Talk:Orson Scott Card/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Homosexuality

The existence of an article regarding his views on homosexuality is discriminatory; if he were pro-gay rights, would such a section be written to inform people of his beliefs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.12.48 (talk) 00:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

You're inference is incorrect, if he were a vocal activist for gay rights this is also likely to be listed, perhaps not as extensively, but it would be there. An act simply being discriminatory is also not sufficient for the act to be bad. Discrimination is defined as a change in actions concerning a member of a group due to their belonging to said group. If I were to act as though you had access to a computer because I place you in the group, "wikipedia users", would I have done something wrong? Also sign your entries with 4x"~" at the end please. 79.69.31.248 (talk) 14:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Section on homosexuality

Why is this section even here? He's a writer, and his books and articles don't address the issue. Who cares if he's on a committee? Everyone's on a committee for something somewhere.

I understand your point, perhaps the section titled "personal views", "homosexuality" should be changed to "activism against LGBT Rights". He is not just on a committee with an opinion, he is an activist for the criminalization of homosexuality and on the board on NOM, which is the largest organization to repeal same-sex marriage laws. --DCX (talk) 08:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

His books and articles most certainly do address this issue. Besides the article "Hypocrites of Homosexuality" in Sunstone and the many entries relating to the issue on his blogs and in Mormon Times, the issue also makes an appearance in the Homecoming series. CaliforniaKid (talk) 21:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

His take on homosexuality also comes up in the Bean Series, specifically in Shadow Puppets with Professor Anton. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.255.3.68 (talk) 03:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Card's stance on this issue is odd, given some of his imagery, for example in Ender's Game, there are many references to unclothed youth; Card even depicts a major turning point as hand-to-hand combat in a hot shower. This passage was disturbing to read. Card keeps returning to this kind of imagery, which is in stark contrast to his stated views on homosexuality. He needs to sort this out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.109.215.99 (talk) 07:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

His views on the subject have made him highly controversial in the science fiction community for many years now. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

@174.109.215.99: "Card even depicts a major turning point as hand-to-hand combat in a hot shower. This passage was disturbing to read." Disturbing to whom? You? That's your problem, not his. IIRC, the fight took place in a communal bathroom, not a hot shower. And the only thing "disturbing" about it--if anything--was the violence. Card only mentioned that the young men were naked, but didn't go into explicit detail about their anatomy. And they were nude because they had just gotten out of a shower, which is perfectly reasonable. I don't think he has anything to "sort out". He's not a fan of homosexuality, and he knows it, and this is sufficiently noted in the article. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 12:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I actually think his books are a little creepy, or even more than a little. However he is a major literary voice and I often recommend "Ender's Game" to sci-fi fans. I do think the section on his anti-homosexual activism is a bit long but the information should be in the article since that's part of what he is known for. Borock (talk) 13:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

-He is a writer, thus when he speaks, it is more likely to be noticed. If a random person said some of the things Card has said and were noticed the way his where, they would be in their article if they had one. Why would him being a writer alter that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.244.209 (talk) 18:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

-The wiki is about OSC not just his writings. He is a public figure, with views on a significant topic. When a politician says something about homosexuality, it often makes their wiki page. If you want to make a section about OSC books, that does not contain his views. Go ahead. I note you no one is deleting his views on alternative energy. What does that have to do with his books? Nothing. But as a public figure, his views are often note worthy. Note worthy things about someone often make their wiki page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.244.209 (talk) 04:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

-So it seems this article is partially locked now. I note with the Homosexual items removed. This despite a majority of civil people thinking it ought to be there. Not to mention his other views, actions and beliefs remaining. The bias of the mods on this article is rather transparent. It makes me sad that this sort of thing can happen on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.101.237.192 (talk) 10:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

No, it is stated in the article that he is a Democrat, although he has supported Republicans. Since his partisan affiliation is self-declared as Democrat, that's what it is. EricJamesStone (talk) 15:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

except the cited evidence routinely places him as a Republican in his own writings http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/index.html. Your assertion he is a Democrate is 100% wrong based on his own writings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.98.210.243 (talk) 18:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

That ain't how it works in the United States. He's a homophobic, angry Democrat, but he says he's a Democrat (albeit one disgusted by some trends in that party), so he's a Democrat. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd be careful labeling him as "homophobic" (WP:BLP issues aside) as he has several gay friends (including M. Shayne Bell) that I know of. While his stance is certainly in the realm of what many people term "anti-gay", he's definitely not afraid of them. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 07:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, the old "some of my best friends are...." defense! The problem is that we don't have a good word in English for "thinks that gays are pathetic sinners and believes government should treat them as criminals and third-class citizens unless they promise never to express their loves or expect to be treated as human beings or have the rights that we straights do"; so we tend to use "homophobic" as shorthand for that peculiar stance. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

You are completely misrepresenting his position. He has never stated anywhere that they should be treated as third-class citizens. Sure, he disagrees with their chosen lifestyle, but so do hundreds of millions of other people (I wouldn't be surprised if it was multiple billions (in the world) which disagreed with that lifestyle). Just because he disagrees with you and anyone else on this issue doesn't mean he hates gays or fears them in some way. This is one of the most frustrating things about disagreements such as this these days: if someone disagrees with someone else, they are automatically labelled a bigot or worse. He's not campaigning to lock up all gay people everywhere, or trying to hunt them down in some way. He just disagrees (and chooses to express his opinion fervently) with that lifestyle. He doesn't hate the people who choose that lifestyle. There's a big difference between his stance and that of some hardcore "kill/imprison them all" bigot. Representing it as anything else is disingenuous and clearly violates WP:BLP. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 16:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

? What part of "Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society." and "any government that allows these people to get married is my enemy" do you not understand? Looks like third-class citizenship to me, although he graciously allows them to stay out of prisons as long as they don't let us catch them being themselves. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

A belief that there should be laws prohibiting homosexual behavior doesn't make him afraid of homosexuals. Rather, he simply has a very strong belief that the lifestyle and behaviors consistent with homosexuality are wrong. Based solely on the short segments of his comments you are quoting, I'll grant you that his position as indicated in only those short segments (as I haven't read the full context of those segments) gives the appearance of a belief that homosexual behavior "flagrantly violate[s] society's regulation of sexual behavior". However, I still disagree with any description including the use of the word "homophobe" or stating that he hates them or fears them in some way. I think it would better suit Wikipedia's stated purposes to let the statements stand on their own and let people draw their own conclusions from them. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Partisan affiliation is self-proclaimed, not based on positions. Unless you have a source showing that Orson Scott Card has declared himself to be a Republican, his past statements that he is a Democrat are what define his partisan affiliation. See http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2009-12-20-1.html and http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2008-01-06-1.html for examples. EricJamesStone (talk) 19:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

While I wish he was a Republican, he is not. You can look up his voter registration at the North Carolina State Board of Elections by entering his info (ie.First Name: Orson - Last Name: Card - Birth Date:08/24/1951 - County:Guilford). I would reference it, but I'm not sure how to link direct to his info. This is Public domain information and it list his Party as "Democrat".--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 21:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Unless someone can cite a reliable source more recent than the above showing that Card has declared himself to be a Republican, changing his party affiliation from Democrat to Republican is incorrect. Please don't change it unless you have such a source. EricJamesStone (talk) 03:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Again, you are correct. He is a registered Democrat.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 12:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree it shouldn't be changed to Republican, but why not just remove it from the top? It may be accurate that he is registered that way, but party affiliation is not a required part of a biography. He's not a politician who's run for office under the label; it's just a statement he's making about himself. And it gives a misleading picture of his political beliefs. His views are conservative almost across the board, and I don't believe he gives support to the party in any way. If you want to describe his connection with the party in the article, that's great, but it doesn't belong in the infobox. Bennetto (talk) 16:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I would have no problem with that change. EricJamesStone (talk) 17:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree that party affiliation has no place in his infobox. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 17:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I've removed it. The bit about about him supporting McCain "while being a Democrat" might be improved with clarification, but I think it's sufficient as is. Bennetto (talk) 15:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Not sure that the introductory sentence in homosexuality section is fair - removed as possible personal attack

The sentence reads: "Card described homosexuality as an acquired characteristic linked to abuse or molestation in childhood" however the source referenced is not so cut and dried. In the referenced article, Card says "many homosexuals first entered into that world through a disturbing seduction or rape or molestation or abuse, and how many of them yearn to get out of the homosexual community and live normally." The fine difference which makes the introductory sentence an attack is the crucial word many. Card does not claim that homosexuality is an exclusively acquired characteristic but rather simply that for some individuals homosexuality is acquired. The term "acquired characteristic" implies that it is acquired for all individuals rather than simply some. I have changed the wording of the sentence somewhat but acknowledge that its current form is awkward. If future editors modify this section, I encourage them to maintain the fine distinction between an exclusively acquired characteristic (which homosexuality is generally believed to NOT be) and a characteristic which can be acquired (which scientific journals suggest homosexuality can be). The crucial difference between such scientific journals and Card is that research suggests these instances are rare and Card suggests that they are common. Perpetualization (talk) 06:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

In reference to the opening sentence of the homosexuality section, I find it awkward that it begins with his stance on same-sex marriage. Card is not a fan of homosexuality. That much is clear. He has stated this often and in many venues. But why do we start that section with his stance on same-sex marriage? Same-sex marriage is just one facet of many homosexuality-related topics. Why not instead begin the section with something more logical, like his thoughts on homosexuality in general? I'm not proposing we delete any information, just arrange it more logically. Anyone else? — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 22:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Its pretty clear on word count alone thats its is highly WP:UNDUE it could be summarized in a Few sentences in Political views and probably best in two. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not convinced that quotes are needed in the text in order to state he is active in lobbying against acceptance of homosexuality when a few footnoted citations will support any such summary. Including quotes from him confusing child abuse with homosexuality seems undue unless these opinions are well established and much repeated so there can be no claim of them being unrepresentative. Perhaps a re-written paragraph could be proposed here first rather than in the article? Fæ (talk) 22:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I have trimmed down the homosexulaity down a bit, and merged into Politicts since its almost all about gay marrige The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

No reason is given for this revert I am reverting it until there is some talk page discussion The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

My 2 cents: it looks like you removed a bunch of well-cited stuff on his political views. Don't get me wrong, the article shouldn't be about them, but at the same time removing goes against the status quo here on wikipedia; BLPs end up being like giant tabloids, existing to report every controversial or interesting tidbit about the person. Not saying that's right, just saying it's the case. Riffraffselbow (talk) 00:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry you have that impression of biography articles, please see WP:UNDUE which would support this sort of trimming down of excessive 'tidbits'. Fæ (talk) 00:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Trying To create commentary out of stuff he says in his Blogs is WP:OR. If those views are controversial then let a Secondary source indicate that. His writings are primary sources for BLPs. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Quotes about the subject of a BLP are allowed from the subject's own publications, that is why the guidance of Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves exists. Fæ (talk) 07:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

That actually an inappropriate policy to pull out. That policy is more appropriate for stuff like claiming credentials and simliar things. The WP:PSTS and WP:SYN of WP:NOR is what applies here. As his writing are primary sources being used to advance a position of his alleged homophobia. Not only that but they are being used in excess in violation of WP:UNDUE of WP:NPOV thus a violation of WP:BLP. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 14:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

That is an odd interpretation of WP:SELFPUB. If an BLP is to include information on the subject's personal opinions then the sources can do no better than to quote the subject saying what their opinions are. Other sources which do not quote the subject stating their opinion are by definition secondary analysis. This is a much repeated argument and is the reason that SELFPUB exists in order to state the current consensus and how to apply WP:BLP in these situations. It is only the number of such quotations that would be tempered by complying with WP:UNDUE, not their validity. Fæ (talk) 14:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:ABOUTSELF is really supposed to be for assertions about one's self, such as a his personal websites biography on himself. Please examine WP:PSTS and WP:SYN that supplement WP:ABOUTSELF. An editorial written by an writer is primary source. In this case we have a primary sourced being used to make a contentious statement statement. If you feel I am in error Try WP:BLP/N. As I will continue removing WP:COATRACK from this article until a consensus disagrees with me The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 14:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I think we are at cross-purposes and probably in agreement on the desired outcome here. My observation relates to statements made about the subject's statements about their own values. So if OSC believes that homosexual marriage is morally wrong, a quote where he states his belief is fine. If OSC goes on to complain about the White House being soft on gays then that is beyond what is acceptable under SELFPUB as it relates to other parties. My statement appears correct and so does your reply. As for PSTS, SYNTH, etc. thanks for pointing them out but I am already familiar with them as you might expect. Fæ (talk) 15:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

This article has a long history of being used for personal attack of its subject. Given that, when in doubt, one should lean toward the policies discussed in WP:UNDUE. --Pleasantville (talk) 13:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree it has The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 14:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I have reorganized the section on homosexuality and included referenced statements made by Card that homosexuals should be sent to prison and that he will attempt to destroy (his word) any government that recognizes same-sex marriage. These are 100% noteworthy positions, if only because they are so strikingly unusual, and I suspect that anyone who deletes this information is simply trying to conceal Card's political activism, which is of interest to many readers. Although some may quibble with the term "anti-gay", I believe that wanting to make homosexuality a crime punishable by imprisonment fully justifies the use of the term, since the issue ceases to be marriage, but same-sex intercourse. --Frellthat (talk) 20:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that the information I added has been deleted by ResidentAnthropologist. A look at the user's contributions reveals that the same person has been running defense for Westboro Baptist Church, deleting references to condemnations by mainstream religious groups of their anti-gay activity. Once again, Orson Scott Card is currently a professional anti-gay political activist, one of the national directors for the National Organization for Marriage. Statements made by Card about homosexuality are both noteworthy and 100% appropriate for his entry, as people who come to this page are seeking information about him and anti-gay advocacy now occupies a large part of his life.--Frellthat (talk) 19:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

No I adhere to WP:BLP and its WP:OR used here where consensus has been to exclude such material. Please Avoid personal attack on my alleged motivations. I am about as Pro-gay as one can be when straight. 19:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I said nothing personal about you, unless you consider your past contributions to the Westboro Baptist Church page and others to be personal. See the entry on vandalism: "Bold edits are not vandalism". Give your reasons for stating that describing a political activist's political positions violates WP:BLP and WP:OR.--Frellthat (talk) 19:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Since you do not answer my questions, I've created an entry on the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard for this issue. You can explain your reasons for deleting my edits there.--Frellthat (talk) 21:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Revisiting OSC's views on homosexuality, and Hamlet's Father

Written above: "He's a writer, and his books and articles don't address the issue". This is untrue — OSC's work Hamlet's Father reinterprets Hamlet's problems as being the result of his father's activities as a homosexual and a paedophile. In addition to the other published works mention, this means that his published works do indeed address the issue of homosexuality. Given the volume of his published works on that subject, it would be a major lapse for an encyclopaedic article not to mention his views on this subject. In other words, this article must cover OSC's views on homosexuality in order to be complete. Sbwoodside (talk) 19:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. The publishers of Hamlet's Father were inundated with complaints after it was published, and such a controversy is highly relevant to the article. 88.104.31.135 (talk) 23:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

OSC's response to the reviewer is also relevant: http://hatrack.com/osc_responds_halmets_father.htmlIntermediateValue (talk) 21:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Here is the text from that link: Normally I don't respond to reviews, especially when the reviewer clearly has an axe to grind. But the dishonest review of Hamlet's Father that appeared in Publisher's Weekly back in February of 2011 has triggered a firestorm of attacks on me. I realize now that I should have answered it then and demanded a retraction, because while the opinions of reviewers are their own, they have no right to make false statements about the contents of a book.

The review ends with this sentence: "The writing and pacing have the feel of a draft for a longer and more introspective work that might have fleshed out Hamlet's indecision and brooding; instead, the focus is primarily on linking homosexuality with the life-destroying horrors of pedophilia, a focus most fans of possibly bisexual Shakespeare are unlikely to appreciate."

Since my introduction to the book states that I was not remotely interested in Hamlet's "indecision and brooding" in Shakespeare's version of the story, I wonder how carefully the reviewer read the book. But the lie is this, that "the focus is primarily on linking homosexuality with ... pedophilia." The focus isn't primarily on this because there is no link whatsoever between homosexuality and pedophilia in this book. Hamlet's father, in the book, is a pedophile, period. I don't show him being even slightly attracted to adults of either sex. It is the reviewer, not me, who has asserted this link, which I would not and did not make.

Because I took a public position in 2008 opposing any attempt by government to redefine marriage, especially by anti-democratic and unconstitutional means, I have been targeted as a "homophobe" by the Inquisition of Political Correctness. If such a charge were really true, they would have had no trouble finding evidence of it in my life and work. But because the opposite is true -- I think no ill of and wish no harm to homosexuals, individually or as a group -- they have to manufacture evidence by simply lying about what my fiction contains.

The truth is that back in the 1970s and 1980s, when it was definitely not fashionable to write sympathetic gay characters in fiction aimed at the mainstream audience, I created several sympathetic homosexual characters. I did not exploit them for titillation; instead I showed them threading their lives through a world that was far from friendly to them. At the time, I was criticized by some for being "pro-gay," while I also received appreciative comments from homosexual readers. Yet both responses were beside the point. I was not writing about homosexuality, I was writing about human beings.

My goal then and today remains the same: To create believable characters and help readers understand them as people. Ordinarily I would have included gay characters in their normal proportions among the characters in my stories. However, since I have become a target of vilification by the hate groups of the Left, I am increasingly reluctant to have any gay characters in my fiction, because I know that no matter how I depict them, I will be accused of homophobia. The result is that my work is distorted by not having gay characters where I would normally have had them -- for which I will also, no doubt, be accused of homophobia.

But Hamlet's Father, since it contained no homosexual characters, did not seem to me to fall into that category. I underestimated the willingness of the haters to manufacture evidence to convict their supposed enemies.

To show you what I actually had in mind in writing Hamlet's Father, here is the introduction I wrote for its publication in book form. I'm as proud of the story as ever, and I hope readers will experience the story as it was intended to be read.

Foreword to Hamlet's Father

I have loved Shakespeare's plays since my days as a theatre undergraduate, when I learned to get my head into his characters and my mouth around the blank verse. I have taught his plays to literature students, directed actors in performing his plays, and even fiddled with some of his scripts so they'd be fresh and funny to modern audiences despite the way the language has changed since he wrote them. (See my adaptations of Romeo & Juliet and The Taming of the Shrew at www.hatrack.com.)

I don't like all the plays equally. Coriolanus simply doesn't speak to me. In fact, none of the Roman plays do. But the play that bothers me the most -- because I don't much care for it and think I should -- is Hamlet.

Of Shakespeare's great tragedies, I love Lear and Macbeth; Othello at least I understand. But Hamlet? I have little interest in a dithering hero; nor am I much inspired by revenge plots. Yet I keep hearing that this is the greatest of them all.

So I analyzed the story to see what it would take to make me care about it. "Hamlet's Father" is what I came up with. I'm fully aware of the fact that I have just messed with the play that many consider the greatest ever written in any language. But Shakespeare stole his plots from other people; and nothing I do is going to erase a line of his great work or diminish his reputation in any way. So why not?

If you think it's blasphemous to fiddle with Shakespeare's work, then for heaven's sake don't read this story. I leave his version in shreds on the floor. But my body count is just as high, as long as you don't expect me to account for Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. I figure Tom Stoppard took care of them for all time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.240.44.68 (talk) 20:55, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Published biographies on OSC

For a BLP article, the references here show a dearth of published biographical books. I've found and acquired two:

• Willett, Edward (2006). Orson Scott Card: Architect of Alternate Worlds. New Jersey: Enslow Publishers, Inc. ISBN 0766023540.
• Tyson, Edith S (2003). Orson Scott Card: Writer of the Terrible Choice. Maryland: Scarecrow Press, Inc. ISBN 9780810847903.

Both of these are considered "young adult" and the second one is more directed toward his faith, but the article is currently relying completely on websites and online articles so I think it's acceptable for use of these books as sources (which are the only published biographical books on OSC I'm aware of at present), at least for his early life and things related to his faith and personal life. I'll work on expanding the article somewhat using these as sources unless there are any objections. If anyone knows of any other published biographies on OSC, please feel free to post them here. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 16:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I also think there needs to be a subsection under "Personal views" that focuses on his religion. It's a pretty integral part of his personality, and I'm surprised it's not mentioned in more than passing in the article. There's a lot of information about him in this respect that is relevant to the article, such as the fact that he's a direct descendant of Brigham Young. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 16:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe Michael R. Collings published a fairly extensive work on Card. It's listed on his page. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 15:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Make that "fairly extensive works on Card", though the publications are mostly about Card's work rather than about Card himself. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 07:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

"Homophobe"

178.76.162.16: Referring to OSC as a "homophobe" in the lead sentence is completely inappropriate. This is a BLP article and must conform to the rules regarding WP:BLP. There have been several discussions on the talk page over the years about how much weight the article should give to OSC's views on homosexuality [1] and the consensus has generally been that it should not be overstated, since it hasn't been covered very much by reliable sources in proportion to everything else he's well-known for. Whether or not you personally regard him as a homophobe is irrelevant; inserting "homophobe" into the lead goes against NPOV, it is undue, and violates BLP. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 04:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• He is a board member of a national organization dedicated to furthering the cause of homophobia. Explain how that is insignificant. Insignificant, not embarrassing to the person the article is about, or something you personally are uneasy about. 178.76.162.16 (talk) 04:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  • And that claim would be NPOV as well. "Certain people" who are neither neutral parties nor even truly all that credible labeling an organization as homophobic doesn't make it homophobic, just as those people labeling Card as such doesn't make him that. These "certain people" pushing their own agendas really like to stretch the definitions of all words that imply someone's an eeeeevil hater of some protected group beyond the point of recognition, whether it's "homophobe," "Islamophobe," or the good ol' classic "racist." The terms do NOT mean "holds traditional moral views and doesn't bow to political correctness." -- Glynth (talk) 00:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
• Note that just saying "BLP" does not make the statement inflammatory or inappropriate. The word is accurate, it is verified, and it is fair. Look at Wikipedia's consensus on what homophobia is. Then look at OSC's behavior. I've said before here that I am open to using a more politically correct way of identifying the man's bigotry if there is one (I was not aware that some homophobes find the word homophobe offensive. I think that's incredibly ironic but that is irrelevant.) but censoring facts is out of the question. 178.76.162.16 (talk) 04:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

It is not a matter of "censoring facts" or being "insignificant". It is simply not appropriate for the lead sentence of the article. There is a section in this article devoted to his views on homosexuality. That said, is there even a source out there that's completely reliable which specifically says that OSC is a homophobe? If sources like this exist (reliable ones), then you can make a case for putting this into the body of the article, but I think that any way you look at it, it's going to be WP:undue for the article's lead sentence. "Then look at OSC's behavior". Our interpretation of his behavior has nothing to do with it, the only thing that matters here is WP:BLP and WP:RS. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 05:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

"It's not appropriate" is not an argument. Give an actual policy reason why this violates BLP. It is objectively verified information. He is a board member of NOM, an organization completely and totally dedicated to the removal or prevention of homosexuals' rights. Even among that extremist organization he is an extremist as has been discussed elsewhere on this discussion page. Desist reverting the edit without providing an actual reason to do so. "Actual reason" meaning objective information or policy, as opposed to your personal feelings on the matter. Remember to keep NPOV. 178.76.162.16 (talk) 05:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I have tried to explain already. Essentially, it is simply undue for the lead sentence, not to mention it is unsourced. I was hoping to have more community input here, but I see you've reverted me yet again. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 05:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the word "Homophobe" probably shouldn't be dropped into a list of other things that are descriptions of what he does. In addition, since there are significant negative connotations surrounding homophobe, describing his positions toward homosexuality might be more appropriate from a neutrality standpoint than calling him a homophobe. It's possible he is one, but Wikipedia isn't really a place for name-calling. EricWesBrown (Talk) 05:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Ferahgo the Assassin and EricWesBrown that using "homophobe" in the lead sentence is akin to name calling. Furthermore, I think given that there's already a short but substantiated seperate section on Card's views and actions concerning homosexuality, the word is unnecessary. Millernumber1 (talk) 10:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I am by no means interested in covering up what I perceive as bigotry and homophobia; but I concur that the matter is not appropriately addressed by inserting that word in the lede. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

There's two separate issues here, significance and tone. First issue, are OSC's anti-gay activities significant enough to belong in the lede? The current list is "author, critic, public speaker, essayist, columnist, and political activist". Clearly, OSC is an author first and foremost, taking up the bulk of the article. All of the other entries in that list are detailed in about a paragraph each. The space currently occupied by his anti-gay activities is at least equal to the others. Logic thus dictates that if "critic, public speaker, essayist, columnist, and political activist" are significant enough for the lead, then "homophobe" is also significant enough to be in the lead. Based on significance, either remove all the items except for "author", or allow "homophobe" to be added.

Second issue, is the tone of "homophobe" appropriate for a lede? Like "racist", "homophobe" is an accusatory word. I wonder if any BLP leads include the word "racist". Based on the conservative BLP policies, I think that a less accusatory synonym would be more appropriate. Perhaps "anti-gay activist". Sbwoodside (talk) 03:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

While I see your point, it seems a bit clumsy as stated. Perhaps "political activist in many causes, significantly including opposition to same sex marriage"?Millernumber1 (talk) 05:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Or even "political activist in many causes, including stated opposition to same sex marriage"? I don't think "significantly" belongs in there. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

As far as "he advocates the illegalization of homosexual actions; that's at least as significant, if not more significant, as being a more radical position" goes, he has explicitly clarified that he does not wish to make homosexuality illegal, nor does he want homosexuals jailed for their sexuality. I maintain that "anti-gay activist" is both redundant and unrepresentative.Millernumber1 (talk) 17:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I stand partially corrected: at the time he wrote his most notorious essay, he had no problem with the enforcement of the then-extant laws "in flagrant cases" (okay to be gay, just don't be too open about it?). Nonetheless, you have a point, he says that nowadays he wouldn't want to see such laws re-enacted. But he still stands by most of that essay, belongs to a national gays-are-second-class-citizens group, etc.; so I think "anti-gay activist" is both correct and representative. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Anti-gay is a tricky term used by some writers in a specific sense but not necessarily meaningful to the layman and in practice has several different meanings. Perhaps something more plain English can be worked out? I would also like to highlight that there is an apparent intention here to "correct" the article to what he currently states his position being, the article ought to have a long term viewpoint and represent his views in the past as well a current viewpoint on homosexual lifestyles and gay marriage. Fæ (talk) 17:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that referencing that specific issue as opposed to the hundreds of other issues to which he's devoted significantly more print space to (education, immigration, the left-right divide) is unrepresentative. The issue is dealt with twice in the body of the article, including once under its own heading. "Anti-gay activist" is also clumsily worded and situated in the sentence - which is why I altered it initially, putting it under Card's broader political activism.Millernumber1 (talk) 18:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it still seems a bit undue to mention his opposition to homosexuality in the lead sentence while not addressing any of his other political hot-buttons (though it's certainly better now than it was with just "homophobe"). Does anyone else think that either the reference to homosexuality in the lead should be nixed, or more of his political interests should be mentioned there? If you look at his political opinion articles [2] he writes about a huge number of topics more often than homosexuality. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 00:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

It is significant that Card is on the board of directors of the National Organization for Marriage, a body opposed to the legalization of same-sex marriage. That could be worked into the last sentence of the lede within the context of his religious beliefs. If he plays an official role in other lobbying groups, that could also be mentioned in this summary. This 2008 article [3] in School Library Journal discusses Card's political activism in the context of his religious beliefs and that seems to be the approriate way to phrase this. One lengthy commentary on issues of mormonism/same-sex relations in his fiction is given in a 2 page analysis here (pages 102-104).[4] Mathsci (talk) 03:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I could see that, except that Card's association with NOM is very visible in the side box. It just feels rather redundant to me.Millernumber1 (talk) 06:26, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The side box duplicates other things in the lede, for example his religious affiliation. The same reasoning would suggest that all references in the lede to Mormonism should be removed. Mathsci (talk) 06:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Millernumber1. I think it's a question of due weight. Mormonism is hugely more important to Card's identity and writing than is his association with NOM, so it should be more more prominent and more space should be devoted to it in the article. A mention of NOM in the side box as well as the subsection on homosexuality is enough. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 09:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

My proposal is to move "opposition to same-sex marriage" from the first to the last sentence in the lede, so that, after rejigging that sentence, it occurs after the statement about his religion. Mathsci (talk) 12:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that's somewhat reasonable as a solution.Millernumber1 (talk) 13:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I still don't think his association with NOM should be mentioned in the lead when it's in the sidebar and it's no more important than a dozen other things about him that could be (but shouldn't be) mentioned in the lead. I'm not sure why that was added when consensus clearly hasn't been established for it. Anyone else care to opine about whether or not this should be in the lead? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 00:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think it's better than in the first sentence. However, I think that the article has unintentionally become unbalanced due to current news events. Millernumber1 (talk) 00:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

That is an unfortunate feature of wikipedia. I was not totally happy about including NOM in the lede, but that was precipitated by Collect's edits, which did not appear to take this discussion into account. I would suggest a compromise of still keeping the phrase about "opposing the legalization of same-sex marriage" but removing the statement about being a director of NOM. Mathsci (talk) 01:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

More or less agreed, being bold and removing it. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 01:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

While it is inappropriate for the article should say anything like "Orson Scott Card is a homophobe", it would be appropriate to state something like "his views on homosexuality have led to widespread accusations of homophobia". This is factually correct, it is not a violation of NPOV, and there are a ton of sources that can be added to support it. 88.104.31.135 (talk) 23:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a specific example of such an accusation that you feel is notable of itself? The most relevant justification for adding such emphasis would be WP:WELLKNOWN but there would have to be a quality source(s) that can justify considering the accusation itself as notable (we can then disregard whether it is "true" that he is a homophobe or not). Fæ (talk) 03:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

You only have to do a Google search for "orson scott card homophobia" and it will bring up 48,000 matches. Obviously we wouldn't have to include every single source (even if they all were quality sources), but among those there must be quotes from political and social pundits, journalists, and media personalities that would be notable enough for inclusion.88.104.17.61 (talk) 12:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I've just read an interview with Card from Salon.com in Feb 2000, in which he actually states himself that he has been accused of homophobia and that its an old charge that keeps cropping up on the internet. I think if even the subject of the article himself is admitting that he gets accused of being homophobic, it would be sufficient to use as a blanket source for "accusations of homophobia". Article here: http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2000/02/03/card (the quote is about halfway down the page). Of course, this interview was 11 years ago now so I'm sure there's been plenty more since then. 88.104.18.21 (talk) 14:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

At this point, the subsection on homosexuality is much longer than any of his other "personal views". I don't think this is an accurate, weighted representation of his views. But I think it'd be more worth my time to expand his other views (especially on religion, which I think is pretty clearly his most influential and important "personal view" in the context of his writing) than argue for shortening the homosexuality section. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 22:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I concurMillernumber1 (talk) 15:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

It is accurate, and is solidly sourced, though I can understand what you are saying about weight. The issue of "undue weight" in Wikipedia articles can be misleading though as we shouldn't be cutting details out or reducing sections in an article just because they are better written and better sourced than certain other details in the same article. Allowing that to happen can be used as a way to "censor" articles, which Wikipedia is not about (see WP:WELLKNOWN). In my opinion, the section about Card's views on homosexuality is not big enough and seems quite general. If you look at the "homosexuality" section alone compared to the overall size of the article, it's a tiny part of it, yet his views on this topic make up a very large part of his public persona. Obviously not as much as his work as an author, but still highly prominent. Card has been very public about his views on the subject, and much more can be added to it to make it more comprehensive than it is now. But for the time being, the article would be best served by expanding the other sections about his personal views as you said. 88.104.16.251 (talk) 13:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

It appears Card actually follows the teachings of his faith. It might be noteworthy if he opposed them, but right now we have a lot of stuff written in the Captain Obvious manner here, and which is of no actual value to a BLP. It is on the order of writing that a staunch Roman Catholic believes in the Virgin Birth - we could, I suppose, add it to all staunch Catholics, but it would be of no value whatsoever. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Card is a director of the National Organization for Marriage, a non-Mormon organization against the legalization of same-sex marriage; his personal views on homosexuality have been reported in secondary sources, as explained in the main body of the article which the lede summarises. Please read the discussion above a little more carefully. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 22:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey guy - I damn well did read the discussion and your boojum is not' welcome. Read WP:AGF and WP:NPA please. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm wondering if a fairly serious comment Card made in 2008 should be included -- but I think it's been taken down recently from its original sources, even though it's been referenced all over the net: "Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn." That's a pretty dramatic thing to say. Would it be appropriate to add to this article, and if so, how? (While Card did want to keep criminal penalties for gays on the books years ago, he has since reversed his position, but I do not believe he has recanted this more recent statement.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.200.19.148 (talk) 18:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

It's still where it first appeared: right here in the Deseret News. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Note that technically Card is not speaking in his own voice, but rather asking a rhetorical question: "What these dictator-judges do not seem to understand is that their authority extends only as far as people choose to obey them. How long before married people answer the dictators thus: Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn. Biological imperatives trump laws. American government cannot fight against marriage and hope to endure. If the Constitution is defined in such a way as to destroy the privileged position of marriage, it is that insane Constitution, not marriage, that will die." So he's saying that any government that deviates from his ideas is insane, and that married people will bring it down because recognition of marriages that don't produce children is trumped by biological imperatives. Technically, though, he's not saying it himself: he's doing the ol' "If this goes on..." bit. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Aha!! Thank you--the rest of the quote is left out of the quotes I'd found, and it definitely changes the meaning of his statement. (Even if it is only a technicality, it is still an important one as far as genuinely verifiable statements--and any implications--are concerned.) Much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.200.19.148 (talk) 22:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

NY Daily about OSC and his negative views on gay rights

See NY Daily News of 7th May 2012 as a source of interest. However, considering that the image used is the same one that this article uses from Commons, it just might be a bit circular to be a "quality" reference. --Fæ (talk) 16:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The column does not say anything other than what is already properly reflected in this BLP. Most of the NYDN blog is such really, really important stuff like the quote

Turtles need a lot more care and special handling than I'm willing to give them.

Oh yeah - and the really, really major news from Mr. Nazaryan that

Raised a Mormon, Card remains a committed member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and it is not unlikely that his religion has shaped his highly conservative social outlook.

In short - not in any way utile for this BLP as far as I can tell. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Why is this discussion dominated by homosexuality. And why does the introduction in Card's biography even mention his opposition to same sex marriage? These aren't issues for most people, and nor can opposition to the notion of same sex marriages be seen as controversial - Card's views are shared by probably 90% of the world's population.203.184.41.226 (talk) 05:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Despite what the accepted or common notion might be, this is the area that the media covers and that people talk about, and also his most current activism. As such, it has more weight than some other areas. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 13:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal

There is currently a merge discussion about Template:Orson_Scott_Card. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 17:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

One vs. Some

This is in regards to the IP editor's edit summary of it was not "some in the LGBT community" it was one person. Comic project is now on hold. I will be the first to admit that there are no other citable sources that I could find of someone in the LGBT community saying this. That doesn't negate, however, that there are people in article comments, both LGBT and not, making the point that this is reverse discrimination. While I'm not one of those commenters, I'm gay, and I agree with the sentiment. Firing someone for their beliefs is discrimination. Period. If those beliefs begin to affect his work, it's a different story.

So, I'll put it to other editors: we have one person in the LGBT community cited in a reliable source as saying that firing OSC would be workplace discrimination. We have evidence of others saying it, but not in citable sources. What's the appropriate action here?

(As a side note, I've reverted the other changes the IP editor made since changing "he no longer advocates this" to "he claims he no longer advocates this" is introducing bias. For the final change, while there's industry speculation that the project will be allowed to die off to avoid having to fire OSC, it's exactly that: speculation.) – RobinHood70 ^talk 16:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

It's incorrect to put "some" when in fact only one person was quoted as saying it. Comments from the public in relation to the article are not evidence of anything as they cannot be verified (anybody can leave a comment on a website and say that they're gay when they're not). The details of the DC Comics controversy do seem to get played down in this article sometimes, and I've noticed the removal of valid sources with regards to the online petition. Since it seems to have caused quite a storm for both Card and DC Comics, the matter should be included in the article fully without any weasel wording or bias for or against Card. It's relevant to put that the petition gained over 17,000 supporters, though its also relevant to state DC Comics position on the matter. Additonally, it's also relevant to include the fact that Card's Superman story was put on hold, and that it has now officially been replaced by another writer's story in the first issue of the comic. Particled (talk) 15:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree that one is not the same as some. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 00:11, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The Petition was removed because WP is not a place to promote advocacy. It is fine to report (as has been done by reliable sources) that there is a petition. It is not fine to link to the petition, which only serves to attack a living person. Arzel (talk) 01:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Card's Long History of Homophobia

Nothing constructive here. If someone wants to discuss what's actually in the article, start a new thread. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 04:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why is Card's long history of homophobia not referenced in his main page. There's a section on his views on homosexuality, but there's nothing referencing his homophobia in his words and his works."Orson Scott Card's long history of homophobia". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.255.181.79 (talk • contribs) What section did you read? It goes on and on about his views on homosexuality. It also talks about his references to it in his stories. Maybe you didn't like it because it's neutral point-of-view? — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 21:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC) "Homophobia" brands the holders of a political point of view as "sufferers" of a pseudo mental illness. Its success in doing so marks it as the most effective newly coined word in history. Radio Sharon (talk) 00:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC) Depends on your measure. If you want to measure by sheer profitability, surely "death taxes" as a pejorative for the inheritance taxes beloved by such conservative icons as Thomas Jefferson has been the most profitable neologism in human history. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC) This discussion of homophobia in article is way too long. It is giving so much weight for expressing one opinion, and discarding really beautiful writing. Opinion that marriage is union between man and woman is his, and mine, and should be tolerated. As well we need to tolerate the opposite opinion, and accept that. For me it sometimes feels that homosexuals and atheists are most intolerant people today. Pekka Lehtikoski. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.65.88.221 (talk) 03:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Change to bibliography

There's a change being discussed over at Orson Scott Card bibliography. Hop on over and chime in if you feel so inclined. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 02:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Famous Relatives?

the article states that he is the great great grandson of Brigham Young, does this mean then that he is also related to Steve Young, former San Francisco 49er QB (greatx3 grandson of Brigham Young)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.80.36.13 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 9 July 2013‎ (UTC)

If so this makes them third cousins once removed (Card and S. Young's father being third cousins) but B. Young has way too many descendants for that to be noteworthy except in a dedicated article. That is, references to Brigham Young in biographies of his descendants might be fashioned something like "he is a great great grandson of Brigham Young" or "he is a fourth-generation descendant of Brigham Young", where the underlined phrase is linked to the dedicated article Brigham Young's family (or some such title) instead of the biography Brigham Young.

--P64 (talk) 18:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

"and outspoken homophobe" in the opening line does *not* violate BLP

Orson Scott Card *is* an outspoken homophobe, this *isn't* even a controversial point, and it *is* a notable and verifiable part of who he is. Those of you who keep deleting this should provide a legitimate argument as to why this doesn't belong in the opening line beyond "well I don't really like it, it seems kinda controversial and mean and ALSO BLP*"

• Cite some actual language from the BLP please.

I am re-inserting my edit, and I would prefer some actual discussion here rather than just edit warring. Thanks! Ashwinr (talk) 08:49, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Please ask at WP:BLPN. It seems to be an unambiguous BLP violation: it is inflammatory and unattributed, written in the voice of wikipedia. Your editing will probably be restricted if you continue (slow) edit warring to insert this kind of non-neutral content. Within the main body of the article, there is the possibility of adding attributed properly sourced and carefully composed statements. That has already been done to some extent. The last neutral sentence in the lede states Card's position clearly enough without engaging in inflammatory rhetoric and was the result of long discussions on this page. Mathsci (talk) 09:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not unattributed: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/orson-scott-card-homophobic http://www.salon.com/2013/05/07/sci_fi_icon_orson_scott_card_hates_fan_fiction_the_homosexual_agenda_partner/ http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/15/us/superman-controversy

And it's not inflammatory - he is openly homophobic. "Homophobe" is descriptive, not inflammatory. Are you personally offended by the term for some reason? Why is it inflammatory? There's only two people who seem to think so - that's hardly a consensus, and it's rather patronizing of you to - baselessly - claim to speak for a consensus, and moreover suggest that my edit deserves categorical censorship beyond yours. Ashwinr (talk) 16:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

In addition to being a BLP problem, calling someone a "homophobe" also violates WP:LABEL which states "Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." I think we can probably agree that "homophobe" is a value-laden label, and that most sources do not label Card as such. ~Adjwilley (talk) 13:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I actually don't agree that homophobe is a value-laden label, at least not any moreso than "activist" or "liberal" - which come up in biography pages all the times. Most sources do indeed label him as such - he speaks out as a homophobe. The man *is* a homophobe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashwinr (talk • contribs) 16:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Mathsci and Adjwilley. Calling someone a "homophobe" violates WP:NPOV, WP:LABEL, and is inflammatory. I actually goes against WP:LABEL as it say they "are best avoided". It goes against WP:NPOV as the page addresses his views on Homosexuality in a much more WP:NPOV way later on. By adding "homophobe" it inserts Ashwinr's, and others, personal POV.

To include it on this page is an BLP violation of the worst kind and It should not be included, as --ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 16:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

As this RfC includes a WP:BLP violation per se, anyone closing this should remove the discussion immediately. Collect (talk) 18:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Sigh, Is an RfC really necessary? There's already almost unanimous consensus that we shouldn't be calling him a "homophobe" in the 1st sentence. It's like 5 to 1 already. I expect it will be SNOW closed by tomorrow. Hopefully we won't have to have a go at BLP/N as well to settle what should be a small dispute that should be over by now. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Definately a BLP issue. OSC does not consider himself to be such (per later sections in the article) thus it is highly subjective and derogatory opinion to WP:LABEL him as such. Arzel (talk) 18:57, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Adjwilley , a RfC isn't necessary. How do we remove it in an appropriately? This is clearly a case of wp:Snow. At last count there are 5 or even 6 people here that say that agree that calling him a "homophobe" in the 1st sentence is inappropriate, so there is clearly a WP:Consensus. Why do we need a RFC for yet another "Comment"?--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 19:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

You can add one more to the consensus that it should not be included. In fact, I came to the talk page after looking him up for something and thinking the entire homosexual topic was given way too much WP:WEIGHT considering Card's overall biography, history, and work. Things may need to be put in check - this is an encyclopedia, WP:NOTNEWS / WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Morphh ^(talk) 21:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• I have removed the RfC tag because it was added after the initial posting and after I added my comments.[5] It was therefore contrary to WP:TPG because it changed the context of the comments and the question was not neutrally phrased. If the IP wants an RfC, then they should start a new section. They should not relabel an existing section. That is a highly disruptive way to edit. I do not think that an RfC is necessary, since there seems to be consensus here. But if there is one, it should be neutrally phrased. Mathsci (talk) 19:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Politics

first of multiple new sections posted at once

I rewrote section Orson Scott Card#Politics using apt quotation rather than lame paraphrase, as I say in the edit summary. There is more interesting material in Card's 2008 to 2012 columns that are featured here. He wrote in January 2008 as a strong advocate of the US war in Iraq, credited GWBush with a big win nearly complete there (but must have liked Bush on immigration too). Of McCain, later "the moderate I support", he conceded "perhaps McCain (though moderation has never been his hallmark)". --P64 (talk) 18:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Card as a source

In four reference templates (currently refs 28-31) I simply inserted "|author=Card". It isn't worth doing more while there is no chosen ref format (dates, dashes, etc) but every use of Card as a source should name him at the start of the reference text. Someone skimming the references should not need to know that "WorldWatch" or "The Ornery American" is OSC.

P.S. I didn't notice that 'Scorsese' is mis-spelled. --P64 (talk) 18:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

SF awards source

The Science Fiction Awards Database (sfadb.com) is nearly a year old, successor to the Locus Index to SF Awards. Perhaps it can replace Worlds Without End, providing greater reliability, better background linkage (what is this award?), or less repetition in references. I haven't examined it yet but this is a suggestion I'll repeat at the bibliography where it may be urgent. --P64 (talk) 18:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Not just about marriage

Contrary to claims by other editors, I don't see any sort of discussion, let alone a consensus, relating to the exclusion of Card's political views from the lede. (There's a discussion that's nearly two years old which had to do with mentioning his opposition to marriage, but not to do with the subject at hand, which is mentioning only his opposition to marriage.) The suggestion that it is only his opposition to marriage which is controversial runs, in fact, directly counter to everything on the subject in the article; while it's not like supporters of LGBT rights like his association with NOM, the article indicates that other comments about homosexuality (whether since repudiated - such as his advocacy of criminalization - or not - linking homosexuality to child abuse) have also been controversial. The sources indicate that his opposition to gays and gay rights, not just to marriage, is at issue - let's reflect the sources by using more general language. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, are you arguing that we should include "homophobe" in the lede? Millernumber1 (talk) 01:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Certainly not. We should either use more general language ("opposition to LGBT rights" rather than "opposition to same-sex marriage") or enumerate more of the issues ("claim of an association between homosexuality and child abuse" in addition to "opposition to same-sex marriage"). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:59, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I can sort of see your argument, but what rights, other than marriage, does Card oppose? Millernumber1 (talk) 02:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmm...his 1990 comments supporting criminalization of homosexuality are still very much in the public mind, but we'd want to avoid implying that he hasn't repudiated them. (The past-tense used in the lede, "have drawn," might allow that to work...the reader would simply read the section as a whole to learn both the details of that position and the fact that he doesn't hold it anymore.) The comments and works claiming a connection between homosexuality and child molestation are more recent. Maybe, thinking it over again, we could broaden the statement to "whose anti-gay opinions and political positions..." so that we're not stating incorrectly that it's just about actions. what do you think? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

He has a long history of making controversial statements about homosexuality, though I have no idea how to find much of what I read in the late 90s because I killed the brain cell that remembered where I read them. I know that Salon is one of many that has rounded up some of his truly "choice" statements and beliefs. As I recall, after 2006 or so he really latched onto same sex marriage, specifically. But he's commented on sodomy laws, adoption, etc. This stuff should be easy enough to find. I think he still sits on the board the National Organization for Marriage (NOM, which, lol). Have to watch out for Synth problems, but there's plenty of direct quotes kicking around out there, I'm certain. Millahnna (talk) 02:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm...really leery of Roscelese's proposed solution. I think that the "opinions, including" section both indicates what types of opinions, but doesn't overstate. The homosexuality section in the article is already very long - longer than any other section - including what he's most famous for, his novel writing. Yes, it's very much in the public eye right now, but the controversy is caused by about four essays he's written, among hundred of other essays and dozens of novels in the same time period. I think putting that much emphasis on his statements and actions concerning one issue is really walking the tightrope of NPOV - it certainly seems right now that the form of the article is radically unbalanced (and has been for quite a while).

Regarding Millahnna's comments - as I said (and as even the Salon article you link shows), his comments are pretty much limited to about four articles - hardly "latching onto" the subject.

If there's something he's said since the repudiated 1990 article where he specifically opposes LGBT rights, I think that would be worth discussing putting in the lede - but I'm not aware of any. Millernumber1 (talk) 03:02, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

As I said (but perhaps wasn't clear) the nature of the numerous controversies may mean that "anti-gay" rather than "opposing LGBT rights" is a better phrasing, since he's repeatedly tried to link homosexuality and child molestation in recent years without (as far as I am aware) trying to restrict any rights based on this position - including in his fiction writing, not just essays - and separately, has taken action against marriage laws. We can find a broader phrasing that encompasses both. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The expression "opposing LGBT rights" should be avoided. Since "LGBT" includes transsexual issues, using it would imply that Card opposes transsexual rights. In fact the article says nothing about what views, if any, Card has on transsexual or transgender issues. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I think "anti-gay," while certainly not as inflammatory as "homophobe," still teeters on the edge of NPOV. Given the article's already precarious balance issues, are there any alternatives to "anti-gay?" (Additionally, given OSC's warm relationships with some open homosexuals such as Janis Ian, I don't know that "anti-gay" is quite true. Yes, these friendships do not negate his published opinions, but they do indicate that he doesn't practice hate in his personal life.) Millernumber1 (talk) 13:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

"His negative comments about gay people and homosexuality" sounds both too wordy and too mild as a reflection of the article contents. (Also there's still the issue of how the opinions come up in his fiction too.) Throwing the idea out there anyway in case you can riff on it... Maybe "anti-gay writings and political activism"? After all, the comments were written in essays, right? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

What about "whose opinions, including negative comments about homosexuality"? I still think that "opposition to same-sex marriage" is pretty representative, but as an alternative that is more general, I think this might be fair? Millernumber1 (talk) 16:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

FYI, maybe we'll hammer out better wording but for now I've changed it to statements (rather than opinions since no one is trying to divine what is in his head) about homosexuality and LGBT rights (because as we said, marriage isn't the sole issue, but also earlier statements on criminalization and more recent statements on pedophilia). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:49, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Has Card himself ever used a phrase similar to "LGBT rights"? I don't find Roscelese's change to the lede accurately reflects the content in the main body of the article. It would be more correct to say that "his views on homosexuality, in particular his opposition to same-sex marriage, have drawn controversy." I don't think the abbreviation or jargon LGBT is the right language to use in the lede. In the article it is used quite appropriately to describe activist groups that have taken issue with Card's statements. Mathsci (talk) 21:17, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

"Opposition to LGBT" rights is a completely unacceptable phrasing, as I pointed out previously. "LGBT" includes transsexual/transgender issues. Card (to my knowledge) has not commented on such issues, and the article says nothing about what views, if any, he holds on them. Implying that Card is opposed to transgender rights when he has not commented on the issue isn't acceptable, per WP:BLP. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I rather think "LGBT" has passed out of "jargon" by now; it's the accepted term across the encyclopedia. FKC, your point about trans issues makes sense, but to say "LGB" instead seems...odd. (I was thinking of punning on "queer" but puns don't always work.)

As for the substantive point, I reiterate what I've said before. The assertion that it is particularly Card's opposition to marriage which is controversial runs contrary to the sources. We should either generalize, as I did in my edit, or enumerate other issues which have generated controversy, ie. favoring criminalization, associating homosexuality with pedophilia. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:25, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The specific controversy is his view on same-sex marriage. He's never made a statement about "LGBT rights" in general (by either of the above meanings), which in itself is a loaded term, and can include marriage, civil unions, adoption, sexual relationships, discrimination laws, and so forth. Beyond a few statements regarding laws that were already on the books, and opposition to marriage, he hasn't voiced anything, so that's all we should mention. I think Mathsci's latest edit is most accurate. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 02:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Or, to paraphrase, "beyond the remarks that are the source of all this controversy, he hasn't said anything, so why should we say those remarks were controversial?" What a bizarre comment! His opposition to marriage, support of the criminalization of homosexuality, and remarks linking homosexuality to pedophilia are the source of controversy, so that's what we should mention - exactly my argument. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The lede has to be kept in proportion. It should avoid sliding into the language of activist groups without attribution. I cannot see how the word "pedophilia" could be mentioned in the lede, just like the words "anti-gay" or "outspoken homophobe and bigot". Many of Card's statements are in grey areas and his views appear to vary with time. The lede is written in the voice of wikipedia. That is why the neutral phrase "have drawn controversy" is used and not a loaded phrase like "have sparked protests from militant gay activist groups." Anyway inflammatory text that would constitute a BLP violation has to be avoided. Mathsci (talk) 04:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so of the two options I suggested (using general terms, or enumerating the specific issues that have been controversial) you seem to favor using general terms. That being the case, can you suggest text for the lede that accurately reflects the article content? The article content does not support the text that it is particularly his opposition to marriage which has been controversial, as opposed to his support of criminalization or repeated claim of a link between homosexuality and pedophilia.

I don't think that in using the term "LGBT rights" we imply that it is a term Card himself has used; opponents of rights rarely acknowledge that they are rights (on any political issue, not just this one, eg. abortion), but there are terms we use in the encyclopedia because they're encyclopedic regardless of subjects' personal jargon. However, if you would make another suggestion that accurately reflects the content, that might be suitable as well. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The text in the lede was written carefully, which is why "including" was used and not "particularly". I think much of the content in the main body of the article is speculation by commentators (e.g. the section on Hamlet). What is in the lede at present does not involve speculation. It states very clearly that Card's views on homosexuality have not been well received and provides one example of why that is. Using the lede to catalogue prominently every possible aspect—a sort of naming and shaming—would be WP:UNDUE and a violation of BLP. Mathsci (talk) 06:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I understand what you're getting at with marriage as an example, but choosing one example over others that have been equally or more controversial obviously involves some implication that it has been particularly controversial. His support of criminalization is still coming up twenty+ years later - why wouldn't we use that as the example instead? Do you see my point? If you don't think it would be a good idea to name any other aspects (Card hasn't been shy about his view that homosexuality and pedophilia are connected, but very well, sometimes WP editors are more reticent than subjects), then we should use general terms - that he has made remarks opposing homosexuality (as one way to sum up his remarks about pedophilia) and LGBT rights (marriage, criminalization). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

He no longer supports the criminalization laws, and even then, he didn't support enforcing them, so not sure that's close to the same level of relevancy as his gay marriage opposition, that's relevant now. As a supporter of gay marriage rights, I find it sort of pathetic that we need to drudge up 20+ year old stuff, that was likely a majority opinion at the time, and use it to attack someone today as being controversial. People will pick at anything, doesn't make it notable, controversial or relevant. Coverage in reliable sources barely makes it worth any mention at all, something best left for a footnote. As for pedophilia, I don't believe Card used that term. What is referenced is that he said "many homosexuals first entered into that world through a disturbing seduction or rape or molestation or abuse". Pedophilia, the psychiatric disorder characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest toward prepubescent children, is not what is commonly tied to child abuse. Morphh ^(talk) 17:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Even though he says he's changed his mind, the remarks remain part of the controversy around him. We don't want to imply through brevity that he still supports the laws, but I think going into his earlier remarks and subsequent change of mind in the lede would be way too much detail on controversy when there are other things to say about him! Hence my suggestion of using general terms, which allow us to be brief without running afoul of BLP by ascribing views to him which he no longer holds. The point about terminology for pedophilia vs. child abuse is valid - but we seem to be converging on general terms anyway. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

General is fine by me, but only when it accurately reflects what he states. A mention of controversial remarks regarding homosexuality is fine, and we don't need to mention same-sex marriage in the lede (though I don't really think it matters, and I think that's the one area people really care about, being on NOM and all). That being said, I strongly disagree with stating that he's against LGBT rights, since that in itself has no clear definition, and he's only opposed to a subset of said rights. As a parallel, were someone arguing for torture in specific cases (say, the waterboarding controversy), one wouldn't say they were opposed to human rights in general, but instead the specific item. I'd recommend leaving the general "LGBT rights" phrase out. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 02:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you could propose a wording? That might be better than dealing in abstractions, as I (for instance) would be able to suggest rephrases of specific parts while you (for instance) could defend specific parts. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Pseudonyms

last of four new sections posted at once

As someone says above about homosexuality, I have nothing constructive to say here but when section Pseudonyms is so long as section Science fiction, it seems kinda messed up for me.

I think detailed coverage of Pseudonyms belongs in the bibliography and I do have something constructive to say there. Talk: Orson Scott Card bibliography#Pseudonyms, momentarily --P64 (talk) 18:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

This could probably be fixed by making the Science fiction section longer? ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:40, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I have nothing constructive to say here

But when section about Card's view of homosexuality is two times longer than section about his work in science fiction, it seems kinda messed up for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.228.187.10 (talk) 07:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

If you believe that the section should be shortened, then by all means explain which parts should be removed and why. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that the article could be a lot more summary and a lot less quotation at length. Not removing anything, but keeping in the same style as the politics or science paragraphs in the same section. Millernumber1 (talk) 13:17, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I read the article for the first time yesterday and had the same impression as the IP, namely that the article on Card, who is most notable for being an author, spent more time talking about his views on gay marriage than it did his writing career. I believe the name of this problem is WP:COATRACk, i.e. "hanging" the politically-charged hot topic of the day on articles that have a "hook". Undoubtedly Card is a "hook" given his opinions and position on the National Organization for Marriage, but the fact still stands that he is most notable for being an author. I plan on looking over the section when I get more time and hopefully trimming it a little. Summarizing quotes is a good plan, I think. ~Adjwilley (talk) 13:59, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree that summarizing quotes is a good idea - and vis-à-vis the comparative length of the part on his sci-fi work, we could always use more about that! Surely the sources must be available. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree as well Morphh ^(talk) 21:39, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I have just had to partially revert a well-intentioned edit to the homosexuality section by Collect. Although it was motivated by the desire to uphold BLP, it seriously misrepresented the position Card took on homosexuality in 1990, and as such actually violated BLP. What Card did in 1990 was to argue that already existing laws against consensual homosexual behavior should remain in place. Collect altered that, making the article suggest that Card proposed new laws against both consensual homosexual sex and same-sex marriage, which simply wasn't what Card argued. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree that we don't want to misrepresent what was said, but I have to think about what weight should be given to some statements made in 1990 (which he no longer advocates), except to bundle them into an existing summary regarding his overall views. What is the notability of this as measured against his overall biography? This section needs to be trimmed even further than Collect had it. It should be 1/4 or 1/3 of its current size. It's way out of WP:WEIGHT. It should be one or two paragraphs tops. Summarize the entire thing and be done. No need for extensive quotes, back and forth, DC Comics, Movies, etc. State his position, that he's been criticized and some have organized boycotts against him. Morphh ^(talk) 00:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, guess it has to start somewhere. I took a stab at it and condensed it to four paragraphs and tried to remove fluff, WP:UNDUE, and WP:SYN. If you wanted to condense it further, we could merge the DC Comic stuff and Movie criticism together and the boycotts of them into a single paragraph, which essentially say the same thing regarding his recent work. Morphh ^(talk) 00:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I am not opposed in principle to cutting the section back, but I think you have perhaps removed a little too much. What Card said about homosexuality in 1990 is an important part of the record. A case could be made for restoring that material. Also, I've felt it necessary to slightly modify some of your changes, as you can see from the edit summaries I've given. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:27, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying to think why his statements in 1990 are an important part of the record. The reference was a primary source, so we may have issues of undue to consider. I don't see that what Card said in 1990 was unique or controversial at the time. It seems like we're digging through 20+ years of history and placing it in today's context to give it more weight than it would otherwise have. Card also makes that point in his forward along with the perspective that, at the time, he was criticized as being pro-gay. I expect the vast majority of the population was probably anti-sodomy / homophobic in 1990, certainly among religious faiths. So is someone writing in a 1990 faith publication in support of then existing laws notable or is this WP:SYN to show him as controversial? I guess we could show back and forth - he's recently been criticized for views expressed in 1990 and Card rebuts the criticism, but I"m not sure I see the point, considering the amount of space we need to give the overall topic in relation to Card's biography (Wikipedia:BLP#Balance). Even recent views in support of traditional marriage were held by most of U.S. Congress and the President 2 years ago, along with the majority of the American public (particularly in the south where Card lives), with viewpoints just now shifting. Not to suggest we don't cover it, but it seems to me the overall topic is more about conflicting views within the entertainment industry (a form of hollywood blacklisting of conservative views). In any case, we should outline his views of the subject, criticism of Card on the subject, and the most notable events related to it. This needs to be done in the context of WP:WEIGHT for the section and for the overall article. My initial critique was similar to the anon starter of this thread, so my focus was reducing the size. I'm open to including different aspects of his viewpoints and the criticism, but we have to know that not everything can be important and we need to summarize and properly convey the notable material while keeping the article in overall balance. Morphh ^(talk) 14:00, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Why are they an important part of the record? Because anyone interested in what Card has to say about homosexuality now would likely also be interested in what he has had to say about it in the past. There shouldn't be a problem with mentioning it briefly. It's neither here nor there if what Card said then wasn't "unique"; what Card has to say about homosexuality now isn't "unique" either, but would you use that as a justification for removing all mention of his comments about the issue? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I added a short bit that mentions his earlier 1990 writing - users can follow the reference for any additional information if they're interested in what he had to say at that point in time. If needed, we can attach a footnote to the reference. Morphh ^(talk) 13:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

The issue deserves more space than you have given it. If Card's current views are worth mentioning, then the fact that he supported retaining laws against consensual homosexual activity in 1990 is also worth mentioning. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:46, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Show the weight given to it in reliable secondary sources. Morphh ^(talk) 13:52, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Here are a couple sources that do mention it.[6][7] Morphh ^(talk) 14:12, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I've rewritten it to include a short sentence about it. I think we're giving it more than it deserves considering overall coverage, not only of him, but within the topic and the critique seems petty and desperate to me. Morphh ^(talk) 14:43, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

If the 1990 statement about sodomy laws is to be mentioned, they should be mentioned in context. Saying the laws should be kept but not enforced is different than trying to outlaw all consensual homosexual activity (which is not at all what he was trying to do). I'm going to remove the 1990 bit for now until a better wording can be found. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:20, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Hamlet

On a different track, I was reading the paragraph about Hamlet, and it strikes me as being trivial to the point of being a non-event. Card writes a book, a reviewer says he linked homosexuality to pedophilia, Card says he didn't, end of story. Nothing really happened. It seems to me that Card himself should be the best source on what he meant to write (see WP:SELFSOURCE). With that in mind, would there be objections to simply dropping the paragraph? (Another Shakespeare play comes to mind...Much Ado about Nothing...) ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:38, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree. To insinuate there is a link in a book when it is directly denied by its author is pointless. If someone wrote that Card was from Mars, he denied it, and no one else cared, it wouldn't be worth including; likewise the case here. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 23:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Morphh ^(talk) 17:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

However, we obviously discuss Hamlet's Father elsewhere in the article, so it would seem natural to restore the critical reception in the relevant section ("Other genres"). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:30, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not so sure...As I was saying above, Card is (or should be) the best source on what he meant to write. When J.K. Rowling comes out and says that the snake Harry Potter released in Book 1 was Nagini, then for the purposes of Wikipedia, the snake in Book 1 was Nagini. Even if there are publications that disagree with her, they would be treated as WP:FRINGE and given little or no weight. I realize that people feel strongly about the underlying issues, and it's a hot topic right now in the U.S., but the petty back-and-forth in that paragraph – making a big deal out of nothing – seems so un-encyclopedic that I don't think it merits weight in this article at all. There are more reliable, neutral, and substantive critiques of Card's writing if we want to expand on critical reception. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think FRINGE is the right policy to cite here. Card knows what was in his head, but the fact that a bunch of reliable, established publications analyzed his work in a particular way is part of the critical literature around his work. (If nothing else, it means that Card failed to convey, through his book, what he was really thinking.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Granted, Fringe probably wasn't the most relevant link; Weight may have been better. I still hold that some editorial discretion is needed: we can't just parrot what random reviewers have to say, particularly when they're wrong. (I assume we are all in agreement that Card is the expert on what he thinks, even if he failed to convey it in his book.) Anyway, I think I've said my piece, so at risk of repeating myself too much I think I'll step back and see what others have to say. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, certainly I don't think that should be the only angle we cover. Rather, we should précis the critical material, without omitting the analysis of the politics when the sources discuss it, but also including other things they discuss (eg. PW also wrote that in its pacing, it felt like a draft of a longer story). There's more at the article on the book. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Essentially we have a PW review, other sources based on the PW review, and OSC responds to the review calling it completely false. There is no way to cover this without also including the rebuttal by OSC. So essentially we'd have a paragraph about this back / forth. Considering weight in the biography, I think the details of this are best covered in Hamlet's Father. If we wanted to include a simple one sentence nod to the controversy, I think it would be ok. I'll try to add something. Morphh ^(talk) 03:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

It's difficult to include without getting into details. Seems as soon as you include the specifics, it requires a sufficient rebuttal for NPOV. Morphh ^(talk) 03:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I think a sentence would be fine since we have an article on the book. "PW wrote that it focused on linking homosexuality to pedophilia and that the pacing was off, other reviewers also talked about the homosexuality thing." But not in those words. (I think your recent edit, "for its alleged content," is very unwise.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't care for the phrasing "alleged content" myself, but trying not to go into the actual debate because that would require a rebuttal. I'm not sure we can lay an accusation of linking homosexuality and pedophilia with just a simple "which he denied". I was thinking of "alleged homosexual themes".. I don't know - it's late and I'm going to bed. haha Morphh ^(talk) 04:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

"Alleged homosexual themes" is vague enough to be misconstrued as "it was controversial because homosexuality is controversial"...but maybe if I sleep on this issue too other people will weigh in in the meantime. Good night! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah well - doesn't seem that anyone else has weighed in. Having thought about it some more, do you suppose that it really is necessary to include Card's rebuttal if we include it in the article from the perspective of "here is some criticism of his book" as opposed to "here is some criticism of his positions"? Remember, PW's comment on the homosexuality theme in the book wasn't solely that the opinion was unorthodox, but that from the reviewer's perspective, it, rather than a story, seemed to be the whole point of the book. Card also responded to PW's criticism of the book's poor pacing, but I don't think people have argued that we need to include that. Authors tend not to like unfavorable reviews - that's only natural. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I had rewritten the sentence since my last post as "In 2011, Card received critical review for offensive sexual themes alleged in his 2008 novella Hamlet's Father.", which I think sounds better. It looks like what you were suggesting as it targets the book and it covers the topic without getting into the particulars that would require a rebuttal. For this, I think the term "alleged" suffices to suggest the viewpoint is disputed. Morphh ^(talk) 20:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

"Offensive themes related to homosexuality" might be clearer, but I'm fine with your wording. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:05, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that's sort of implied by the section and the prose becomes awkward when you try to work in the allegation of it. Morphh ^(talk) 21:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

"alleged to be present in..."? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:07, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Either way looks good to me. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 22:35, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Last section of the lede

Somebody today committed a BLP violation by including a statement that Card was a closet homosexual. Could my reversion of that random piece of vandalism please could not be used as an excuse to restart the discussion about the last sentence in the lede? It will never be perfect. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 15:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The two are unrelated. Discussion is ongoing, but there's clearly no consensus to single out Card's opposition to marriage contrary to what's in the sources. You are mistaking your repetition of your own opinion for consensus from others. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Card's views are nebulous and changing. What is there at the moment is not speculation nor is it inflammatory. There has been consensus for a long while about including his past opposition to same-sex marriage. The NYT puts it in their headline.[8] Mathsci (talk) 16:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

And the Los Angeles Times headline is "Orson Scott Card's antigay views prompt 'Ender's Game' boycott," the Hollywood Reporter headline is "'Ender's Game' Author's Anti-Gay Views Pose Risks for Film", and the Guardian headline is "Activists call for Ender's Game boycott over author's anti-gay views." We're going around in circles because you keep ignoring my argument: marriage is an issue but it isn't the only issue, and even if Card's views have changed, his support of criminalization, for instance, keeps coming up in sources. That's why I think it's a better idea to use more general language. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Might you show us where headlines are considered a "reliable source" per WP:RS? Last I checked, the article itself is a reliable source, the headline is not. Headlines are written to get attention, not to be the article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

That's why I don't think Mathsci's cherry-picking the NYT headline is valid. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Curiously enough, consensus does not agree with you about the claim. Nor do I see "cherry-picking" on his part in this. Now if you follow WP:CONSENSUS you well ought to accept it rather than raise pretty useless arguments. Cheers. `Collect (talk)

We're getting a bit meta here, but if you read the discussion that has taken place, a number of users have supported the use of more general language, eg. User:Millernumber1's suggestion "whose opinions, including negative comments about homosexuality" or User:Araignee's saying that general terms are fine and we do not need to mention same-sex marriage. There certainly is no consensus for a specific wording in general terms, but there's also an obvious lack of consensus to single out same-sex marriage in preference to other issues. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify - my suggested wording was not my ideal wording - I think I contributed to the original wording (the "including opposition to same-sex marriage") back in 2011, and I still think it's the most representative statement. Millernumber1 (talk) 13:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I guess you missed the name of the organization he used to be a member of, then. I kind of figure that since he was associated with that organization that it would be an eensy bit of a clue that it was an organization he was involved in, but your mileage may vary. Collect (talk) 19:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I guess you missed the part where his support for criminalization and other anti-gay remarks keep coming up in sources. It's okay, some people don't read very thoroughly; it doesn't make you a bad person. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Snark does not belong on a talk page. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Pot, allow me to introduce Kettle. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 19:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps of pertinent note?:

  Those who now use this essay ["The Hypocrites of Homosexuality," Feb. 1990 issue of Sunstone magazine] to attack me [Card] as a "homophobe" deceptively ignore the context and treat the essay as if I had written it yesterday afternoon. That is absurd -- now that the law has changed (the decision was overturned in 2003) I have no interest in criminalizing homosexual acts and would never call for such a thing, any more than I wanted such laws enforced back when they were still on the books. But I stand by the main points of this essay, which concerns matters internal to the Mormon Church.---Orson Scott Card, May 2, 2013 link

  --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what point you're making here - that we should disregard reliable sources' pointing out that Card's previous remarks remain controversial because...why? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I think Hodgdon may have been responding specifically to the posts above talking about "his support for criminalization". ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• Well, IMO the contention that Card's statements wrt criminalization constitute prima facie evidence for his harboring of blatant homophobia is indeed widespread, emanating as they do from rather prestigious quarters...hence are inarguably "notable" (and--again, IMO--such notability overrides considerations of wp:UNDUE, Card being, of course, a Mormon corridor religio-political pundit of sorts). But it simply can't be phrased as a jujgement by Wikipedia itself but must be placed wuithin the mouths of the commentators that have made and make it. That said, Card's insistence that his view was and is misunderstood should be included as well (i.e.--my paraphrase of his explanatory statement here--something to the effect that he actually was simply advocating that Utahns never should enforce sodomy laws except in the most exrreme circumstances and his Let-the-laws--remain-on-the-books was simply a recognition that within the Utah political/social milieu at the time, his conservative LDS readers wouldn't have suppported decriminalization in any case, so blah blah blah. (Or something like that(?)))--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 13:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oh, I see. As I mentioned above, I do know that he's since changed his mind, but "said that he supported enforcing anti-gay laws, then stated that he didn't and that had never been his position, but his previous remarks are still coming back to haunt him" is way too much detail for a sentence in the lede; since it's still part of the controversy, I thought we needed something more general than marriage, but it seems like in this thread, consensus is emerging to mention marriage specifically. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

To repeat/clarify my comment from another section, I don't think we HAVE to mention "including same-sex marriage", but we definitely shouldn't say "LGBT rights" (too inclusive), and I can see value in leaving the "including" part, as his contemporary importance per volume of RS coverage seems to be 1) his views on same-sex marriage, and 2) Ender's Game. It doesn't hurt to leave those in so as to connect the reader to the topic. If all a reader read were the lead, they'd leave knowing what the majority RS says about him already. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 04:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Hm, do you think (re: weighting more towards recent coverage) that we should also mention the boycott? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. The name of the LGBT activist group (or groups) would have to be mentioned in the lede and that would be WP:UNDUE. Almost certainly WP:NOTNEWS applies here: the film has not even opened yet. The reference to the NYT was just a side remark. Mathsci (talk) 07:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

At this point, the boycott is not really the core. As mentioned, the film isn't even released yet, so there's been no boycott to date. That being said, the boycott is not because of the book/content, but instead, once again, because of his views on same-sex marriage. So it all leads back to that. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 13:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Comic Con

We currently write "One studio executive expressed the opinion that Card's involvement in promotion for the movie adaptation of Ender's Game could be a liability for the film, and Card did not take part in the Ender's Game film panel at San Diego Comic Con in July 2013 with the other principal cast and crewmembers of the film." Do we know that Card did not go to Comic Con for this reason? The way we present it, it seems like WP:SYN. I know the source speculated this, but seems we should qualify it or remove it if we don't have something that better sources the reason Card did not take part in the panel. For all we know, he was on vacation or preoccupied and it had nothing to do with this. Morphh ^(talk) 15:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Card is anti-, specifically, "S.S. sex"? or is anti-"homosexuality," en toto?

An editor recently changed "same-sex sexual relations" to "homosexuality" as the activity to which OSCard objects. However, such a characterization is one to which, ironically, Card ALSO objects:

Because I took a public position in 2008 opposing any attempt by government to redefine marriage, especially by anti-democratic and unconstitutional means, I have been targeted as a "homophobe" by the Inquisition of Political Correctness. If such a charge were really true, they would have had no trouble finding evidence of it in my life and work. But because the opposite is true -- I think no ill of and wish no harm to homosexuals, individually or as a group -- they have to manufacture evidence by simply lying about what my fiction contains. [...Etc. etc. etc.]

Should Wikipedia conflate homosexual sex and homosexual orientation simply because opinion makers critical of Card in the media do, as well? Or would WP do well to hew to a more nuanced (read: NPOV) standard? Perhaps something of the flavor @ WP's blp of pope Francis?

Bergoglio affirms the Church's teaching: that homosexual practice is intrinsically immoral, but that every homosexual person should be treated with respect and love (because temptation is not in and of itself sinful).[276] Bergoglio opposes same-sex marriage. When Argentina was considering legalizing it in 2010, Bergoglio opposed the legislation,[277][278] calling it a "real and dire anthropological throwback".[279] In July 2010, while the law was under consideration, he wrote a letter to Argentina's cloistered nuns in which he said:[277][280][281]

In the coming weeks, the Argentine people will face a situation whose outcome can seriously harm the family...At stake is the identity and survival of the family: father, mother and children. At stake are the lives of many children who will be discriminated against in advance, and deprived of their human development given by a father and a mother and willed by God. At stake is the total rejection of God's law engraved in our hearts.

Let's not be naive: This is not a simple political fight; it is a destructive proposal to God's plan. This is not a mere legislative proposal (that's just its form), but a move by the father of lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God... Let's look to St. Joseph, Mary, and the Child to ask fervently that they defend the Argentine family in this moment... May they support, defend, and accompany us in this war of God.

After L'Osservatore Romano reported this, several priests expressed their support for the law and one was defrocked.[282] Observers believe that the church's opposition and Bergoglio's language worked in favor of the law's passage and that in response Catholic officials adopted a more conciliatory tone in later debates on social issues such as parental surrogacy.[283][284]

Rubin, Bergoglio's biographer, said that while taking a strong stand against same-sex marriage, Bergoglio raised the possibility in 2010 with his bishops in Argentina that they support the idea of civil unions as a compromise position.[285] According to one news report, "a majority of the bishops voted to overrule him".[285] Miguel Woites, the director of the Catholic News Agency of Argentina, denied that Bergoglio ever made such a proposal,[286][287] but additional sources, including two Argentine journalists and two senior officials of the Argentine bishops conference, supported Rubin's account.[288]

According to two gay rights activists, Marcelo Márquez and Andrés Albertsen, in private conversations with them Bergoglio expressed support for the spiritual needs of "homosexual people" and willingness to support "measured actions" on their behalf.[285][289]

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 02:45, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The above comment seems to be in response to one of my edits. Perhaps the editor is confused, due to not realizing that the word "homosexuality" can mean different things in different contexts? In this context, it obviously means sex between people of the same sex. Thus, there isn't any difficulty saying that Card is opposed to homosexuality. That Card has made statements to the effect that he doesn't have anything against homosexuals as individuals doesn't contradict this. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

If you have to put your situation into a specific context for it to be valid, then you have lost your argument. You have twisted your argument to say that Card is specifically against something he has said he is specifically NOT against by changing the meaning of that to fit something he said he is against. We don't get to change the meaning of words or the context of their presentation to fit the narrative we are trying to push. You have no basis for your change. Arzel (talk) 13:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, you're simply wrong about this. Card didn't say that he wasn't against "homosexuality". He said he had nothing against homosexual people as individuals. "Homosexuality" can be used to refer to either a homosexual sexual orientation or homosexual sexual behavior, but it never means the same thing as "individual homosexual people". It's not my fault if you don't understand this. Hopefully, someone who understands this issue better than you do will revert you. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

He has not spoken out against homosexual orientation, either as a class or as an individual. As such, it would be extremely misleading to state he spoke against "homosexuality", when he is very specific about his opposition (marriage and behaviour). ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 13:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

To say that Card has spoken out against homosexuality is perfectly accurate, and it is fatuous to suggest otherwise. "Homosexual sexual behavior" is one of two commonly understood meanings of "homosexuality", and the meaning that's relevant here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:44, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and qualified the type of homosexual behavior to which Card objects in the article. (diff is HERE.) Indeed, a reference from an article in today's Catholic Online:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church offers these clear words: "Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved."

--got me to look up a corollary from Scott's equally socially conservative Mormonism (um "conservative' at least...nowadays; see Mormon polygamy):

... When two people of the same sex join in using their bodies for erotic purposes, this conduct is considered homosexual and sinful by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, comparable to sexual relations between any unmarried persons. Masturbation is not condoned but is not considered homosexual. ... [etc etc]

And Card's statements seem to quite consistently hew to this POV: anti-unchaste sex (incl. homosexuality as well as premarital hetero sex), not so much anti S.S. orientation, per se.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Cmt - Correlations between an individual's political views and those expressed for the most part by the clergy of his/her clergy are probably pretty common. Eg. famous Mormon--and, alike OSCard, a Democrat--Harry Reid is fairly pro-Life: "Political positions of Harry Reid#Abortion issues."

So, in Card's particular case, Card happens to be Mormon and also against s.s.marriage. ... Whereas Card's uber conservative co-religionist Glenn Beck [...or, I suppose, as Beck might describe himself: the Libertarian-leaning if sometimes neo-Con independent Glenn Beck?) has always been quite moderate w/rgd gay rights. (Go figure: Beck is also vehemently anti-undocumented immigrant whereas Card's essentially so-called "pro-'amnesty.'")

In any case - obv., if Ross Douthat ever were to pen science fiction and it got optioned etc etc , the work, would be energetically boycotted by many LGTB activists and their sympathizers as well (see the following-linked Esquire piece, for example--> link); yet, Ross's co-religionist, the best-selling novelist (heh heh, a little joke there: See "Those Who Trespass") Bill O'Reilly is apparently more circumspect in verbage with regard to LGTB rights, accdg to New York Magazine.....--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 16:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Controversy around Superman inexplicably undefined

The section dealing with Card's penning of Superman conspicuously lacks explanation for why Card's views make him a controversial author for that franchise specifically; considering that protests aborting his work stemmed from perceived ideological dissonance between Card and Superman's philosophies, a few words demonstrating those differences are appropriate. The now-redacted quote I included for that purpose did so succinctly, clearly casting the tenor of the protest in the topical section- contrary to Morphh's assertion, neither WP:UNDUE, WP:BALASPS. Edit suggestions for filling this hole are needed.Mavigogun (talk) 13:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Read the policies. Especially including BLP and OR policies, and the reliable NPOV. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

It is our presentation that is to be neutral- not what we report. Card's view is what it is- as is that of those who spoke in opposition to him: not depicting those positions accurately is imbalanced. Inclusion of reporting on the topic is not OR. BLP is rightly sighted- and should be among foremost considerations when working to complete this section -no argument there. Consider drafting a solution that accommodates your concerns- that is, after all, what this section is about.Mavigogun (talk) 13:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The entire Superman thing is already given too much weight. We give it more space then his views on Ender's Game, and you want to add quotes from some other person's POV without any balance. How is that person's viewpoint represented, not only to the issue itself, but in the entire body of sources that is the life of OSC. It's the flea on the wing on the fly on the frog on the bump on the log in the hole in the bottom of the sea. If you want to add the reference as a source to the existing content, I'm fine with that - you can even add a footnote in the source, but beyond that.. inclusion would be improper in multiple ways. Morphh ^(talk) 14:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Let me also state that if we're looking at NPOV, there is very little with regard to Card's rebuttals. Almost the entire section is the critic POV. Not that I agree with Card, but if we're going to add any quotes, it should be from him, not some red link freelance writer. Morphh ^(talk) 14:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

You misunderstand me: I'm not soliciting a reiteration of what you judge unworthy, but the drafting of text that explains the core and cause of the protest. "He had views and some people didn't like them" is inadequate. Card's many other projects include comic books, children's books, and video games that were not scuttled by protest or petition. The subject of this particular comic played a key roll in the outcome- and that needs to be depicted here. An advocate for discrimination (Card) was rejected by some fans as inappropriate for voicing a champion of the oppressed (Superman); Card may have done a fine job- who knows? That's not for us to judge. A few words to that effect are warranted. Take your best shot. Contribute. Make it lean. Critique IS a contribution- but alone does not meet the need.Mavigogun (talk) 14:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Cmt - The Card / co-author Aaron Johnston Superman iteration's 2013 inkbrusher - pull out / intented boycott by a number of comicbookstores recv'd massive coverage so yes some reference to SM's all-American inconography IMO would be pertinent. (By the way, D.C. Comics never said the comic book had been shelved but just that they were hoping eventually to find a replacement for illustrator Chris Sprouse (eg see link). Heh heh - apparently arms-manufacturor Tony Stark is considered less clean cut? see OSC, Ironman @ Amazon--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 14:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, if we can craft something that better explains the cause in a balanced way and integrate it well, I'm fine with that. However, we can't say that Card is an advocate for discrimination or oppression without much sourcing and rebuttal (causing more weight issues), so it would be better to just append something like critics didn't feel Card's positions reflected the ideals of Superman or something to that effect. Morphh ^(talk) 15:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I modified the first sentence of the Superman issue to include the cause. Morphh ^(talk) 15:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

It's a good start- thanks. As to the use of the word "discrimination", if useful, it could easily be supported with reference without adding weight- that, after all, is why we reference sources to begin with- we aren't in the business of making arguments.Mavigogun (talk) 12:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but it's a point of view, an opinion regarding the larger issue, so we'd attributed it and then to remain neutral we might have to include the alternate pov. It becomes a coatrack for the debate, as all holding such views are labeled as discriminatory by one side, while the other side would argue they're not, defenders of traditional family values, yada yada yada. For example, see the first quote in this section which might be his rebuttal. So I think it better if we avoid it and leave that for the larger debate covered in those articles. Morphh ^(talk) 02:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Suggested quotation

Only when the marriage of heterosexuals has the support of the whole society can we have our best hope of raising each new generation to aspire to continue our civilization.—Orson Scott Card (The Mormon Times, 2009)^{'Ender's Game' director Gavin Hood on Orson Scott Card's anti-gay marriage rants: He wrote a book about compassion and yet he himself is struggling with that in his real life, NY Daily News, 2013-08-02}

The above quote is not critical of Card. Rather, it succinctly states his views. - Should we include? Pls comment. ;~) --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Of course it's critical - it was cherry plucked and placed at the end of that article for the purpose of describing his intolerance. It doesn't succinctly state his views - it doesn't even cover the premiss you discussed above regarding morality, which you stated is what the sources support. Why not use one of those quotes? Personally, I think we should avoid quote boxes as it could be WP:IMPARTIAL and gives the section additional weight that becomes WP:UNDUE. My point above was that most of the content in that section is critical and the tone is that of an opponent viewpoint. We're not stating how Card has received criticism for his "defense of traditional marriage" or how his views line up with the church and many christian Americans. We start from the position of a critic, that Card is wrong, he's oppressive, it's inequality, etc, and I agree with that position, but at some point we have to look at it and say with a strait face that we're being impartial and that the tone is balanced and both viewpoints are presented. And we have to do all that with some thought to the overall balance and weight of the article. Adding a quote from Card that presents his intolerance does not improve this. Morphh ^(talk) 16:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

WHOA. Stop right there. The quote is not critical- the quote just is. You- or another -may criticize the quote- but a quote can be reference from a source without referencing an argument present in that source. It is not our job to craft a presentation of Card that promotes a particular reception- parsing quotes to isolate the reader from them in order to promote a particular impression is sımple partisan advocacy. (It is not for us to craft and promote a neutral value reading of a holocaust, for example- presenting the pro-holocaust view is not "balance"). It is not our job to make Card look good- or bad -but to present the essence. It is up to the reader to consider the context. The noteworthyness of the quote is evident from the copious reporting. It's my impression that there is a partisan effort being made here to protect Card from his own history; that's not our job. Moreover, these events are a huge chapter in his story. Balance requires coverage.Mavigogun (talk) 13:16, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:NPOV states "The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." I think picking one quote of many regarding the issue and the only quote in the entire article for all of Card's career is partisan advocacy. Of his quotes, why this subject, why this quote? Seems Ender's Game would be a better subject to quote Card on if we were being objective. But even if picking just this topic, is this the most prominent? Not from all the articles I've read. By selecting this, we are doing just what you describe - parsing quotes to isolate the reader in order to promote a particular impression. I hope you're not charging me with bad faith and some partisan effort to scrub his history. I do not support his views and I feel ridiculous being the one here seeming to defend Wikipedia policies. If I followed my partisan views over policy, I wouldn't be saying anything. You can look at this talk and see where the partisan focus is regarding editing Card's article - it's not on his work, which is the basis for his notability. As for balance, the section on his Homosexuality views get more space then almost every other section in the entire article - second only to Science Fiction, but only because we quote some of his book titles. This is not balance for his biography. According to WP:BLP, "The idea expressed in WP:Eventualism – that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape – does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times." Thus we should be very limited in the extent to which we cover this topic. We could quote all day long from a different POV that could portray him in positive or negative light - we shouldn't do that. No one is trying to remove the history, but we do need to use editorial judgement picking the most relevant disputes from reliable sources and present the conflict / controversy in a succinct way that provides article balance. Morphh ^(talk) 02:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

This is the root of the disconnection: "You can look at this talk and see where the partisan focus is regarding editing Card's article - it's not on his work, which is the basis for his notability". Card's notability has evolved. The article should reflect that. Protestations of inclusion seem circular: Card's advocacy of prohibition of gay marriage isn't noteworthy enough to warrant quotes from critics- and single quotes aren't representational- and accurate summation without quotes is decried as lacking neutrality- and including those quotes would add undue weight...

I'm not charging anybody with bad faith (perhaps a degree of fan-boy blindness). Let's move on in the only way we can- with consensus. This cycle of unilateral redaction isn't useful; I suggest replacing it by bring objections here, seeking consensus, floating proposed text, and counting hands. Of course, that, too, might be just another nightmare- if participants are working counter-purpose. The question is "how can I make this edit better?" not "this topic lacks legitimacy." That this is an important part of Card's story is not credibly disputable- all we should be contesting here is the most appropriate way to represent it- which, for sure, includes scale and tone. Of course, I could be wrong- and other considered voices would be helpful and appreciated.Mavigogun (talk) 10:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah Yes, I've been active on Wikipedia for 8 years and I'm such a Card FanBoy that I've first edited the article a couple weeks ago. ENOUGH - WP:NPA I agree Card's notability has expanded to cover additional topics and the article does reflect that. Most of what we're seeing recently is tied to and covered in the topic Ender's_Game_(film)#Controversy. We have to keep in mind the writing of an article from a historical perspective and not the latest news. WP:BALASPS "For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." My logic is not circular - each one is WP:NPOV, it's linear as it shouldn't move past step 1, 2, or 3. I directly quoted NPOV above regarding quotes - let's follow the policy and "Try not to quote directly from participants". There is no edit to a quote box - you can only redact it. It's difficult to provide context, be impartial, or provide proper balance for a quote box regarding a controversial topic. It also has issues with WP:STRUCTURE as it draws the focus point to the quote - "Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure". If you think the section is missing an important point covered in the quote that is sufficiently covered in reliable sources, then bring it forward and we can look at how best to integrate it, as again I highlighted above "instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." We should be looking at how can we make this article better overall. Morphh ^(talk) 13:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

To follow up, it's not the contents of the quote I object to including. It's primarily the quote box and the entirety of the quote without context or balance. If we think it is important to relay that Card thinks heterosexual marriage is the best hope for future procreation, I'm ok with including that. I'd also be ok with quoting part of it as integrated into the overall prose of the section to convey the point. I do think we have to be cautious about making too many points with little context or balance. Hodgdon's secret garden described some of that in prior sections. It becomes... Card disapproves of homosexual behavior and same sex marriage - and he said this disapproving thing, and he said this disapproving thing, and he said this disapproving thing, and he said this disapproving thing. This does cause concerns with overall weight as we expand points and counterpoints, views and context. We need to weigh what are the most contentious and most discussed points regarding Card's views and cover those with balance, for the section and the article. Morphh ^(talk) 14:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I reckon we're on the same page, judging by the last sentence. I acknowledge that when the subject is speech, quotes may be both natural and necessary- or may introduce a burden that simply describing what they address would not. You rightly observe the excesses of the quote box. I'd much prefer a summation with ref's to a ping-pong quote match of condemnation, refutation, equivocation, and denial. As to WP:NPA, you introduced the topic of your motivation- "I hope you're not charging me with bad faith and some partisan effort to scrub his history"; I had no interest to impugn- only relay the impression that the source of differing values was not seen by me to be calculated. Frankly, talking about the messenger instead of the message usually produces nothing good. Mavigogun (talk) 11:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• My issue with the quote is that I'm not sure why we would choose this one over another one to highlight. It's not the one that sources zero in on as exemplifying his views. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• Cmt - As long-time WPdians know, use of appellations w negative connotations applied even to folks everybody's come to agree is/was bad (I dunno, Idi Amin) obv.ly is poor ency.pdc form, so "homophobic" etc are out; 'tis better to describe a subject's beliefs/acts and let readers come to their own conclusions.

  Anyway, to show a subject's beliefs via a quote (one contextualized within the flow of text and not in a stand-alone box, I suppose?) is one way--although it's entirely possible that the one I opened this discussion with wasn't the best for this purpose, either.

  As for how much weight is given to the issue. There are subarticles about his works and about the film adaptation, so stuff written there can eventually be summarized a bit here, if it hasn't been already. (Eg - Here is a current quote from a OSCard's Ender's Game - universe fanboy Dwight Wade @WhatCulture!):

  [... ...] There is so much to work with here and Card did an amazing job of predicting what the world may look like. Written in 1985, Ender’s Game deals with topical issues like population control, rampant xenophobia and violent, excessive bullying. A major plot point revolves around the use of an anonymous “Net” that connects all of civilization through computers. The similarities to our world, almost 30 years later, are eerie.

  Beyond these plot points, though, lies an amazing adaptation of the traditional hero’s journey. Friends are made and lost. Lessons are learned. Battles are won. Harsh consequences are rendered with regularity.

  There is a reason Ender’s Game won the Nebula Award in 1985 and the Hugo Award in 1986. This is a great story, one worthy of the millions of fans who follow it and of an amazing film adaptation.

  Yes, Hollywood knows how to screw up a good thing. They also know how to make a damn good movie though. I for one choose to look on with optimism, with the hope that one the best books of my youth will get the treatment it deserves.

  I myself am a fanboy of sorts of Card's nonfiction, I suppose, having read a number of his essays and even a couple of his few non-fiction books. On the subject of gay rights, although I'm by instinct quite lefty/liberal, for lack of better terms, on the gay rights issue I wasn't among the first one to become enamored of the most radical of progressive change, either. (I suppose mine has been an everyday-person version of the so-called evolutions that the Clintons and that Barack have famously experienced, as well--if, in fact, theirs were somewhat politically calculated also...).

  All this said, what I enjoy about Card's nonfiction is his straightforward approach to expressing his opinions. And he is from Provo, Utah, moved out to attend Notre Dame for a tiny bit as a PhD candidate, then settled in the Bible belt where he commutes to teach at the Mormons' only independent Bible college (sic: I shd say Bk of Mormon college, I 'spose). And he is verrrry religious. So, in Card's heart of hearts (as well as those of other members, former or current, of NOM) he prolly would agree wholeheartedly with the stance taken by Vlad Putin. And Card is no dummy so knows that if one is outspoken and pithy, one becomes a poster boy for "Homophobia" - hence demonized by "the Liberal Establishment." So he was likely pretty aware of what he risked and was willing to endure what "abuse" he's so-far received, I'd guess. (That said, any boycott will perhaps have limited effect due to the fact that the movie's content and most of its makers are pro-gay and the fact that, whereas the online presence of gay activists is impressive, the mainstream public is less concerned about their issues, really. Just my impression. ((Heck, the circulation of Card's columns in the Mormon Times easily strip the circulation of, say, the Advocate, I'd imagine. A factoid that might be surprising to those who forget that there are as many LDS in the US as there are Jews....)))--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 14:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Uh, what is this wall of text hoping to accomplish? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Um, self-outting as a quasi Card fanboy? Well, I do likewise provide some contextualizing commentary wrt the fact that OSCard's secular 30,000-circ. Rhino Times pieces, tho featured in a NYTimes review, are arguably of a lower profile than his sectarian writing at the 178,000-circ. Mormon Times. (Guess I'll make an edit and add the Des News column to [[Orson_Scott_Card#Reviews_and_critiques|appropriate article section].)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Bytheway, w rgd repercussions Card senses have been due his NOM activism & anti-gay rights sectarian (LDS) punditry, he believes - per a Deseret News "Faith" section column of his in 2011 - "[...Card is] not invited to speak or teach at most universities, despite the popularity of [his] fiction on college campuses; [he is (now)] rarely mentioned for awards in [his] field. Few are the fellow writers who list [him] on social networking sites, or make positive references to [his] work[...]." (Card's assertion is refutedcountered by Kaimi Wenger at LDS blog Times & Seasons.) IMO Card's above quote should be summarized (/snippeted) somewhere in the article, eventually, as well.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 16:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I echo Roscelese's sentiment- a safety pressure valve for OCD this ain't.Mavigogun (talk) 09:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd too appreciate were we to limit the talk to specific changes rather than a superfluous spotlight on one's perception of OSC. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 03:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)