until that sort of thing could be straightened out, Escrivá and others in Opus Dei felt, “discretion” was in order. Today, spokespersons invoke this tendency to confuse Opus Dei with religious orders as a primary reason for what, according to them, is an undeserved reputation for secrecy.


 * From this we can see that this issue is much more complicated and complex, and cannot be discussed fairly enough in two footnotes.


 * I then agree with Anonimus that we transfer both these footnotes to the existing spinout article on Opus Dei in society. Thomas 05:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Longest caption in Wikipedia
Could this be the longest caption in Wikipedia: The Da Vinci Code has depicted Opus Dei as a dangerous cult. Massimo Introvigne, a conservative Catholic sociologist, says that "Opus Dei is the prime target of secularists and liberals", since they "cannot tolerate the 'return to religion of the secularized society". On the other hand, some ex-members, liberal catholics, and laicists, claim that Opus Dei has a cult-like style.

Well, I never saw any with three sentences. Wouldn't this be a violation of guidelines on captions? See here:.


 * Though succinctness is not the same as brevity, it is easy to write a caption too long. Even more than with all good writing, any superfluous word that can be removed from a caption increases its power. More than three lines of text in a caption may be distracting. Sometimes increasing the pixel width of the image brings better balance: more often, superfluous words can be removed from the caption instead. Save some information for the image description page, and put other information in the article itself, but make sure the reader does not miss the essentials in the picture.

I changed caption to: Catholic sociologist M. Introvigne says that Opus Dei is the victim of intolerance towards society's "return to religion," while some ex-members, liberal Catholics, laicists, and The Da Vinci Code claim that Opus Dei is cult-like.

By doing this, we (1) cut the caption to almost half, (2) leave the last word to the critics, (3) maintain neutrality with the word "while" (the shortest word for this purpose), (4) cut out the redundance of secularist and laicists--they are the same thing, right? Arturo Cruz 04:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Look at this archived discussion please: . Opus Dei is not described as dangerous cult in The Da Vinci Code. And hey! Why keep on disentagling the Da Vinci Code from those who claim OD has a cult-like style?  Look at this too: ; there's been agreement we use the word cult only once or twice. Arturo Cruz 01:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I trimmed it down further: Conservative Catholic sociologist M. Introvigne says that Opus Dei is stigmatized by those who cannot tolerate a return to religion, while The Da Vinci Code and critics claim it is cult-like.


 * Secularists and liberals are mentioned in the caption for sign of contradiction. Unfair and inappropriate to keep on mentioning them. Cabanes 04:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * On second thought, I reversed the order. Secularists already have the last word in "sign of contradiction" caption; let's keep npov proportions right! Cabanes 07:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed unpublished, unchecked, unacceptable sources
I removed unpublished, unchecked, and unreliable sources, those of Miki and Roche. They are unacceptable to Wikipedia: ''A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. It includes personal websites, and books published by vanity presses. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.'' From Reliable sources. Rabadur 07:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not agree with your suppression of criticism and attemps of supprising critical sources. They are writtings of critics. If you cannot tolerate critics you and the lobby have a great problem. And are obsessed with the critics.--85.57.6.210 22:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * My apologies, I reverted your last edits. If you can show a wikipedia policy to back up your edits, I won't revert you. If not expect more reverts of vandalism. I will enforce wikipedia policy and guidelines. And please, ad hominem attacks won't improve your Wikipedian status. Please stop ad hominem remarks. You are not harming Opus Dei, you are only harming Wikipedia. :-) Cabanes 02:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey!! Whoever you are, I rv'd you once more. Why not explain yourself? Here. Pleeeease? Ndss 15:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * As I've said before, it's my opinion that this page has serious systemic problems of complying with Wikipedia policies, so it doesn't make much sense to involve myself in the low-level content disputes like this. One of these days, I'll find the time and energy to do an eyeball solicitation or an Arbitration request.  But since NDSS asked me to take a look at things, let me comment.


 * My own suggestion is not to even include a full bibliography in the main article. However, if you ARE going to include one, it seems indefensible to delete the sources that express an opinion you disagree with.  If you were only doing one or two links per side in the debate, then it makes sense to delete all but one or two of the very best links.  If, however, you're not going to do that, then there's no call for deleting criticism but keeping the other references, and I haven't seen anything that justifies it.


 * The claim is made that one element in the bibliography should be deleted because it's already mentioned in the text, but a quick inspection reveals that many sources mentioned in the text are also included in the bibliography (as, of course, they should be). Introvigne, for example, is mentioned 9 different times, yet included in the bibliography.  Similarly, the claim can be made that things are being deleted from the bibliography based on notability-- obviously, we could debate notability all day without getting anywhere, but I don't think this standard justifies the deletions.  Note, for example that Walsh's book, which is critical of OD, has been deleted from the bibliography, but O'Connor's pro-OD book, which is subtitled "A Reply to the Secret World of Opus Dei by Michael Walsh", has been included in the bibliography.  I think, almost by definition, that an original source HAS to be more notable than a REPLY to that source.


 * Anyway, I'd advise everyone to remove the full bibliography and put up only the "top 3" pro- and con- links ala my suggestion.   Alternatively, if there is to be an extended bibliography, but the critical sources keep getting deleted, I'd advise the anonymous user to 1) stop being anonymous and 2) if the sources keep getting deleted, make a post at Administrator Noticeboard or make a request for arbitration.


 * I'm sorry I haven't done more to help out on this page lately. I'll try to get around to doing more.  After all the words and energy so many people have put into this article, it would be really great if we could get a Featured Article on Opus Dei here on Wikipedia;
 * --Alecmconroy 16:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I am very agree with Alec. Million thanks. By the way, I think that this matter is very suspicious, because the revertions are about OD critics or criticism.

One easy question for us: Do you believe (members and supporters) that OD has any negative thing? answer the question please. Later I will continue writing about important matters.--Heavyrock 19:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The purpose of a talk page in Wikipedia is to discuss the article but not the attitudes or the beliefs of other users. --Túrelio 22:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Bibliography issues
There are two issues:


 * 1) proportionality. Proportions in the bibliography should be pursued in the light of mediation resolution. At the mediation, a clear majority was established. The same majority should be reflected in the biblio. Now, there are 6 official Catholic texts (with two commentaries from ODAN) = (16%), There are 9 accounts from members, 3 from third party pro Opus Dei, 12 third party neutral writers (33%), 6 anti-Opus Dei texts (16%). These proportions are a fair reflection of mediation resolutions.
 * 2) Unpublished sources. Wikipedia policy is clear enough. Mr. Conroy himself stopped SafeLibraries.com from inserting unpublished sources in Wikipedia. Mr. Conroy should know the policies he himself referred to. Lafem 06:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Fantastic Lafem!!! Game over. ;) Thank pal alec. Admin board was v good. Will report heavyrock next time around. ;) Ndss 08:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Not game over, OD, members and supporters. Moncada published several books and many magazine articles. John Roche is a scholar from Oxford. Dennis Rubro, was an high rank position into OD.


 * By the way you do not answer my question for us: Do you believe (members and supporters) that OD has any negative thing?


 * Can you tell me all the neutral writtings?


 * To be continued... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heavyrock (talk • contribs)  20:01, 6 November 2006


 * I concur with Lafem's two points, nevertheless I concur too with Alec's point on Walsh's inclusion. It's a small compromise I can live with, but proportions should be kept, I do insist. :-) Cabanes 04:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)