Talk:Opus Dei

Why does the map show the French departement of Jura?? — 2dk (talk) 22:58, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

https://www.thelettersfromleo.com/p/new-pope-leo-set-to-break-up-opus

"A report from InfoVaticana — a Spanish outlet with close Opus Dei ties — claims that Pope Leo XIV is on the verge of approving new statutes that would effectively dismantle Opus Dei as it exists today." jwalling (talk) 04:49, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Has information about this been added to this Wikipedia article? ~2026-90336-1 (talk) 15:07, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

To add to this article: Pope Leo's recent meeting with a critic of Opus Dei, who wrote a book alleging human trafficking and exploitation of children as young as 10. Source: https://www.osvnews.com/pope-leo-grants-audience-to-opus-dei-critic-as-reform-of-statutes-continues/ ~2026-90336-1 (talk) 15:08, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

The organization has for years faced serious allegations of abuse, especially from over 40 women, including many former members, detailing their harrowing experiences.

The article needs to do a better job highlighting this in the controversy section (which btw. feels like it's written to downplay the controversy surrounding this organization). For now, I've included mentions of abuse allegations in the intro. ~2026-21235-95 (talk) 21:56, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

WP:CITE WP:RS. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:40, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

I am replacing the tags that were removed, in hopes to find consensus. I will start with a proposal to rename the section to something other than the vaguely generic, and NPOV incompatible "Critisim" section title. I'm open to suggestions and

Please DO NOT remove the tags again without following steps below.

See Template:POV (when to remove)

"This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. You are allowed (but not required) to remove this template whenever any one of the following is true:

There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant."

Cheers. DN (talk) 02:06, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

To add to @DN's comments, this article has significant POV problems in general. A few structural issues, before addressing specific content issues:

• Wikipedia:Criticism: "WP:POVFORK: don't split off articles with the purpose of purging a Wikipedia article of its legitimate criticism." "The preferred way to split an article is as a content fork into subarticles, using a "main" template to link to the new subarticles (related guidance: WP:SPINOFF). Generally, new subarticles should not be devoted to criticism, controversies, or other specific viewpoints but should instead focus on topical themes."

• The article at Controversies about Opus Dei is serving as a POV fork.

• WP:LEAD: "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies."

• The current lead says "the organization remains controversial" instead of summarizing the most important points about prominent controversies.

• WP:CSECTION: "Sections or article titles should generally not include the word "controversies". Instead, titles should simply name the event, for example, "2009 boycott" or "Hunting incident". The word "controversy" should not appear in the title."

• This article has a section called "Controversy", which cordons off negative historical material outside of the history section. The sub-section called "Supporting views" is basically a POV fork within a POV fork, and in effect it provides a rebuttal to the previous section, which is not a helpful structure for NPOV.

I'll post a note at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard to encourage more editors to review and discuss, because this is a quite complicated topic. Dreamyshade (talk) 14:36, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

While I think it's important to situate Opus Dei as controversial I do agree it's not best practice to segregate criticisms and apologia into dedicated sections. Simonm223 (talk) 15:18, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Also noting that there are already several subject-specific related articles:

• Opus Dei and Catholic Church leaders
• Opus Dei and politics
• Opus Dei in society
• Teachings of Opus Dei
• Women in Opus Dei

Dreamyshade (talk) 01:07, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Agreed, both Opus Dei#Controversy and Controversies about Opus Dei are written by collecting POVs in a non-neutral way. A lot of the controversy section is just history that was separated from the history section. Content should be collected based on its appearance in reliable sources about Opus Dei and arranged by subject, not based on searching for anything that might be a possible criticism. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:46, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

100% Now where is my cheat-sheet to restructuring Controversy sections and non-neutral Forks back into articles? Cheers. DN (talk) 03:29, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Summary style and Wikipedia:Merging have the key guidelines. Dreamyshade (talk) 14:09, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Looks like a lot of these were created waaaaay back in 2006, except for Women in Opus Dei which was created last year. Teachings of Opus Dei seems set for deletion if anyone wants to scour it for any decent sources beforehand (see Afd ). Cheers. DN (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

DN, be aware that it is likely that changes you are proposing are likely to be met w abrasive opposition from biased editors. I encourage you to continue addressing the very serious neutrality issues with both this article and its offshoots, just letting you know that any RFCs or move discussions are likely to meet at least some level of either meatpuppetry or other similarly organized opposition. — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 11:56, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Invited additional perspectives and contributors at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Opus Dei articles. Dreamyshade (talk) 14:19, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Nominated two sub-topic articles for merging/redirecting:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Opus Dei in society
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Opus Dei and Catholic Church leaders (2nd nomination)

Dreamyshade (talk) 15:41, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

This image appears to be unsourced? And the color was changed for some reason that's not explained from purple to yellow. Anyone have a source? Jahaza (talk) 14:47, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Editor Jahaza and I have arrived in good faith to a disagreement on part of the wording for the lead (in particular, the last sentence of the first paragraph). My proposed version is as follows:

While the prelature is highly involved in the Catholic Church, the organization remains controversial with both Christians and non-Christians, particularly for their secretiveness, role in sexual abuse cases, and as a result of its political involvement. Depictions in popular culture, such as in The Da Vinci Code and its film adaptation, brought the group into widestream international attention.

My edit summary was: "expanding lead, particularly regarding non-member/non-catholic view of the group".

Jazaha's version:

Catholic Church leaders have voiced firm support while the organization remains controversial.

Their edit summary was: "balance statement, fix grammar (its/their), restore support of church leaders clause". I reverted their changes, summarizing my revert with the summary "terms like "firm support" or categorizing their mentions in culture as "often innaccurate" seems like non-neutral language to include in the lead. Removing the wikilink in lead to fork article based on primary sources that does not meet GNG. It is obvious that a highly involved prelature would have leader support."

After this, Jahaza invited me, again in good faith, to workshop the changes on the talk page. I invite other editors to voice their opinion on our proposed versions, understanding that it is possible we might have to use an RFC to establish any firm consensus and that the best version is likely somewhere between my proposal and Jahaza's. — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 13:38, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Figuring out a properly balanced lead is tricky from a WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY perspective at this time, because the article and its sub-topic articles have structural issues (including WP:CSECTION and WP:POVFORK), and because a large amount of the body is cited to publications by Opus Dei or Escriva, which are generally WP:PRIMARY in this context, including the Opus Dei website, Scepter Publishers, Romana, and Escriva.org.

I agree in general though with trying to expand the lead to "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies" (WP:LEAD), rather than just stating that controversy exists. Also, linking "firm support" and "controversial" to sub-topic articles creates an MOS:EASTEREGG issue, since it's not obvious where those links will go before you hover or click them. Dreamyshade (talk) 21:31, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

"a large amount of the body is cited to publications by Opus Dei or Escriva" These are not reliable sources to begin with, and should be outright deleted. Why would we want to present Opus Dei's propaganda by directly citing the propagandists? Dimadick (talk) 09:51, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

@Dreamyshade and Dimadick: we can all agree that the article and its sub-articles have issues regarding sources and neutrality, but if you could stick to just commenting on the lead for now that would help improve the article quicker. It's possible that we'll have to rework the lead after improving the body, but considering 99% of readers only read the first paragraph of the lead and crawler bots (e.g. the ones that AI trains off) also base themselves off of the lead more than the article it is important that we address it as priority. We can discuss improvements on the other sections in a separate thread, as in the thread above. — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 11:55, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Religion and philosophy When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Which version of the lead paragraph more accurately summarizes the article body in a neutral manner? — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 17:44, 29 June 2026 (UTC) (Differences between the two are in green)

A, current version: Opus Dei (Latin for 'Work of God') is a personal prelature of the Catholic Church founded in Spain on 2 October 1928 by Saint Josemaría Escrivá. The prelature states that it helps lay and clerical members pursue holiness through everyday occupations and social responsibilities. The Holy See granted final approval in 1950 under Pope Pius XII. In 1982 Pope John Paul II affirmed its status as a personal prelature through the apostolic constitution Ut sit. Catholic Church leaders have voiced firm support while the organization remains controversial.

B: Opus Dei (Latin for 'Work of God') is a personal prelature of the Catholic Church founded in Spain on 2 October 1928 by Saint Josemaría Escrivá. The prelature states that it helps lay and clerical members pursue holiness through everyday occupations and social responsibilities. The Holy See granted final approval in 1950 under Pope Pius XII. In 1982 Pope John Paul II affirmed its status as a personal prelature through the apostolic constitution Ut sit. While the prelature is highly involved in the Catholic Church, the organization remains controversial with both Christians and non-Christians, particularly for their secretiveness, role in sexual abuse cases, and as a result of its political involvement. Depictions in popular culture, such as in The Da Vinci Code and its film adaptation, brought the group into widestream international attention. — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 17:44, 29 June 2026 (UTC)