User talk:Arturo Cruz

Hi!!

You are welcome to my talk page.

I am a Filipino, i.e. a resident and citizen of the Philippine Islands. It has 7100 islands. On low tide, they say, the numbers might be different...:-)

Arturo Cruz

Welcome!
Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:


 * Be Bold!
 * Don't let grumpy users scare you off.
 * Meet other new users
 * Learn from others
 * Play nicely with others
 * Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
 * Tell us about you

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

We're so glad you're here!

KHM03 01:24, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Arturo, though your addition of "The Opus Dei Information Office though has asserted that Dan Brown never interviewed any member of Opus Dei." in Criticisms of The Da Vinci Code is very welcome, could you add a source (URL) for that. --Túrelio 08:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

No refs in intro
Arturo, on Opus Dei you just removed a reference from the introduction (or Lead section) citing in your comments "no references in intro". Is this am actual Wikipedia rule/guideline, or just your opinion about what looks best? If it's an actual Wikipedia thing, I'm embarassed to say I've been violating it for some time on various articles. --Alecmconroy 09:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay-- so, am I correct in saying your removal of the ref wasn't because blanket belief that there shouldn't be references in introductions ever-- rather you thought in this particular case including the reference was excessive? I would suggest in the future you not delete the reference outright, but instead you move the reference to the main body of the article, so it's still in the article, just not in the lead section.  In any case, I won't revert it-- we're getting ready to start mediation to discuss major revisions to the article, so no point in quibbling about small things like this.  I just wanted to make sure there wasn't some big Wikipedia "no references in lead" rule that I'd been violating ten thousand times in my Wikipedia career. heheh --Alecmconroy 09:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Opus Dei

 * I did not fully understand your message about the Opus Dei article. This may be because I have not been involved in the article.  Could you explain in a little more detail perhaps?
 * Pax tecum,
 * Lostcaesar 16:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I am glad you called this to my attention. The article is using doubious sources, and is misrepresenting those at that.  I will work to improve this.  I will have to do so in stages so that co-editors have some time to digest each one.  Hope I can be of some help.  Lostcaesar 12:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Changes undone by JaimeHy


 * I'd appreciate it if we could discuss the changes we have each made, and not get into an "undo" war.


 * You have made the point that some criticisms of Opus Dei that I have written on already been described in the "criticism" section. To be honest, I'm very much of the opinion that segregating criticisms into a separate "Controversy" section leaves the article prone to "set 'em up and knock 'em down" approach to criticism. This is especially true if structured as it currently in the Opus article, with "Criticism" and "Replies to criticism" subsections.  I think controversy is dealt with better in the natural flow of any reasonably good prose.


 * By the way, I see you (along with other writers sympathetic to Opus) have mentioned John Allen in various comments on the Opus article as if he was an authoritative reference. I've just read his book, which contains some interesting new information.  I'd have to say, however, that I wasn't particularly impressed with his claims to objectivity.  This claim has been made in other books he has written on various aspects of the Roman Catholic Church.  However, saying it doesn't make it so. Have a look at this, for example: Jaimehy (talk) 15:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * interests


 * I take your point about the term "interests", being loaded. Your alternative, however, does not reflect the point I'm trying to make, which is about the fact that Opus Dei has a level of control over such organisations.  I have substituted the term "involvement". Jaimehy (talk) 14:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * (who, like most pious Spanish Catholics of the time, had sided with the victors)
 * You say this is a POV statement. This is a matter of historical fact (and a rather obvious one too).  I can add a few references if you like, but I honestly don't think that you need to for facts that are patently obvious to any objective observer.  Whether they were right or not to be on the side of the victors, now that is a POV. :o)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaimehy (talk • contribs) 14:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Last sentence of paragraph beginning with Initially, Opus Dei was only open to men...
 * I'd be happy to move the point of the sentence elsewhere, if the previous sentence (referring to Escrivá's genuinely interesting view that his early difficulties were because he was seen as too radical) is also moved. My intention was simply to contrast with it.  I'm open to arguments about moving both sentences in structural grounds, but I don't accept that the statement is a POV.  I have removed the terms "progressive" and "conservative" and replaced them with "liberalising" and "traditionalist", respectively, in order to make clear that we're talking about church currents, so that nobody feels misrepresented politically.  I'm now looking for a reference for this sentence.  I'll mark it as needing citation. Jaimehy (talk) 14:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Catholic journalists state that much of the criticisms are mere myths created by its opponents.
 * This sentence is extremely (mis)leading. I know what's the author is trying to say, but it is tantamount to calling critics of Opus as liars or fantasists.  I'm fairly sure if it's not originally yours, since you moved it, I took the occasion to remove it altogether. While I think the point is already clear in the article, I'd welcome more evenly-voiced alternative.Jaimehy (talk) 14:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Arturo,

I'm sorry I've not been around. For very obvious reasons I've undone your removal of NPOV in the Opus article. I've be grateful if you'd explain why you felt there was no need for it.

--Jaimehy (talk) 20:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Opus Dei controversy section
If the main problem is a structure prone to being interpreted as a "set em up and knock em down", may I propose that we invert the order of the critical and supporting views. Please check this private fork = Opus Dei controversy section where I propose a new ordering. I hope this satisfies all parties. :) Kindly comment on this. Thanks. Marax (talk) 08:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

COI
Hello, Arturo Cruz. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Opus Dei, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the request edit template);
 * disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Conflict of interest);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Spam);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 12:15, 7 April 2022 (UTC)