Talk:Opus Dei/Archive 2013
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Opus Dei. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 2010 | Archive 2011 | Archive 2012 | Archive 2013 |
ODAN - is it a relaible source?
I posted a question about reliability about a group similar to ODAN at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_136#Negative_ex-whatever_sources and the response was that ex-member organizations are urreliable sources. I think all the ODAN fits here. Some criticisms in the article are sourced to reliable sources but those only sourced to ODAN and extra ODAN references should probably be eliminated. Is that agreed or is there some reason to call ODAN reliable? >> Jesus Loves You! M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 10:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- Almost a month has gone by without objection. Today I eliminated all content from ODAN. >> Jesus Loves You! M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 17:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Opus Dei prelature not technically a Catholic movement nor a society
I would like to clarify that Opus Dei is technically not a movement nor a society, being a prelature that is more akin to a diocese and to military ordinariates that are institutional hierarchical structures organized by the Church itself and not from among laity.
Kindly look at these sources for information:
Thus I removed the template for Catholic movements and societies. Lafem (talk) 07:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- Technically (canonically), you're right. However, it has been classed with them in things like the two Pentecost events for movements in Rome (1998 & 2005), they are usually associated with them in pastoral plans and the minds of many in the Church , and it is a lay spirituality when the template was designed to grab all Catholic lay spiritualities. If you want to change the title of the template to be clearer, please do. "Society" was intended in a broad sense to include Opus Dei. If you want to debate the title or the inclusion of Opus Dei in the template, please do so there. As it stands, Opus Dei is a link in the Navbox (transcluded is the technical term) so the navbox should be included here per WP:NAVBOX. I undid your good faith edit.>> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 19:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Selective summary of apostates reliability: dispute resolution seems to be necessary
In the past ten years I have repeatedly protested against quoting Wilson only as a summary of apostates reliability, but to no avail. I also have done this on Controversies surrounding Opus Dei. I will take it to dispute resolution notice board, because it seems we have not come any closer in all this time. Andries (talk) 15:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)