User talk:Marax/Opus Dei controversy section

Looking good!

I think that's a significant improvement, and it definitely moves my POV-meter out of the red zone. Opus Dei is a controversial organization, so I think it's right to have a separate Controversy section instead of spreading the information throughout the article, and reading the supporting and critical views now I get no sense of whether the author's opinion is for or against. Each side is allowed to present its case without direct reference to the points made by the other side, and so the worrying "refutation" aspect of the previous article has disappeared.

If the article had looked like this in its recent GAR I would definitely have supported it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I also think this is a good step forwards. I've copyedited, and suggested a few minor changes. In particular, I've tried to make the language in the two sections similar and more neutral. Also, it is helpful to give illustrative examples when referring to generic "supporters" or "critics": I've tried to do this in one or two places, but I am not familiar enough with the sources to do it more generally. Finally, I agree with the comment below that the last section is a nice idea, but I think it is important to be clear that these are just other views, or the section could easily turn into "Now you've heard the supporters, you've heard the critics: here is the correct view", which would be very bad. Geometry guy 22:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

A mixed bag

I think this draft does get at what Malleus mentioned about apprising the view of the author, as well as, at least partially, what Alec mentioned on the article's Talk regarding terminology (one that I see as less significant as he does, but, all things being equal, would be good to still address).

I still carry my bias about the editorial structure which this does nothing to alleviate. But as that was not your goal, so be it.

One problem that this introduces is that the supporting section raises some issues and points to essentially rebut, but which themselves are not fully fleshed out until the following, critical, section. To me, that is a worse problem than any straw man connotations of having the original order.

It's because the points raised in the supporting section aren't directly addressed in the following critical section that I'm in favour of this version. Each side presents its view independently. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I should end on a more positive note however: Your opening, summarizing sentence, using Allen's chaacterization, is very well done. If consensus becomes to have separate sections like this, this is a fantastic way to start out. The Other Views section is a good closer too, which acts as a neutral, forward loooking "wrap-up". Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)