User talk:Sosai Z

トーク

Orson Scott Card
The controversy is well-covered in the article; but the language you added to the lede constituted undue emphasis and lack of balance in a lede. I miss the old, pre-bigotry Squire Orson of decades ago. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  02:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry Mike, but I don't agree with you on that point. The sentence that I (re)added last week was actually in the lead before for quite a long time and was recently removed - without consensus or adequate justification - by another editor. There is much debate on the article talk page about OSC's views in relation to homosexuality, and it is widely reported by reliable third party sources. In recent years, OSC himself has made such an issue out of it that it has effectively become the thing he is most known for after being a writer, such was the media storm created by it (it even led to a much-publicized boycott of the Ender's Game film). The lead is supposed to summarize the contents of the article, and since his views about homosexuality are a major part of his public persona and have become so controversial, it is wholly appropriate to mention it in the lead. The section in the article regarding this is of a considerable size, so a single sentence about it in the lead is certainly within proportion. Merely saying that his views have caused controversy is not undue emphasis, because it is factually accurate and there are a plethora of sources to back that up. I'm not opposed to rewording the sentence in the lead to some extent as long as it doesn't obscure facts or treads into censorship, but I am strongly opposed to removing it entirely - particularly when no consensus has been reached to do so. I can understand your comment about how you miss "the old, pre-bigotry Squire Orson of decades ago", and I'm sure many of his fans agree with you, but I'm afraid that person no longer exists. Sosai Z (talk) 23:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)