Talk:Bibliography of Opus Dei

Bias ?

In the "Sites Critical of Opus Dei", I removed several harsh attacks that disparaged the sites being linked to. Somebody repeatedly characterized some of the sites as being "sites by a communist". Please, No Personal Attacks-- the author's political and economic views are not relevant. Former numeraries were called "alleged former numeraries", but there's no evidence to suggest they are lying about their former membership-- and none of the positive numeriary testimonies carried the word "alleged".

Just a bibliography-- don't insert needless disparaging commentary or personal attacks in here. --Alecmconroy 05:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try, Alec. But the explanatory remark that was attached to the links to both „unofficial“ sites run by Mond is no personal attack. It might have been 55 years ago, but McCarthy is dead for some time. Fact is, the Wikipedian who runs both "Opus Dei - The Unofficial Homepage" and "The Unofficial Opus Dei FAQ" explains himself in wikipedia openly as a “Member of the Communist Party” (see Mond) and “bin kommunist und mitglied der KPÖ“ (transl. I’m a communist and member of the communist party of Austria) [1]. Obviously, Mond himself hadn’t any problem with this, and frankly, why should he. McCarthyism is dead, and the communist party (KPÖ) in Austria is perfectly legal, as are most communist parties in western Europe. Therefore, regarding this as „disparaged” or a „personal attack“ smells like a somewhat outdated US-POV.

Consequently, you should consider link-tags as „member of Opus Dei“, „by a member of Opus Dei“ or „priest of Opus Dei” also as personal attacks.

About „not relevant“, you must be jokin’. Though Mond may have a personal cause [2] for his hostility, his main line of argument against Opus Dei is that it’s „fascist“. On his „The Unofficial Opus Dei FAQ“ website you’ll find the words „fascism“ and „fascist“ about 60 times. Now, that’s not „a communist point of view“? On his main website he even cites Karl Marx to argue „Why you should not use Micro$oft products“.[3] He is free to do so, of course, but please don’t say „it’s not relevant“.

My main reason for adding a „label“ or small summary to both links, was to give the visitor at least a hint of what to expect, from whom and from what point of view. Mond claims neither to be a member or an ex-member of Opus Dei, nor to have personal experience with Opus Dei, nor to be a theologian, a sociologist, or a psychologist, nor to speak for a church or an anti-cult group. But his central theme is fascism.

One more reason for an explanatory link summary is that the original titles of both Mond-websites, but especially of „Opus Dei - The Unofficial Homepage”, are somewhat deceptive, whether deliberately or not. In my experience, websites labeled as “unofficial” usually are fan websites with a positive attitude towards their subject.

However, we can leave all this aside, as WP:EL#How_to_link clearly states that „If you link to another website, you should give your reader a good summary of the site's contents, and the reasons why this specific website is relevant to the article in question.”

Therefore, over the next couple of months I will add summarizing tags to all external links that are not self-explanatory. We can, of course, discuss about the wording. --Túrelio 19:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but no

I'm afraid that we don't add a special main namespace page for bibliographies, so have redirected to the main article and have migrated all info except external links into the Opus Dei article. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is now a category for this type of articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Bibliographies_by_subject —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.87.190.178 (talk) 10:34, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

A serious problem with practically all Opus Dei-related articles It looks to me as if we have a very serious problem with all Opus Dei-related articles. They seem to be all written almost exactly as Opus Dei would like to be seen. Even the structure of this bibliographical article is severely biased in favour of pro-Opus Dei publications and sites. Given the importance of the subject and the severity of some of the accusations of cultic behaviour against Opus Dei, I believe that Wikipedia has a responsibility to fix this problem as a matter of urgency. Jaimehy (talk) 16:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:09, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Opus Dei bibliography → Bibliography of Opus Dei – This is a topical bibliography (works about Opus Dei) and not an author bibliography (works primarily by Opus Dei). As such the name change is to bring consistency to topical bibliography titles per advice in WikiProject Bibliographies and per WP:PRINCIPALNAMINGCRITERIA policy of which Consistency is one.. Mike Cline (talk) 16:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the distinction between "Opus Dei bibliography" and "Bibliography of Opus Dei" is a clear as mud. Neither of them are sufficiently distinguishing. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 21:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Opus Dei is an organization, not an author. As such the article should be not be named using the same convention used for 94% of our author bibliographies. As a topical bibliography, the suggestion for the new title was made with the Consistency criteria of WP:PRINCIPALNAMINGCRITERIA, a policy in mind. Currently ~50% of our topical bibliographies are entitled Bibliography of topic, while the remainder are inconsistently entitled List of books, publications, literature, Works about, etc. Its all over the map, and many of those titles are not precise when compared to the actual content of the article. On the other hand, the use of Bibliography of topic is much more precise, another titling criteria in the WP:Title policy. --Mike Cline (talk) 22:25, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment organizations can and do publish things. Some of these things are even credited to organizations. (Ever see an Associated Press byline?) Further, Biblio of topic is not precise if the topic being discussed can create written works, and is not just a topic which is only written about. It is highly imprecise since it does not distinguish between topic authored works and works about the topic. "Biblio of X" and "X biblio" is not distinguishing, it fails being precise because it is highly ambiguous. While it may be short, it is not precise nor concise. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 22:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Bibliography of Opus Dei. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]