Talk:Opus Dei/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Controvery and Lede

Portions of the controversy in the Lede look to take away the neutrality of the article and lede. The Lede should be about the basics of the organization. Any pro or counter controvery facts should be in that section. Including them in the lede, especially when done one sided, takes away the neutrality of the article. Moved the paragraph down. If someone wants to add a line pointing to the section, would be fine, but he lede really doesn't need the details that are already discussed below. 96.31.177.52 (talk) 21:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not damaging to the neutrality of the article if both sides are covered in the lede paragraph, which they should be. At least a few sentences each. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 22:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
I reviewed the edits, and everything looks fine. Sorry about being such a pain in your ass, 96.31.177.52. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 22:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Me: The controversies section was terrible in that it provided no substantive information and was solely a defense of controversies both in the article, and ones never mentioned. The article should be flagged with the same tags that the separate controversies article is in until it is up to standard. Why would different sources and topics be in this section than in the larger article? I apologize I messed up some formatting, this is my first time, however the removal of the irrelevant information provides strictly better value.

Additionally are there requirements for sources? Surely anyone ranting off in blogs about topics they are heavily invested in are poor sources? Calling them "Journalists" isn't a defense, journalist isn't a protected term, I am a journalist and I say that they are wrong.

Lastly, this is currently labeled a "good article" when it is anything but that. The ravings of a single contributor on a flagged "disputed" page shouldn't be able to pass through the "good article" filter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.43.250.114 (talk) 20:17, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Is there a reason that the article seems to avoid classifying Franco as fascistic, or in any way negative? I note that there is no similar reluctance of bringing up the threat of murdering anarchists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.174.110.146 (talk • contribs)

Well, "Francoist Government" and "Franco Regime" doesn't sound too positive in my ears. In addition, anarchists are mentioned once in the article, "Francoxxx" is mentioned 15 times. And of course, the article's lemma isn't Franco. --Túrelio (talk) 12:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 02:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

ENGVAR

I have standardized the spelling to the US English version. I saw no indication that this article was deliberately in Commonwealth spelling, or that this subject had a natural leaning towards one or the other. Is there any objection to what I have done? Shall I make this article as written in US English so we are all on the same sheet of music? Chris Troutman (talk) 18:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 18:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 10:06, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 22:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Opus_Dei/Archive_1&oldid=1137061189"