User:Thomas S. Major/Opus Dei essay

Doesn’t this article favour Opus Dei? Doesn’t this break the NPOV policy? Isn't this Opus Dei propaganda?
Short answer: a mediator from the mediation cabal (here) and mediation conducted by the Wikipedia Mediation Committee (here) found that this page complies with NPOV. Editors at the Good articles have also seen that the article follows the good article criteria, which cover NPOV. An impartial editor affirmed this at Good_articles/Disputes/Archive_5.

Short answer: This article is "balanced, that is written in proportion to the reputable and reliable experts and sources" and that’s the non-negotiable Neutral Point of View Policy.

This question has been discussed many times and thoroughly.
 * A discussion --with a good summary of arguments -- is found here: Not biased, but favoured perhaps?
 * A very lengthy discussion is found here: NPOV: Neutrality and Non-Equal Validity

In a nutshell, here are the arguments:


 * (1) Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View policy states: “If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject.” (On this topic, based on the Wikipedia policy on determining the credibility of experts --NPOV_tutorial-- the most credible experts are: John L. Allen, Jr., John Paul II, Benedict XVI, Massimo Introvigne, Vittorio Messori, John Paul I, many Cardinals);
 * (2) Opus Dei is about sanctity, and sanctity may sound too positive for some, but the most credible experts spoke highly of Opus Dei,
 * (3) NPOV tutorial states: “Some Wikipedians, in the name of neutrality, try to avoid making any statements that other people find offensive or objectionable, even if objectively true. This is not the intent of striving for neutrality. Many groups would prefer that certain facts be stated euphemistically, or only in their own terminology, or suppressed outright; such desires need not be deferred to.”
 * (4) Propaganda = misleading information. It's the statements from non-experts that constitute propaganda. If this were propaganda of OD it won't contain lines and lines of criticisms. Compare this with United States, Islam, Evolution, Charles Darwin.

I can see that John Allen is much quoted. Why?
John Allen's book on Opus Dei has been hailed by the press, professional reviewers, and the public (3 Ps). Martha Teichner of CBS, a four time Emmy Awardee, stated that the book of Allen "is widely considered as the definitive book about Opus Dei." Professional reviewers routinely call Allen, a "respected" journalist and praised his book:. Here is the public's assessment:.

Thus the POV held by Messori, Introvigne, Wilson, Thierry, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, etc which coincides with Allen is established as the majority POV for this article.

Can there be expertise on religious matters?
NPOV tutorial says: "On certain topics, there is naturally less "expertise" and scientific thinking, and more "opinion". This is especially the case of topics such as morals or religion, based on faith."

On religious matters based on faith (i.e. knowledge based on what a specific religion asserts to be "revealed" by God), there is "less expertise". The article gives 50:50 space allocation for these issues (e.g. Progressive or Conservative?). But on social issues of this religious group (power, wealth, secrecy, politics, practices), Wikipedia acknowledges the expertise of social scientists, scholars, and investigators who use empirical, historical methods e.g. John Allen. See discussion here.

How about Opus Dei in fiction? Or Opus Dei in the Da Vinci Code?
Answer:

I would suggest the removal of the section regarding The DaVinci Code as mostly irrelevant to the purpose of portraying Opus Dei and as more accurate belonging with a discussion of the book itself. Its being a work of fiction means that any and all claims and allegations included within are made to further the plot of the novel, not as a form of attack or commentary on any organization.

A mention of the reference and responses thereto are appropriate, but any further indepth discussion ought to take place on the page for the novel itself, where claims of its veracity can be placed into proper context.

--Agamemnon2 13:59, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree. That section does not belong here.  --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:13, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Discussion on the Da Vinci Code is found in the section on Opus_Dei

Why does the article contain positive comments about Opus Dei? Why does it presume the existence of God, why does it talk about God? Isn't that against NPOV?

 * "A simple formulation" of NPOV:
 * "an alternative formulation of the non-bias policy: assert facts, including facts about opinions".
 * "When asserting a fact about an opinion, it is important also to assert facts about competing opinions, and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct."
 * "we can say, "Most Americans believe that the Beatles were the greatest band," which is a fact verifiable by survey results, or "The Beatles had many songs that made the Billboard Hot 100," which is also fact. In the first instance we assert an opinion; in the second and third instances we "convert" that opinion into fact by attributing it to someone."
 * "A vital component: good research": "Disagreements over whether something is approached the Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) way can usually be avoided through the practice of good research. Facts (as defined in the previous paragraph) are not Points Of View (POV, here used in the meaning of "opposite of NPOV") in and of themselves. A good way to help building a neutral point of view is to find a reputable source for the piece of information you want to add to wikipedia, and then cite that source. This is an easy way to characterize a side of a debate without excluding that the debate has other sides. The trick is to find the best and most reputable sources you can."

A common misunderstanding is to think neutrality means not attributing opinions to anybody who says positive things. Many Wikipedians also think that NPOV means not attributing opinions to anybody who talks about God. The "simple formulation" disproves both of these misunderstandings.

Why the quotation-mania?

 * Guidelines for controversial articles: "The more at variance from commonly accepted notions an assertion is, the more rigorously it should be documented."

Why mention names of proponents and their backgrounds? Why criticize proponents?
Wikipedia:NPOV: "Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate. When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed."

Why not a separate criticism section?

 * Article structures which imply a view. Recommends not having a separate criticism section: "editors should attempt to write in a manner that folds debates into the narrative"

Why those images?
These pictures suit the section they are in. They add information or reinforce the information in the immediate text or the whole article.

Some Wikipedians provided the logic behind some photos. Please click on the link to find these explanations: The big family and the girls club; Introvigne's book; Smiling photos; photos of children

Check this out: here and here

I still think it is biased.
You might want to consider this point from Wikipedia:NPOV Disputes:

"ideologues, when presented with an article that has exemplary neutrality (as per our policy), will consider the article biased precisely because it does not reflect their own bias enough. Probably, such people simply do not understand the NPOV policy."