Talk:Orson Scott Card

Political Party

It is stated he is a Republican, yet his political affiliation is put as Democrat. Political party should be changed to Republican in line with the cited evidence that he is in fact a Republican — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.98.210.243 (talk) 15:33, 8 September 2011 (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)

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)

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)