Talk:Orson Scott Card

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Cleanup Taskforce article This article is being improved by the Cleanup Taskforce to conform with a higher standard of article quality. It is likely to change frequently until completed. Please see its Cleanup Taskforce page for more details.

Cleanup Taskforce page → Edit | Purge

==Orson Scott Card==

The two main problems with this article are that the lead section is far too long, and that so few references have been added. I have attempted to address the second concern, but the first gets a bit messy for me: I'm not sure where to move the information and I haven't decided on a lead section that looks quite right, so I'll ask you to help out with this.

There are a few instances of weasel words, such as "...have generated a certain amount of controversy in the community of science fiction fandom." how much controversy are we talking about? Are we talking about one or two science fiction readers complaining? "...has confused many as to how a writer who sometimes portray gays positively in his fiction can be so virulently opposed to the gay-rights movement in his nonfiction writing" confused how many, and who specifically?

The Early life and Family sections are one paragraph each, perhaps they could be merged somehow? I can't think of an appropriate name for the new section, however. --Lethargy 02:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Update: it may be better to just remove the science fiction fandom controversy. We may never find reliable sources to back that up, and science fiction fandom is a small enough place that we may be talking about one or two posts to a forum. --Lethargy 16:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
http://www.schoollibraryjournal.com/article/CA6523290.html?desc=topstory

http://www.hbook.com/blog/2008/01/at-least-they-didnt-give-it-to-mittens.html#links There are more than one or two fans that are upset with his work.


Added to User:Heidijane/Desk RJFJR 16:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Archive 1 Archive 2


Contents

[edit] NPOV

my reading of Hypocrites of Homosexuality is that the statements it makes about laws against homosexuality, etc, are only in reference to such laws within the Mormon church, rather than for the nation at large as the article implies. These are very different because the Mormon church is a religious institution joined and left by choice and has the bible as a reason while the nation...doesn't have these same factors. Perpetualization (talk) 21:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

From my memory of the essay, that doesn't sound correct. The language of "polity", "keeping laws on the books", and "putting people in jail" (more in sadness than in anger, of course) strongly suggests to me the reverse. The audience may be intended to be LDS, but the topic ranges more broadly, whether by way of his primary thrust or by way of illustration of it. Alai (talk) 04:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • All I see here is one editor viewing it one way, and one (now two, including me) viewing it another. Hardly sound reasoning to insert (and reinsert) your preferred reading of the text. Bellwether BC 05:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
It's not a matter of "preference", it's a matter of what the text does or does not say. If the essay includes comments that apply beyond Mormon practice, any number of editors prefering otherwise is neither here nor there. On what basis do you conclude that it's refering to LDS "law"? The essay says: "This applies also to the polity, the citizens at large." Explicitly not about the Church. "... those whoflagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.": 'Society', not members of a particular church. And, "The goal of the polity is not to put homosexuals in jail." Clearly, if LDS practice was what was being discussed, putting people in jail wouldn't even be at issue. Incidentally, in what way do BLP and NPOV justify your repeated reverts to the "Mormon church" version? (BTW, also not how said church prefers to be referred to.) Alai (talk) 06:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Orson Scott Card is a very prolific writer who has a lot to say on a wide variety of subjects. You people are making way to big a deal out of a minor article published thirty years ago in an obscure magazine. I think the section on homosexuality should be removed as unimportant. Pmcalduff (talk) 07:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I make that 18 years ago, and it was also reprinted in a collection of his essays, not to mention still being web-published. If you think it's without significance, you might want to try googling for the title. Lots of "you people" seem keen to minimise Card's assorted wingbat and/or controversialist ideas, and this aspect seems to be an especial favourite for such treatment. (This section's already been whittled to eliminate reference to the similarly splenetic, and more recent, Homosexuality and Marriage, for example.) At any rate, do we now agree that it means what it was originally stated to mean? Alai (talk) 08:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
My mistake, the latter reference hasn't been eliminated, just highly redacted, and ending up in a separate section. I don't really see why HoH merits a section of its own, given the short length, and this unnatural splitting of a topic across a section break; it would seem more logical to merge this back into "sex". Alai (talk) 08:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes there are a lot of references to the article but it is just ONE article not an antigay crusade. Pmcalduff (talk) 09:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I think that your characterization of his beliefs as "wingbat" is very illuminative. While I disagree with his views on these issues, I think that having an entire section dealing with them lends undue weight. What's the point, really, other than to draw attention to the fact that he has some ideas that you think are "wingbat"? Bellwether BC 11:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Bellwether I agree with you completely. While I certainly don't agree with Cards ultraconservative views, I don't think that they are all that important or relevant to the article. What do others think? Pmcalduff (talk) 13:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • It is useful to keep in mind that the article was written in 1990. His views have also changed somewhat since then and his later writings reflect this and not including them is wrong. Additionally, its factually incorrect to say that he speaks out against the ugly use of words like faggot as the article claimed, because what Card says in his reflections on the essay, not on the essay itself, is that people on the far left use it as a way to subvert discussion. Additionally, it failed to be netural by using the word claim when refering the Card's homosexual friends which cast doubt on what Card said.
More importantly though, I also believe that you are misinterpreting the word polity. The key part of the essay, reads as follows (to give other editors context).
Within the Church, the young person who experiments with homosexual behavior should be counseled with, not excommunicated. But as the adolescent moves into adulthood and continues to engage in sinful practices far beyond the level of experimentation, then the consequences within the Church must grow more severe and more long-lasting; unfortunately, they may also be more public as well. 

This applies also to the polity, the citizens at large. 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 whoflagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society. 

The goal of the polity is not to put homosexuals in jail. The goal is to discourage people from engaging in homosexual practices in the first place, and, when they nevertheless proceed in their homosexual behavior, to encourage them to do so discreetly, so as not to shake the confidence of the community in the polity's ability to provide rules for safe, stable, dependable marriage and family relationships.
Polity refers to a group often in a religion, in this case being the citizens at large of the church. See Polity. Within the church would then refer to the figures in the church (bishops, etc). If I am wrong about what he is saying then please tell me so, but that is the definition of polity that i know.Perpetualization (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Additionally, restoring the article was inappropraite. According to the notice at the talk of the page (the one that says that any potentially slanderous material is to be removed immediatly), one should remove slanderous material. My concerns about the former material have not been fully addressed and one ought not restore a page when a consensus has not been reached when the older page is slanderous (and factually incorrect at places). Perpetualization (talk) 21:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
It looks like we have three people in favor of deleting the section on homosexuality Pmcalduff (me), Bellwether and Perpetualization. There is also one person in favor of maintaining it Alai. Does anyone else have an opinion one way or another? Pmcalduff (talk) 02:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Restoring "Views on sex" section

A recent blog post [1] very well-read in the library world has recently expressed disappointment that Card's views on homosexuality are not presently included in the article: the author points out that their inclusion is relevant and necessary to let people judge him on the basis of sound information. As a result I'm planning to restore the "Views on sex" section, somewhat edited.

I've read the history and the discussions above. I see that Pmcalduff and Bellwether have concerns about whether the section is important enough - I hope the blog post explains why it is relevant - and that Perpetualization has concerns about slander, which I hope I've addressed by keeping the section NPOV and well-sourced. I've included the quote about the "polity" because it has been quoted and discussed so widely in the blogosphere, but I haven't editorialised it in any way, as even reading closely in context I can't tell whether he's still talking about the Church or has moved on to talk about society at large. If anyone thinks it's important to mention the ambiguity, I'd be happy to discuss wording.

My proposed section is as follows; if no-one suggests any amendments or raises any objections by the end of the week (NZ time) I'll reinsert it as is into the article:

[edit] Views on sex

Card is opposed to premarital sex. He has written that an increase in crime in USA of the 1970s and 1980s "might well have been the result" of what he calls "the New Morality and the Pill" because they may have increased the number of babies born to "the people with poor impulse control" who are "most likely to be irresponsible parents."[1]

Card has called same-sex marriage a "potentially devastating social experiment" and argued that same-sex marriage is not necessary to ensure equal rights for all, since "Any homosexual man who can persuade a woman to take him as her husband can avail himself of all the rights of husbandhood under the law."[2] He is against "changing the word 'marriage' to apply to something it's never applied to."[3]

Of the Mormon Church's attitude towards homosexuals, he argues that the Church leaders and prophets teach against homosexual behaviour, therefore it is hypocritical for a practising homosexual to claim to be a Church member, yet still deny that their behavior is sinful.[4] He writes further that:

“ This applies also to the polity, the citizens at large. 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 whoflagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.

The goal of the polity is not to put homosexuals in jail. The goal is to discourage people from engaging in homosexual practices in the first place, and, when they nevertheless proceed in their homosexual behavior, to encourage them to do so discreetly, so as not to shake the confidence of the community in the polity's ability to provide rules for safe, stable, dependable marriage and family relationships.[4]

 ”

He views individual homosexuals as "human beings with as complex a combination of good and evil in them as I find within myself" and says "That we must treat sinners kindly is true; that we must courageously and firmly reject sin is also true."[4]

  1. ^ Card, Orson Scott (2005-09-11). Freakonomics. The Ornery American. Retrieved on 2008-01-22.
  2. ^ Card, Orson Scott (2004-02-15). Civilization Watch: Homosexual "Marriage" and Civilization. The Ornery American. Retrieved on 2008-01-22.
  3. ^ Minkowitz, Donna (2000-02-03). My Favourite Author, My Worst Interview. Salon Books. Retrieved on 2008-01-22.
  4. ^ a b c Card, Orson Scott (1990). The Hypocrites of Homosexuality. Sunstone Magazine. Retrieved on 2008-01-22.

--Zeborah (talk) 08:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Support, after a light copyedit, and a bit of tweaked wording. My problem wasn't so much with the inclusion of the section (though I sided with removal), but rather with the POV wording that I perceived in the version to which I was objecting. -- Bellwether BC 13:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Retracted, per concerns below. Basing insertion on the miffed feelings of a person who writes that Card is a "big fat homophobe" isn't probably WP best practices.-- Bellwether BC 06:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Can't we separate the blogger's personal opinion about OSC from her point that people come to Wikipedia expecting to find this sort of information in an article? The point is surely just as valid as if it was said by someone whose post was entitled "OSC is a big fat homophile" or by someone whose post was entitled "OSC's views on homosexuality are complex". All of these people (real and hypothetical alike) would be justified in expecting that Wikipedia would have a section in the article to cover his views on the matter, especially given how much controversy those views have caused on all sides. And given how much controversy and misinformation there has been, Wikipedia has an opportunity to present an informative, unbiased summary of those views. (My goal is to write something that OSC could look at and say, "Yes, that's what I believe." I'm working right now on addressing the points Pmcalduff raised.) --Zeborah (talk) 05:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
        • It's difficult for me to separate the two. I'd look similarly askance if (in the runup to his actually coming out) a blogger had posted "Joey Fatone is a big fat fag" or something like that, followed by a discussion of his sexual proclivities. With that said, I've made it clear that I don't have a problem with the idea of such a section, only with what the section contains. If you can construct a section that addresses Pmcalduff's legitimate concerns, I will support it unequivocally. -- Bellwether BC 05:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

My opinion: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmcalduff (talk • contribs) 03:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC) First of all a blog entry titled “Orson Scott Card is a Big Fat Homophobe” is about as far from a reliable source of information as you can get.

However, if it is agreed that the "Views on sex" section should be reintroduced I will go along with the consensus. That is the way we work here. But I have to warn you that if it is reintroduced as it stands it will be removed by me within hours.

My objections:

Writing:

  • Of the Mormon Church's attitude towards homosexuals, he argues that the Church leaders and prophets teach against homosexual behaviour, therefore it is hypocritical for a practising homosexual to claim to be a Church member, yet still deny that their behavior is sinful. (This needs to be written more clearly)

This proposed addition only shows one side of the issue:

  • In the article itself Card address the charge that he is a homophobe. He says that some homosexuals are people that he has “come to love and admire”. It the article he also speaks our very strongly against attacks against and mistreatment of homosexuals stating that “No act of violence is ever appropriate”.
  • It also fail to mention that Card has written homosexual characters in his fiction (Songmaster, The Ships of Earth,) which has resulted in some readers accusing him of homophilia.

Also I have one question for you, have you read the articles by Card that you are insisting on putting into the Wikipedia article. I ask because instead of writing anything yourself you seem to have dug up someone else’s rather one sided research. Pmcalduff (talk) 02:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I realise that the "OSC is a big fat homophobe" blog post isn't a reliable source of information, nor would I ever use it in the article itself; I'm only using it as an explanation of why this section is needed in the article.
Would "Writing of the Mormon Church's attitude towards homosexuals, he argues that because the Church leaders and prophets teach against homosexual behaviour, it is hypocritical for a practising homosexual to claim to be a Church member but still deny that their behavior is sinful." be clearer? If not, can you suggest wording which would be clearer?
Note that my proposed section does not itself accuse him of homophobia, it only sets out his views, including that we should "treat sinners kindly" as I quoted. But it's worth including his condemnation of violence as you suggest. The "homosexual characters" thing is more complicated - I mean, I'm happy to add something about it, once I'm sure I'm clear on Card's own position on it, but I don't want to try to explain it when I don't understand it. I'll work on both of these over the next couple of days.
I certainly read all the articles by Card that I cite: that's why I set the "date accessed" to the date I was writing this section. I worked directly from the articles, not from anyone else's research, and I tried to summarise and quote the main points that OSC himself made in his articles and in his interview. --Zeborah (talk) 08:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this better?

[edit] Views on sex (version 2)

Card is opposed to premarital sex. He has written that an increase in crime in USA of the 1970s and 1980s "might well have been the result" of what he calls "the New Morality and the Pill" because they may have increased the number of babies born to "the people with poor impulse control" who are "most likely to be irresponsible parents."[1]

Card has called same-sex marriage a "potentially devastating social experiment" and argued that same-sex marriage is not necessary to ensure equal rights for all, since "Any homosexual man who can persuade a woman to take him as her husband can avail himself of all the rights of husbandhood under the law."[2] He is against "changing the word 'marriage' to apply to something it's never applied to."[3]

Writing of the Mormon Church's attitude towards homosexuals, he argues that because the Church leaders and prophets teach against homosexual behaviour, it is hypocritical for a practising homosexual to claim to be a Church member but still deny that their behavior is sinful.[4] He writes further that:

“ This applies also to the polity, the citizens at large. 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.

The goal of the polity is not to put homosexuals in jail. The goal is to discourage people from engaging in homosexual practices in the first place, and, when they nevertheless proceed in their homosexual behavior, to encourage them to do so discreetly, so as not to shake the confidence of the community in the polity's ability to provide rules for safe, stable, dependable marriage and family relationships.[4]

 ”

He views individual homosexuals as "human beings with as complex a combination of good and evil in them as I find within myself". Speaking of tolerance, he says "That we must treat sinners kindly is true; that we must courageously and firmly reject sin is also true." Thus he condemns the behaviour but equally condemns violence against those practising it: "I think there is no room in America for violence directed against any group (or any individual) for any reason short of immediate defense against physical attack -- which doesn't often come up with homosexuals."[4]

As a result of these views, he says, he is attacked both for homophobia and for being too tolerant of homosexuals, when he is in fact walking a middle way. Likewise he explains that when homosexuality appears in his fiction (see Songmaster and The Ships of Earth) it is not to argue for or against homosexuality, but rather "to create real and living characters".[4]

  1. ^ Card, Orson Scott (2005-09-11). Freakonomics. The Ornery American. Retrieved on 2008-01-22.
  2. ^ Card, Orson Scott (2004-02-15). Civilization Watch: Homosexual "Marriage" and Civilization. The Ornery American. Retrieved on 2008-01-22.
  3. ^ Minkowitz, Donna (2000-02-03). My Favourite Author, My Worst Interview. Salon Books. Retrieved on 2008-01-22.
  4. ^ a b c d Card, Orson Scott (1990). The Hypocrites of Homosexuality. Sunstone Magazine. Retrieved on 2008-01-25.

--Zeborah (talk) 06:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Support, very much so. Clearly and concisely written, well referenced, sticks to the facts (by quoting Card directly), and with no bias I can see. By making mention of the homosexual characters and including quotes where Card qualifies his position, the section seems perfectly balanced. Card has been very clear on his position and has made a point of making his views public; it would be detrimental to the article (in terms of being comprehensive) not to include this section, especially given the detail of the Political and Environmental/Science sections. Lh'owon (talk) 07:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Qualified support I forgot I hadn't logged in, sorry - I edited out the claim that Card's position is "in fact" the middle way. What is verifiable is that some people say it's homophobic. (I haven't seen any verification of the claim that some people say Card is "too tolerant", though - anyone got a cite?) It is also verifiable that Card says his position is "the middle way". I edited it to remove what appeared to be an obvious POV, then checked the Talk page and found this discussion, but I stand by my change. Yonmei (talk) 11:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - his views are famous (some would say notorious) and color many people's perception of his writing. Any omission of them will be perceived as a coverup. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits

An objection (via RV) has been made to these two edits The reasoning behind these edits is clear; I removed an improbable and unreferenced statement and replaced it with a well-referenced statement. Please use this space to explain the objection to them. Thanks. RedSpruce (talk) 12:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

My objection was raised, not "via RV", but with both a revert AND an appropriate edit summary, in which I asked you to participate in this discussion. The material is contentious, and perhaps workshopping the material (and references) you wish to insert at the talkpage first is a better option for such proposed insertions. Your language included calling him "homophobic", which is a loaded term, referenced or not. All I'm asking is that you participate in the above discussion. Bellwether BC 13:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I am participating in this discussion, but you are not, at least not with me. Your only comments, here and in your edit summary comment, were to the effect that I should participate in the discussion. Okay, I'm here, participating; now could you please explain to me what your objection to my edits is?
And please note that my edits did not include anything "calling him homophobic" (though I did call him that myself in an edit summary comment). My edit stated that his "outspoken views on homosexuality have led a number of critics to characterize him as homophobic". This is a simple statement of fact, which was supported by my references. RedSpruce (talk) 14:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Your edit summary was certainly incendiary, and portrayed a clear POV, which may have clouded how I read your actual changes. My main problem with it is that the word "homophobic" is quite loaded, especially for a BLP. In itself, the word is POV. The article should outline his views clearly, and let the reader decide if he's "homophobic." Even using the word referenced to an opinion piece (which the Salon reference is) puts more weight on the word than is due it. Card's views are controversial (and I don't agree with them), but they are nuanced, and not the views of a simple, raving bigot, which the word "homophobic" implies. Bellwether BC 15:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
These edit summaries were troubling: "A referenced statement about reactions to his homophobic views" and " the "too tolerant" statement is still not referenced, and is, as the earlier editor said, a blatantly POV fabrication intended to make Card look like a moderate." Should we not be attempting to set aside our own personal contempt for an article subject when we edit the encyclopedia? This is a BLP, and it's my view that even edit summaries should be treated with great care on these types of articles. Bellwether BC 15:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
RedSpruce's edits are balanced and well-referenced, and do not (as he points out) call Card "homophobic," but rather report the fact that many of Card's critics call him that. I see nothing objectionable in these edits, and wish to see them restored. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Bellwether, I'm not clear on whether you have any substantive objections to my edits (as apart from my edit summary comments) or not. Some of your points about my edit summary comments are well-taken. I see in retrospect that I was mistaken on one point I made in an ESC -- the current content of the article, "As a result of these views, he says, he is attacked both for homophobia and for being too tolerant of homosexuals..." is in fact referenced; Card has indeed said that. It seems obvious to me however, that article content regarding controversy around a person shouldn't be based solely upon how that person himself has characterized the controversy. And negative words such as "homophobic" are not prohibited from BLP articles. If a significant number of reliable sources have consistently used a negative word to characterize a person, then it's the duty of the article to mention this fact, with proper citations. RedSpruce (talk) 15:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
It's difficult to use an incendiary (and inherently POV) word like "homophobic" without wounding the NPOV of the article, and raising BLP concerns. If he's truly homophobic (and he may be), represent that only by noting things he has written and said, not by citing opinion pieces. I strongly disagree with his views on several of the issues he takes stands on, but this doesn't matter. Why do we need to cite people who call him "homophobic" when we have his writings that demonstrate a clear antipathy to at least the lifestyle of an openly gay person? I hope this clarifies my view. Bellwether BC 16:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe that there's anything in WP BLP guidelines that says that criticism of a living person must not be added to an article, and that's what you seem to be saying. If you can quote a policy page that shows that I'm wrong about this, I'd be most interested. If you look at the articles on most any living politician (just to give one broad ranging example), you'll find whole sections entitled "criticism", with comments from opinion pieces quoted.
And just as an aside, what you or I happen to think of anyone isn't the point here, and isn't relevant.
And could you use standard indenting? Your indent-plus-a-bullet makes it harder to keep track of things.
RedSpruce (talk) 17:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I tend to use bullets, because it helps me "keep track of things." Feel free to format your own comments however you wish. As for the BLP concerns, and the comparison with politician's articles, you will find very few prominent politicians' articles contain a "criticism" section. The "criticism" is simply woven into the texture of the article in sort of a "point/counterpoint" fashion. And I challenge you to find the word "homophobic" in any of the articles of prominent politicians. It's an inherently POV word. If his actions justify the description, allow the reader to reach that conclusion. The only outside "sources" that will call him that are opinion pieces. Serious reviewers (i.e. NY Times, WaPo, etc.) wouldn't use such a word--at least not that I've ever seen. Bellwether BC 17:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
♥So, in short, my edit wasn't contrary to any WP policy you're aware of, nor do you have any argument against it that isn't based on your personal preferences. All terms of criticism (or praise) are "inherently POV", as by definition they are an expression of an opinion. The fact that you personally seem to have a particular dislike for the word "homophobic" doesn't seem relevant. That's the word that many people have used, and the article is incomplete if it doesn't report that. If you have no further points to make, I'll replace my edit. RedSpruce (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • (I note your point-y use of a heart for a bullet.) As for applicable BLP policy, I'd probably point to this as potentially applicable. You may disagree, but I'd ask you to refrain from re-inserting until I've had a chance to explain more fully. (I'm a bit swamped in RL right now.) Bellwether BC 19:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
♥The edit I added was not unsourced, or poorly sourced, nor are the sources self-published, so I don't see how any amount of your "explaining" will make that policy applicable. I look forward to any further comments you may have, but in the mean time I'm going to replace my edit. RedSpruce (talk) 20:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I consider using the word "homophobic", sourced only to an opinion piece from Salon, to be "poorly sourced." If you readd without consensus for the addition, I will remove it, per the above cited policy on BLPs. The burden of proof is on you to show why it's necessary that the article refer to him as "homophobic" (or even point out that people who don't like his positions call him that), when his positions that could be classified as such are clearly illustrated in the article. Prove the need for such rhetoric, or it must be removed. Bellwether BC 20:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You've invested several hundred words into this discussion, and haven't been able to support your revert in the least. The article does not "refer to him as homophobic." It reports on the simple fact that many critics have characterized him as such. As for whether the "burden of proof" is on me to show that it's "necessary" for the article to include something (leaving aside the fact that it doesn't include the statement you refer to), I don't see any text that supports that notion in WP:BLP; kindly copy and paste a quote for my elucidation.
And have the simple courtesy to indent your comments in the standard way; the purpose of indenting is to make the talk pages clearer for everyone, not for you to do what is most convenient for yourself. RedSpruce (talk) 21:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Bulleting is not considered "non-standard" in any way. Many people do it during discussions. It doesn't make the discussions hard to follow at all. I'm sorry you don't like it, but if I feel like using it, I will. Bellwether BC 21:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Support for the version that currently exists. It does not contain the slander i saw before and is written with context. Perpetualization (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Potential Resolution?

What do you all think of posting this issue to the WP:BLP discussion page, as well as--possibly--the WP:3O page? I have no problem including information on his attitudes about homosexuality in particular, and sexuality in general. And if the regulars at the BLP talkpage have no issues with "homophobic", then I don't either. Bellwether BC 20:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Posting to the WP:BLP discussion page is fine with me. WP:3O strikes me as no more useful or informative than flipping a coin. RedSpruce (talk) 21:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I must say, I rather agree about WP:3O. I was simply trying to find a "way through" that would be acceptable to you. Bellwether BC 21:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Posted to BLP discussion here. Bellwether BC 21:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Reposted to the proper forum, here.Bellwether BC 21:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Another possible path to resolution would be to leave the edit in the article, and see if any other editor comes along and objects to it. Perhaps some future editor will have some sound rational argument to support their objection -- something that hasn't been the case with your objections. RedSpruce (talk) 11:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the problem is. That many people say Card is homophobic because of his publicly-expressed views, carefully described by quotation in the article, is not at issue - that's substantated by multiple references. That Card has been attacked for being "too tolerant" is not substantiated except for Card's own claim in the Salon.com interview, which is also linked to. That Card thinks of his position as "the middle way" is substantiated by quotation. Yonmei (talk) 12:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Per my understanding of the BLP policy, such disagreements are best handled with the potentially inflammatory material out of the article, untile consensus is reached. As Yonmei has joined with you in readding it without consensus (only two have weighed in at BLPN, one for one against), I'm now in danger of 3RR. As I feel there are BLP issues, I think I'd be justified in removing it, but the risk of being tag-teamed into something like 6RR is not appealing to me, so I will not. Bellwether BC 12:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Orson Scott Card himself does not appear to regard his opinions about LGBT people to be inflammatory: indeed, as cited in this section, he regards his opinions as "the middle way". That his opinions are regarded as homophobic is multiply-cited with references that include Orson Scott Card himself, and it would be misleading to delete these references. A past solution to this seems to have been to delete any mention whatsoever of Orson Scott Card's opinions about LGBT people from the wiki article, which has led to accusations that Wikipedia is biased by omission. Free Range Librarian I could understand your objections if the source material were unverified stories told about Orson Scott Card: that would be clearly within the purview of BLP. As it stands, however, this section is primarily comprised of what Orson Scott Card has himself written, with citations to what can be verified from external sources. I do not follow why you feel that this should be omitted from Wikipedia. (Sorry! I could have sworn I was logged in. That was me.) Yonmei (talk) 14:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I won't remove it, as I don't want it to be perceived that this is some kind of slow motion edit war or something, but in Card's words, I find that he seems to be challenging this perception of himself, not supporting it. He's made it clear he doesn't support violence against gays, as true homophobes like Fred Phelps do. It just seems that it would be easier (and far more fair) to simply point at his writings on the matter, and let the reader decide whether they think that amounts to homophobia. Homophobia is real, but is everyone who thinks that the behavior often associated with homosexuality is sinful "homophobic"? Because that seems to be Card's position: the behavior is wrong, but the people themselves aren't bad or evil. As I said, though, I won't remove it again, but I just think it really waters down the term "homophobic" when we apply it equally to people like Phelps and Card, and it puts Card in an unnecessarily harsh light, associate with views (like Phelps's) that he does not hold. Bellwether BC 14:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I think you're now turning the discussion into "what is homophobia" which is a discussion that actually belongs on the Talk page of the homophobia article on wikipedia. It doesn't belong here. It is a fact that Orson Scott Card has expressed these views, which I think have been carefully outlined using OSC's own words. It is a fact, acknowledged by Card and substantiated by references which RedSpruce added, that these views are identified by many people as homophobic. You should not attempt to include your personal POV that these views are not homophobic on a page about Orson Scott Card's views and public, verifiable statements about these views. Yonmei (talk) 14:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Please don't ascribe to me views I do not hold. I have no opinion on whether his views are "homophobic." I have an opinion that the term is quite incendiary, which I believe is supported by many of the same sources RedSpruce is using to keep the term in the article. In fact the blog you pointed to calls him a "big fat homophobe." Is it not apparent that we should at least be extremely careful about how (and if) we use such a term in the article? I think that using the term creates "guilt by association" with folks such as Phelps that Card bears no resemblance to. But as I said, I'm not "going to war" over this, or anything. If you don't see BLP concerns, and you're willing to reinsert it without consensus either here or at the BLPN, that's on you, not me. I'm just making it quite clear that I don't feel the term should be used in a BLP where it's not very evident (as it is with Phelps) that it applies. Bellwether BC 14:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
The issue is twofold: Are Card's views on LGBT people fairly outlined, using his own words? And: Have we fairly represented, using verifiable citations, how Orson Scott Card's views are regarded among the reading public who do regard these views as homophobic? Please don't reference Fred Phelps again, or try to introduce your personal views on what is and is not homophobic. This is not the place for those arguments.Yonmei (talk) 15:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
"is everyone who thinks that the behavior often associated with homosexuality is sinful "homophobic"? " Um, yes. Good grief, wake up and smell the last 40 or so years of history. One doesn't have to be to a KKK lynch-murder to be a racist. If you want to redefine "homophobic" so that it excludes Card and (as is increasingly clear) yourself, that's fine, but don't try to bend Wikipedia reinforce your personal definition. RedSpruce (talk) 15:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Seriously, RedSpruce, this is not a discussion that should be happening here. If Bellwether_BC wants to join in the discussion on homophobia, or indeed Fred Phelps. they should go to the relevant Wiki pages and do that there. This is a biographical page: let's stick to Orson Scott Card. Yonmei (talk) 15:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Retract your statement regarding my views. I have not once stated my views on homosexuality, and as Yonmei states accurately, this isn't the place to enter such a discussion. I consider your direct statement that I am a homophobe a clear personal attack, and I'm requesting that you retract the statement immediately. Not everyone who disagrees with you about how the issue should be treated in this article is a homophobe. Bellwether BC 15:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I apologize to Wikipedia for misusing this forum to state my opinions about you. That was indeed inappropriate and a violation of WP:NPA. RedSpruce (talk) 15:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Additionally, I note that you're not even bothering to rethink your "opinions" of me, even given that you have no idea my views on homosexuality. If you did, you would know that I use my position as both a teacher of language arts and history to inform my students of how gays have been persecuted throughout history, and how abhorrent such persecution was. You would also know that I have several relatives that are gay, as well as some old friends. You would also know that my position on whether the word "homophobic" belongs in this article has no bearing on either my own personal attitudes toward homosexuals. Your "I apologize to Wikipedia" statement isn't even a non-apology. It's nothing. Before you drag people's personal views into a discussion on article content, please consider how the words you type will effect the person on the receiving end of such words. Bellwether BC 16:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

(Remove indent) Can I suggest we just have a 24-hour informal moratorium on edits to this Talk page, the OSC page, and the BLP page, by myself, Redspruce, and Bellwether? I think the three of us are all getting a bit heated over this, and rather than bring in an administrator, maybe we could just drop the current topic for a day, see who weighs in on the BLP page and the Talk page? Yonmei (talk) 17:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I have no problem agreeing to simply stop editing this article altogether. I won't be called homophobic again. Bellwether BC 17:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What are the sources?

Is our only source an About.com post that claims his critics have called him homophobic? If there's nothing better, it doesn't belong in the article. BLPs should not report the weasely allegations of questionably reliable sources. Cool Hand Luke 20:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

No, OSC himself says that some of his critics have called him homophobic; this is referred to and correctly cited in the last paragraph of this section. --Zeborah (talk) 20:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't see what you mean. It just looks like two opinion pieces and two from About.com. Card's own words about being described as homophobe would certainly bolster the claim; why not just use that as a source? Cool Hand Luke 20:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
There are three separate sources, counting the two About/New York Times as one source. One source, the School Library Journal, reports on the controversy of Orson Scott Card's homophobic opinions. I really don't see how this can be an issue: it is veriable and cited that Orson Scott Card's opinions on LGBT people are regarded as homophobic. Yonmei (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
About.com is not the New York Times any more than MySpace is the Wall Street Journal. And the School Library Journal and Salon articles are opinion pieces, as demonstrated by personal pronouns. (Actually, you cited the SLJ article that doesn't actually drop the H-word, I think you meant to use this.) In any event, it would be prudent in this BLP to use the author's own words without resorting to dubious and primary sources. Cool Hand Luke 21:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Given that the point at dispute is whether Orson Scott Card's views are considered homophobic, plainly it's not a problem that the sources cited are opinion pieces. Nor do I see it as a problem that the article includes citations that verify, beyond the individual's own word, that yes, people do describe Orson Scott Card's views as homophobic (or "anti-gay", if you prefer: the terms are synonymous.) The problem with using Orson Scott Card's assertion solely is that, as Bellwether noted above, Orson Scott mentions that he's called homophobic only to deny it. Better to include the additional, independent citations from multiple sources. I accept your criticism that About.Com isn't the NYT: RedSpruce's point that these are not self-published sources stands, however. Yonmei (talk) 22:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and - following your link to the School Library Journal editorial which discusses Orson Scott Card's homophobic views - while we could add that as an additional citation, I hadn't in fact read it until you linked to it. I linked to the article which discusses the controversy, which seems to me to be a more appropriate reference. I repeat: the point at dispute is not Orson Scott Card's views, it's whether those views are referred to as homophobic. There are currently citations from three different publishers, four different authors, and three years: 2000, 2004, and 2008. The two 2008 citations both deal with the controversy caused by Orson Scott Card winning the Edwards Award. All sources pass the Wikipedia verifiability test. Yonmei (talk) 22:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the article discussing the controversy is appropriate, and could be used to describe the controversy over his views. However, the article does not show that some consider him homophobic. The opinion pieces do show this, but they're also primary sources. As an encyclopedia, we are not to sift through primary sources unless secondary analysis references primary sources directly and establish WEIGHT. See WP:PSTS Instead, we follow existing secondary analysis. No reliable sources repeat the claim about him being thought homophobic. It's clear his views are controversial, but including such an incendiary word on the biography of a living person requires solid secondary sourcing. I'm removing it. Cool Hand Luke 03:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Incendiary word? Excuse me. The entire, quote "controversy" is about, guess what - alleged homophobia. We are not going to call this a "controversy" without specifically saying what the controversy is about. We have plenty of sources which tell us that this is about criticism of his allegedly-homophobic views. FCYTravis (talk) 07:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Why is the label—not used in any secondary coverage except for about.com articles—so important to slap on this BLP? The critiques are real, but the label "homophobic" really should not precede his actual views. Cool Hand Luke 07:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I have offered my assessment here. As I have said, I believe it follows the spirit of WP:WTA to not use this term. That being said, at this point we may just be arguing semantics. The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
The article as it stands is acceptable to me. Views first, then characterisation of them, seems appropriate. FCYTravis (talk) 08:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, fine. I still think this is a borderline BLP violation though. The secondaries covering this controversy seem really weak to me. The best secondary source—School Library Journal—doesn't even use the term in relation to his controversy. If this is the standard for covering "homophobia" controversies in BLPs, a lot of biographies could have such claims. Virtually every well-known social conservative has been called homophobic by someone, often by someone in a source like Salon. However, most of these op-ed "controversies" don't have much in the way of secondary analysis, and I think we should have a fairly high bar for this kind of "controversy."

I think that labels like "homophobic" tend obscure the actual issues. The controversy is about his allegedly intolerant opinions, not the political slur that's slapped on them.

All this said, I won't edit the article as long as his views are described first. You have a practical consensus as far as I'm concerned, but I do understand where editors like TES are coming from. Cool Hand Luke 08:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

School Library Journal is an excellent journalistic source. Reed Elsevier is a major, reputable academic publishing group. The Salon.com source (also journalistic) is an excellent source for telling us what that particular literary critic thinks of his views. Hence, we have a source telling us that this critic specifically said "homophobic." The SLJ quote used "anti-gay" - which would work fine too. Anti-gay, homophobic... means the same thing, and either wording is fine with me.
What we cannot do is say that there is a nebulous "controversy" and then pretend that we don't know what the controversy is about. FCYTravis (talk) 08:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I know Salon is a good source, but it's still an opinion piece, which is a primary source here. It's not describing how some give him this label, the author is applying the label to him herself. As such, we can't really know whether the label controversy is undue weight. Moreover, this piece is not unlike opinion pieces one can find for virtually any social conservative, some (who unlike Mr. Card) have actually had an effect against gay rights.
And again, the controversy is about his opinions, not the label "homophobic."

That's how the School Library Journal was able to write about the controversy without once using the word "homophobic." Cool Hand Luke 08:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I really don't see what you're trying to argue about. The controversy is about Card's opinions, because Card's opinions are considered homophobic. The School Library Journal used "anti-gay", but the terms are synonymous: if you're homophobic you're anti-gay, if you're anti-gay you're homophobic. They're the same thing. What's the issue here? And again - why are you trying to dismiss the Salon article? It's not about "virtually any social conservative" - it's a very specific article clearly about Orson Scott Card, referencing things he himself has verifiably written. Yonmei (talk) 09:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
As per my edit comment, Cool Hand's version attempts to cover up the fact that Card's remarks have attracted controversy; and that strikes me as censorship. It will be good when a good secondary source comes along that comments on the existence of this controversy, without itself taking a side in the issue. In the meantime, the sources in the article are more than adequate to support what the article is saying.
And Cool Hand is mistaken in trying to characterize "homophobia" as if it was just a slur, like "jerk." Rather it's a word like "racist" which is defined to describe a set of attitudes. The article could validly say "Card's public views on homosexuality are such that they fall within the commonly accepted definition of "homophobic". But that's rather an awkward mouthful, and documenting it with references--although certainly possible--would require a lengthy and involved footnote.
RedSpruce (talk) 14:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
What I'm getting at is that virtually any prominent social conservative has such an article about him or her, but nearly no articles mention it...except this one. And yes, the term is like racist, and that's not a term we toss around loosely either.
At any rate, his views should go first. If you find them homophobic, the label is almost redundant—I tend to think that an articulation of one's views are a better introduction to them than the label given by opinion columnists. BLPs should be more light than heat. Cool Hand Luke 18:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
You state some views of how the article should be, but you say nothing to support those views. Why should Card's opinions go first? It's SOP for an article to describe why something is notable before going into an examination of that thing. As for your first paragraph, I don't understand it. Are you saying that in virtually all WP articles about prominent social conservatives, no criticism of that person's views is mentioned? If that's what you're saying, you're quite mistaken.
Furthermore, it's important to note that Card is not a "prominent social conservative." If he were, then it wouldn't be surprising or notable that his views on social issues have attracted controversy. Card is a prominent science fiction writer, and that isn't a profession that normally attracts much controversy. So the fact that he has attracted controversy becomes more notable. The situation could be compared to Tom Cruise and the controversy caused by his outspoken proselytizing for Scientology. RedSpruce (talk) 19:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
He's not outspoken for his alleged homophobia. This is a really slight amount of coverage compared to others who have articles silent about their alleged homophobia. Anyhow, here is the current structure:
A: Card is an alleged homophobe
B: Card's actual views
C: Card defends himself against homophobe claim
What you've done is bury his defense. A and B belong together logically. Since Card and his critics dispute the meaning of his views, his views should go first so that readers can decide for themselves.
We're fond of comparing this to racism and segregationism, but I should point out that George Wallace describes him as a segregationist before once using the word "racist," and he's not even a BLP. Cool Hand Luke 01:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
You're mischaracterising A there. The section actually starts with the summary "His views have caused controversy, leading some to call him homophobic." The section then goes on to expand on the first part of this sentence, "his views", and after that to expand on the second part, "some call him homophobic". It seems a perfectly reasonable introduction-followed-by-explanation structure to me - directly parallel to the introductory paragraph of the article as a whole being followed by sections that expand on each of its parts. --Zeborah (talk) 03:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Cool Hand Luke, re my claim that Card himself says that he's been described as a homophobe: by this I referred to the line later in the section that "Card acknowledges that these views have been described as homophobic, but says he is also attacked for being too tolerant of homosexuals." This is sourced by two articles, one of which (#20, "Hypocrits of homosexuality") is his own writing. At a slight tangent, the Salon.com article may be written in the first person, but I wouldn't classify it as an opinion piece, really; it's an interview, and as such a great deal of it is likewise in OSC's own words. --Zeborah (talk) 21:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Cool Hand, I really can't decipher your first two sentences above; I think there must be a typo or two in there. And the rest of your comment says nothing to support the ordering you prefer. RedSpruce (talk) 10:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Questions about Homosexuality, Specifics

one of the most contentious parts of Orson Scott Card's contentious article on homosexuality, The Hypocrites of Homosexuality, [[2]], is the following:

“ This applies also to the polity, the citizens at large. 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 ”

This is quoted in the article, but i am unsure about the meaning of polity. I have heard two suggested interpretations of it, one being that it refers to everybody (the citizens at large within the world), or just to the church (the citizens at large within the church, as opposed to the clergy). As the article was about the church, i would assume that it means the citizens at large within the church, but it significantly changes the meaning of the rest of the quote (as people can leave the church, but not as easily leave the country). I am curious as to other editor's interpretations of what it means. Perpetualization (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It's been very contentious and I haven't been able to figure out one way or another which he means; unless there's somewhere where he clarifies himself I think it's best not to try and interpret it in the article. --Zeborah (talk) 23:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree that no interpretation should be done within the article, but I also think his meaning is pretty clear. He clarifies his use of the word "polity" by following it with "the citizens at large." And he talks about "laws", "society" and "citizens", with nothing to indicate that he's using all these words in the non-standard sense of applying only members of the Mormon church. RedSpruce (talk) 11:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Orson Scott Card has argued consistently from 1990 to 2004 at least - and as far as I know has retracted none of it - that *all* homosexuals, without regard for their religion, ought to be legally discriminated against by the state, for the purpose of forcing homosexuals to conceal their sexual orientation. His talk of "tolerance" is specifically and clearly on the lines of homosexuals who know they can be prosecuted for "homosexual acts" if they live openly, who conceal themselves as if it were something to be ashamed of, shouldn't be *further* persecuted. The current edit of the article obscures this point, which is a shame, because briefly, the article managed to be commendably clear about Orson Scott Card's controversial position.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.75.201 (talk) 21:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Rearranged the article for clarity. First, statement of controversy: then Card's views in his own words: then, Card's assertion that these views are not homophobic: then, Card's religious justification. It is now clearer what Card means by his assertion that he does not want to treat homosexuals harshly: he means he does not consider making homosexual sexual acts illegal and making homosexuals wary of being public about their orientation as "harsh treatment". 81.132.44.124 (talk) 14:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I've left the "citizens at large" in but moved the quote back into the context where he was talking about the church; I don't think it's justified to take it out of that context and risk possibly distorting his intentions. --Zeborah (talk) 18:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
You are distorting his intentions by moving the quote to where it looks like he means anti-homosexual legislation should only apply to Mormons. It's quite clear that he means it to apply to everyone, regardless of religion. I was undistorting the slant of the article by moving the quote to make clear that Card means that all homosexuals ought to be subject to anti-homosexual legislation, just as no homosexual ought to be allowed to marry. Please justify why you feel that it's important to keep this unclear to the casual reader by implying in context that this particular quote of Orson Scott Card's is only meant to apply to Mormons? 81.132.44.124 (talk) 19:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
It isn't clear that he means it to apply to everyone - honestly if it were I'd be all for making it clear, but I've read the original article multiple times and simply cannot resolve the ambiguity one way or another. (There are people who like you are certain he meant it to refer to the non-Mormon state, but there are also people who are equally certain he meant it to refer to Mormon citizens only.) He made that quote in the context of an article aimed at a Mormon audience and about the Mormon church, and unless someone can find evidence of either a) him saying he meant it to apply to the non-Mormon state as well, or b) him saying something similar in a non-Mormon context, then the article should not make a stand one way or another; I think this can best be done by keeping it in its original context with the rest of the stuff from that article. In short: I think we should keep it unclear to the casual reader because it's unclear even to the *careful* reader; or, alternatively, it should be removed entirely. (I think that would be a shame, because the quote gets thrown around a lot in blogs and it's worth letting interested people know where to find the original, but if people think that's a reasonable compromise I'd go for that). --Zeborah (talk) 01:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
What ambiguity? He's quite clear in the article when he's talking about Church members and when he's talking about everyone. When he talks about "the polity" and says there should be laws on the books, he's obviously talking about everyone. Why make it look like he only means this to apply to LDS members, when from his own words, he means this to apply to everyone?
Zeborah, I have to disagree with you. As I pointed out above, when he talks about "laws", "society" and "citizens", there's no ambiguity; those words are used in reference to society at large, not just LDS church members. RedSpruce (talk) 11:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
RedSpruce, i don't agree. The entire article was about the Mormon Church. Saying that two paragraphs are clearly about people, regardless of religion, when the rest of the article was only about religion, is a reach. The mormon chuch is a society, with laws, much like any other religious group. Citizens at large could mean the common churchgoer, while the church could refer to the clergy, bishops, etc (not sure what the religious figures are called within mormonism). Perpetualization (talk) 00:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I've read that article. It's very clear that he is advocating what society as a whole should do to teach "those people" that their sinfulness is not acceptable. He is not talking about actions by religious courts, but by secular society as a whole. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Perpetualization, it isn't necessary or important for you to agree with me. It is, however, contrary to Wikipedia rules for you to put your personal interpretation of Card's writing into the article and present it as fact. I've RV'd your edits for that reason. RedSpruce (talk) 02:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A call to reason

Okay. Now, I think it's safe to say that the deal with his views on homosexuality has gone far enough. Card is known primarily as a writer, but the section on homosexual views has now bloated to be longer than the section detailing his writing career. It's time to put a leash on this debate already, and cut the section back down to something which meets some semblance of proportion. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 01:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Careful. I was labeled "homophobic" (even though I'm as liberal as it gets on the issue) for simply suggesting a bit of temperance on the language used to address the issue. It's a bit toxic at this article right now. Bellwether BC 01:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
S0CO, I agree that this section of the article was getting disproportionate. That's another reason why I RV'd to prior to Perpetualization's edits. RedSpruce (talk) 02:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
After trimming it down, it might be prudent to add a note to the section as an HTML comment stating not to change it without talking about it here, on the talk page, first. This has helped in some other articles that have had similar problems. Just state any changes made to the section without first discussing them will be reverted. It never completely eliminates the problem, but it usually helps. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 14:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree completely. While Card has some homophobic views (which I oppose), I think a single paragraph on the subject should be more than sufficient. Pmcalduff (talk) 03:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Why does this article even have a topic regarding views that may be homophobic? Should there also be a section if he is afraid of spiders? I don't see the value add. Endermc12 (talk) 21:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
as a "critic, political writer, and speaker" the subjects that he addresses in these arenas are appropriate topics for the article. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 21:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Homophobia; "which he disputes"

The first sentence of the "Homosexuality" section has been edited by a couple of users from Card's views on homosexuality have led a number of critics to accuse him of being homophobic. to Card's views on homosexuality have led a number of critics to accuse him of being homophobic, which he disputes.

It's my opinion that the "which he disputes" addition is not a good edit. The fact that Card disputes the characterization of himself as homophobic is already very well covered in the article. In fact, most of this section consists of Card defending himself against the accusation. Beyond the single word "homophobic", no coverage whatsoever is given to the actual statements by those who have accused him. so this addition is at best unnecessary. Also, since "Homophobic" is by definition a form of flawed reasoning, it obviously goes without saying that Card would dispute this. By adding this phrase to the first sentence of the section, the article is bending over backwards to defend Card; that is, it is taking Card's side, and that is a violation of WP:NPOV. RedSpruce (talk) 15:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No, this first sentence introduces the section. At least that's what I was told when I complained that the section has this structure:
  • A: Card is an alleged homophobe
  • B: Card's actual views
  • C: Card defends himself against homophobe claim
(To remind you, I think the most logical structure is BAC—it doesn't make sense to label his views before describing them. It provides more heat than light and discourages an actual evaluation of his views.) However, I agree that it's sensible to have an introductory sentence, but it should actually introduce the topic. I'm not taking Card's side. It so happens that I think his views are incorrect and probably dishonest, but I think that a person's own views should be the primary topic in such a section. A three-word clause does not tip the scales to make undue weight. Cool Hand Luke 17:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
No, the 3-word clause doesn't tip the scales. The section is already slanted in Card's favor, and this makes it worse. And you don't address any of my points, BTW. RedSpruce (talk) 18:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Since one of the two editors who has made this edit apparently (judging from his edit summary comment) RV'd without ever reading the section in question, I feel justified in reverting to my preferred version. I'll wait a while to see if anyone has any relevant comments before I do so, however. RedSpruce (talk) 18:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Why do you think edit warring is helpful? I'm not going anywhere. I won't revert you again for a while, but you can be sure that your preferred version is not stable. Stability can only be achieved through talk page discussion.
Your arguments seemed silly to me (and you haven't addressed mine, not that this is a debate competition). If some librarians called you a racist, then your biography should state clearly that you dispute that characterization if you do in fact dispute it. If it's really as obvious as you claim it is, then stating it is harmless. I don't think it's obvious. Even today there are those who don't deny being homophobic. Card is not one of them. Cool Hand Luke 19:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
It's not about edit warring, it's about making the article better. If no one can dispute that my edit is better, then that's the edit that should be adopted. I'm sorry I didn't address your points in your first comment here, but you didn't make any that related to the current issue. Instead you went back to an old issue, which has been settled.
As for your current comment, you say that a biography should state clearly that a person disputes a negative characterization. That's still not relevant to my point, since my point is that the majority of the section is already devoted to Card defending himself. By giving undue coverage to his defense, the article has a clear POV in his favor. RedSpruce (talk) 19:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I argue that the fact the section is as long as it is—for a science fiction writer—demonstrates a clear bias against Card. My point above is that introductory sentences should introduce the topic. Others can and do dispute that your version is better. Cool Hand Luke 19:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
By "dispute" I meant "present some kind of a case or argument"; I'm still waiting for someone to do that. RedSpruce (talk) 19:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Anyone can play that game. I can pretend that you didn't present a case, but that doesn't make it true. I suggest you ask others to edit the mainspace for you. Edit warring is not helpful. Cool Hand Luke 19:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I've moved the paragraph on the LDS Church's attitude towards homosexuals so that the section is roughly divided into two parts: the first (including that paragraph) about the things for which some have labelled him homophobic, and the second about the ways in which he defends himself of that charge. I hope this move doesn't cause any problems; am happy to discuss if so.
Re the first sentence: though I defended it earlier as an introductory sentence, I'm beginning to think (because though I don't think the section is too long, I don't think it need get significantly longer, so an introduction isn't necessary) that it should be deleted entirely, or rather moved to form a transition between the two parts of the section as I describe above, thus:
These views have led a number of critics to accuse him of being homophobic.[1] Card disputes this label, stating he does not advocate or condone "harsh personal treatment of individuals who are unable to resist the temptation to have sexual relations with persons of the same sex",[2] [...]
However, if it's kept as the first sentence, then I feel it should include "which he disputes": as an introduction to the section, it should cover in abbreviated form all the content which the section will discuss. --Zeborah (talk) 02:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I suppose that's a fair argument in favor of keeping the phrase, Zeborah, though on balance I'd still prefer to see it removed. I'm in favor of keeping the intro sentence as it is, but the alternative you suggest isn't bad either. I've moved the footnote in that intro sentence, to make it clear that it applies to the "accuse him of being homophobic" phrase and not the "which he disputes" phrase. RedSpruce (talk) 03:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Your proposal to use the statement as a transition is exactly what I had in mind. It flows more logically. I think the split sentences are also sensible as a transition. Cool Hand Luke 06:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
The controversy over Card's views is why that section is there at all. Card's views are given a clear outline in his own words. That Card does not regard his views on homosexuals/civil rights for homosexuals as homophobic, is also included - rightly so. That Card's views have caused controversy because many people do regard them as homophobic is the primary reason for including this section in the article, as I have read above. But that "Card disputes" is not sufficiently important to the controversy to make it the transition between his views on homosexuality being identified as homophobic, and an outline of his views in his own words. It needs to be included, but it's not key. 80.192.75.201 (talk) 08:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I don' git it. You say "It needs to be included," and then you took it out. I agree with the action, but I don't understand the explanation. RedSpruce (talk) 15:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I didn't take it out! The sentences explaining at length in Card's own words why he thinks his views on homosexuals/homosexuality are not homophobic are still there. I just took out the three-word that Evil Spartan inserted which foregrounds the "dispute" as if that were the main point of including this section in the article. Card's published/public views and the public/published controversy which his views have created are the reasons why this section needs to be included - not Card's "dispute" of how his views are regarded. 80.192.75.201 (talk) 15:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay; gotcha. RedSpruce (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lost Boys not SF???

I find the inclusion of Lost Boys this phrase "He has since branched out into contemporary fiction, such as Lost Boys" to be confusing. In Lost Boys, a major plot point has dead children appearing in a video game - that is clearly a novel that is part of the SF genre. Can someone explain how that is 'branching out'? TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 04:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't read this (whole) book, but I did read the short story. A video game is part of the story, but not a major one. I think it's inclusion doesn't really make it a SF novel. The video game appears mostly as an item of popular culture, not science fiction. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 13:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Neither of our opinions really matters much. Do you have a reliable source that says it is not SF? TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 23:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Not that my opinion matters much either, but it's fairly clear Lost Boys is a horror/ghost story: "urban fantasy" is another possible genre for it to fit into. It could also be called "SFF" - "Science Fiction & Fantasy" - which is a kind of broad-spectrum genre that fits almost everything. It's not science-fiction, despite the videogame angle: it is very strongly rooted in small-town redstate US of the early 1980s - in fact, very specifically Southern US tobacco-state. I think it's fair to call it "contemporary fiction" and say it's a 'branching out' - I think it's the first of Orson Scott Card's novels to deal with modern, American Mormonism, as opposed to his frequent use of tropes and themes from Mormon myth/legend in other novels like Alvin Maker or the Ender/Shadow series. 80.192.121.39 (talk) 16:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
It's classic "urban fantasy" (which, despite the name, doesn't necessarily take place in a big city), a subgenre of "science fiction" in the broader, publishing-industry sense of the term. It was marketed, however, as horror. It's certainly not "contemporary fiction," a label which excludes non-mimetic and genre fiction of any kind. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
According to the spine of the book, it's simply a "Novel". Not "Horror", not "Science Fiction", not "Fantasy". Card himself (at a convention) has said that it's not typical science fiction or fantasy, but rather a novel with some fantasy elements. It's not marketed the same as his other genre books. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
By "marketed" I mean the packaging, advertising, etc., was horror-style (in the Dean Koontz vein, not the Anne Rice style). Spine labeling is treacherously undependable nowadays. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge proposal

I'm at a bit of a loss as to why OSC's pseudonyms are maintained as a separate article. There seems to be no real need for it. This article is only 33K long, nowhere near a length so unmanageable as to necessitate splitting off the sub-articles. Otto4711 (talk) 23:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

agree - 4 nom de plum can easily be handled in this article the other article does not contain any real information that would be lost in a merge. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree. RedSpruce (talk) 10:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Merge as per nom. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 15:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)