Talk:Opus Dei/Archive 2022

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

https://www.encyclopedia.com/science/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/center-studies-new-religionscesnur

https://euasu.org/academicians/massimo-introvigne-39

Jesuitsj (talk) 10:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Introvigne and his website fail to qualify as a WP:RS, 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.    Feoffer (talk) 18:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Those many discussions have no final outcome. Doubt is no decision.


 * 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/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Bias_in_sources Introvigne is precisely in the controversy section where there are pros and cons. Jesuitsj (talk) 07:50, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the issue is whether referencing him is WP:UNDUE. 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”. DeCausa (talk) 09:01, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Those many discussions 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.   Feoffer (talk) 12:19, 26 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Agree on community consensus, as long as it's clear one guy does not make community, nor dictate Wikipedia rules and decisions. Jesuitsj (talk) 02:45, 27 March 2022 (UTC)


 * 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. Jesuitsj (talk) 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. Feoffer (talk) 04:05, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, now we know you have a bias against him. That explains many things. Jesuitsj (talk) 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.   Feoffer (talk) 20:12, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks like that is the conclusion of your sub-community, not Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: "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." Jesuitsj (talk) 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?   Feoffer (talk) 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 Wikipedia. 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. Jesuitsj (talk) 12:35, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Who’s the other Wikipedian that’s being “overruled”? DeCausa (talk) 12:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Aside from you, that's me. Jesuitsj (talk) 04:13, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You’ve misunderstood. I don’t support your addition. DeCausa (talk) 07:44, 30 March 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)

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⋉talk 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&#39;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)

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⋉talk 17:35, 17 July 2022 (UTC)