Talk:The Sect of the Phoenix

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Short story task force.

Is it reasonable to regard this article as a stub, implying that it should be lengthened? This policy will lead to the absurd situation where articles pertaining short stories are longer than the stories themselves! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.13.147.249 (talk) 05:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexuality

Did Borges actually mention a homosexual experience in an interview? That doesn't seem like him at all from what I know of him. I got the impression he was quite private about stuff like that. There's no citation or anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.22.1.19 (talk) 05:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cult vs Sect

With this edit of 29 July 2014, IP User:2601:7:5080:f31:597e:3048:39e3:7b35 changed "Sect" to "Cult" in the lede. While perhaps this is a better translation, the article title was not changed (The Cult of the Phoenix exists as a redirect. I've undone that change with this edit today; if we have consensus that "cult" is better we should change it consistently (move it, creating a redirect, and rename it throughout the article). Si Trew (talk) 12:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Google searches for ""cult of the phoenix borges" and ""sect of the phoenix borges" in RS seem about even. Si Trew (talk)

Bias

This article in its current state is clearly heavily biased towards one interpretation and not written in a neutral style at all.

I'm not sure whether (or which way) it's biased, but the tone is surely wrong. Evidently, whoever made these changes wanted to promote his pet ideas (which may or may not be right, and may or may not be standard), and wrote this like a pedantic literary debate, not like an encyclopedic article. On the other hand, fairly precise references were provided, which is the main reason why I didn't felt right to simply revert the changes. But if you think you can rewrite the article so that the information and references provided by these changes are preserved but the tone is made right and the bias you discern is removed, that would certainly be good. --Gro-Tsen (talk) 18:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]