Jump to content

Talk:Orson Scott Card/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Article assessment

According to OSC at http://www.hatrack.com/osc/reviews/everything/2007-02-18.shtml , the article has several factual errors.

I don't want to comment on the accuracy of Card's description of his interaction with Wikipedia. Perhaps someone should contact him and ask him what errors he feels are in the article. I'm also interested to know when he was trying to edit the article, as I'd like to review the page history; it's hard to dig this information out of hundreds of edits. Avt tor 18:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


---

Just thought I'd give some feedback on how to improve the article, the first thing I notice is that the current lead section is far too long, see Wikipedia:Lead section:

Also see Wikipedia:Lead section#Length:

Bold added by me. --Lethargy 20:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The next thing I see is that there are a lot of needed citations (see Wikipedia:Footnotes). I'll add them as I can, but this will need to be a group effort. --Lethargy 20:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Add the {{fact}} tag where you needed it...  :) ---J.S (t|c) 06:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Opinions and Politics are OT

I think we should just remove all of his personal opinions and politics from the article as this should remain an article about him and his work. Many of the opinions in this section seem POV and I think the section should just be removed as it doesn't belong.Grand Slam 7 00:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

They contribute to the completeness of the article. Who says it just has to be about him and his fiction? Would an article on Christopher Reeve be complete if it just talked about his acting work? Card has published several non-fiction peices with his personal views; it is logical that his views be covered in this article. NPOV-ing them is something we always have to work on. — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
No science fiction message board is worthy of the name if it doesn't have an "Orson Scott Card is a bigoted asshole/you're an intolerant liberal" thread at least once a month. While the section could certainly use some trimming and rewriting, Card is one of the most outspoken individuals in the genre and his views are essential to any understanding of him, as well as his place in the genre. Stilgar135 03:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree that this section should be included, but it needs to be rewritten for both neutrality and verifiability. I submitted this for the Cleanup Taskforce, but the person it was assigned to hasn't contributed since August. --Lethargy 03:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this section is ever going to be completed as the two side's are never going agree on "Fair and Balanced". Witness "Orson Scott Card is a bigoted asshole/you're an intolerant liberal". Put this huge cesspool of a discussion that will never end on another page.

List of books

I came to this site hoping for a list of books, and I was a little disappointed. It has a lot of biography and explanation, but little talk of his writings, which is probably what most people come here for. See Terry Brooks for a good example of what I'm talking about. Do I have any takers? -Patstuart 05:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

And as if to prove my point, I could find out nothing about the Homecoming series (which I've truly come to love) except that it has controversy through a homosexual man. I'm considered editing the page to include a list of novels. -Patstuart 05:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
By all means, be bold and add a bibliography. However, if you're actually saying that we should cut out big biographical chunks to "make room" for a bibliography, I vehemnently disagree. His beliefs are incredibly important to his place in the science fiction community as few other writers' are and are essential to the page. Stilgar135 13:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
By no means; I only meant we should have a bibliography. -Patstuart 19:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
What about List of works by Orson Scott Card? — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I started to work on the list myself, and then I found this, so I just provided a link to that page under a {{main}} tag. -Patstuart 06:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to move the list to the top, under a {{see also}} tag so it's more obvious. If anyone has a problem, go ahead and revert it. -Patstuart 01:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a bit redundent to the see-also section, but I guess thats ok. ---J.S (t|c) 17:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Salon.com as a source

''A member of [[The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]] (commonly clled the LDS or Mormon Church), some of his novels have stories explicitly drawn from scripture or church history. His religious and political beliefs have drawn the ire of science fiction fans, making him a provocative figure within the genre.<ref>[http://archive.salon.com/books/feature/2000/02/03/card/index.html My favorite author, my worst interview]. Donna Minkowitz, ''salon.com''</ref>

That source (A salon.com interview) doesnt backup the assertion that "religious and political beliefs have drawn the ire of science fiction fans"... It's an opinion peace of one author. And it's Salon.com... common. That's a highly bias website... we need to be exceptionally careful when we use it as a source like this. Unless we can reword the paragraph or find a better source I'll be removing the paragraph in a day or two. Thanks, ---J.S (t|c) 06:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the Solon and personal website source. I think it's clear that he dislikes homosexuality but we need to state it in an unbiased way... AND if we can't find acceptable secondary or primary sources then we can't include it. The Solon interview would be OK as a PIMARY source but not as a secondary source... the personal website simply isn't acceptable as a source since it's a personal website.
In a while I'm going to go thought the entire homosexuality section and remove everything that isn't supported with a source. ---J.S (t|c)
I moved the Salon piece down into view on sexuality, but I don't think it really belongs in the article. I propose killing it altogether. It's not a very good source, it's more of an opinion piece than anything else, and it just doesn't fit very well. --Micah Hainline 17:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

focus of article

Do we really need huge sections on a science fiction writer's specific political and religious views, while focusing relatively little on his literary work and biographic information? --NEMT 21:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

He is faily outspoken... *shrug* but your right. ---J.S (t|c) 20:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
The proper solution, then, is to increase the amount of information on his literary work and biographic information. Stilgar135 23:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Philosophy

Would it be possible to have a section of the page dedicated to his philosophy. His books arent just science fiction they have a certain evaluation of humans and humanity and it quickly becomes philosophy in the later series of his books (homecoming series included). Of course this will all be oppinionated but as long as it's realistic to OSC's books i think it would be more interesting then talking about his "morality" and "political oppinions". Anyone motivated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.255.139.101 (talk • contribs)

I whole heartedly concur. Being a reader of his, his religion and philosophy are considerably more important than indivudal aspects of it, (i.e., homosexuality, politics). While some are overtly religious (e.g., Homecoming), others just have religious themes (e.g., Worthing Saga and its emphasis showing problems with unchecked sexuality and abortion). Just looking at these two issues is an improper focus. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 01:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Wouldn't this entail original research, which is beyond the scope of wikipedia? Though I certainly find it interesting how his anti-choice and homophobic opinions are reflected in his fiction: wouldn't this be a separate page? Yonmei 18:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's any more OR than what's already on the page. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 18:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Orson Scott Card's fans and OSC's homophobia

I noted that Lethargy had changed "many fans" to "some fans" and requested a cite.

This is difficult, and I'd appreciate advice how to resolve it. It's possible to find out that many/some fans of Orson Scott Card's do not agree with/dislike his homophobic beliefs googling - yet I appreciate that we can hardly link to a googlesearch in a wiki article! We could of course link to the multiple references to Orson Scott Card's homophobia by fans of his work, but I'm concerned that this would overload the reference section.

There exist at least three interviews/essays written by self-identified fans of his work, all three of which are cited from the article, which clearly state both that they are fans of his fiction but disagree with the homophobic views expressed in some of his non-fiction essays. How many more references do we need to be able to say that many/some of his fans do disagree with his homophobic beliefs? Yonmei 21:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The relevant policies are at Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. If we could cite two reliable sources for these views, we could use the word "some", although naming specific people would probably be better; "many" should be avoided like the plague. --Lethargy 21:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree with Lethargy. I have no desire to make an enemy of you, Yonmei, but some of your editions have made heavy use of weasel words (e.g., "a religious view against homosexuality is unfounded", which was reverted). -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 21:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I agreed with the reverts, once I'd had time to think it over, so no worries. The original version, with its presumption that the only reason fans of Orson Scott Card thought he was homophobic was that they just didn't understand his views, really had to be changed to remove that presumption, but my first attempt wasn't a good one.Yonmei 21:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, three sources have been cited from self-identified fans. What more do we need to be able to say "some"? Yonmei 21:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

1) Add those citations to the specific statement in question.
2) Make sure that those citations properly support the "irrational and bigoted" statement.
3) Ensure that those sources are reliable.
I haven't checked all of the sources myself, but I'll let you decide if they are reliable sources for now. I'm very lazy. --Lethargy 22:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
1) and 2) are no problem. 3) is a difficulty. Most fans writing about their fannish interests self-publish. Therefore, if we interpret the reliability rules strictly, although I can easily find multiple instances of fans of Orson Scott Card saying they think Orson Scott Card is homophobic, we can't actually even say "some fans" since all but one of the sources I have found are... self-published. That seems slightly absurd to me. What do you think? Yonmei 23:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I see your point, but I disagree with it being absurd. IMO if something isn't in a reliable source, it probably isn't worth mentioning here. Otherwise it probably would have been published in a reliable source. If we only have one reliable source, we should rephrase it to "[Person's name] argues that Card's views are homophobic...", which sounds better IMO. "some fans" could be interpreted as a bunch of teenagers posting on a forum. Naming a specific person establishes that this isn't coming from random fans. --Lethargy 23:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, here's the problem.
In a fairly quick trawl through Google, I came up with the following self-published sources, all fans of Orson Scott Card's work, all critical of his homophobia:
Librarian in Black
Joi Ito
Boing Boing net
Alas a Blog
Apostropher
Whatever
Voices of Unreason
Pharyngula
DPS info
Popular Culture Gaming
Nuwen News
Plus a couple of sample discussion threads:
Ezboard discussion thread
Chronicles Network discussion thread
Yet because only one source isn't self-published, no matter how much evidence there is out there that some fans of OSCs are critical of OSC's homophobia, we can't actually say so?
(This is the non-self-published source: Salon.com
That really does seem absurd. It's not so much that the sources can't be considered "reliable": it's that there are so many of them, and plainly not just "a bunch of teenagers posting on a forum".
Yonmei 00:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I won't pretend to be an authority on weasel words, but here is my opinion: we could use the word "some", but in general it should be avoided. There are good reasons for this at Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. Even if there is strong support for criticism coming from more than one source (which is probably true a majority of the time), we should take only the most reliable of those sources and state their arguments, so the readers immediately see that this is a reliable person who is stating this, rather than an unknown person with a blog or posters to a forum, which, if allowed as sources, we could use to support almost any argument imaginable. Additionally, if we use the words "some" or "many", we have to phrase the statement so that it is supported by every citation provided, whereas naming a specific source allows us to be more specific with a persons complaints (I hope that makes sense). Perhaps we should get some people with a solid understanding of the issue to comment here, but for now I will not stop the use of "some" in this particular instance. --Lethargy 00:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Literary Criticism Source for OSC Images/Themes of Gay Men...

This article isn't on the web, so it'll be hard for everyone here to read it an verify the source, but there is an original research article (by an academic, not a fan) in the 2002 New York Review of Science Fiction which thoroughly describes the images of male bodies in OSC's fiction and the violence that happens to gay characters. This should be cited here. The article is Kate Bonin, “Gay Sex and Death in the Science Fiction of Orson Scott Card”, 172, 15, 4 (December 2002), pp.17-21. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lkondolian (talk • contribs) 02:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)



My 2 Cents...

If we can't link to a notable/reliable source that says they have this view... then the view is fringe and we are under obligation to cover it. If we need to link to a dozen no-name blogs to prove the point then we are engaging in OR. ---J.S (t|c) 16:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I was actually quite startled that there aren't more published sources referencing Orson Scott Card's homophobia: it's so well-known in science-fiction fandom that I was genuinely started to find the only published resource is the interview on Salon.com. I'll continue to look - there's an essay been published about Orson Scott Card's attitude to homosexual men, but I'm not aware of an online link. I am aware that Orson Scott Card doesn't like having his homophobic beliefs identified as homophobic, and there are several second-hand reports (I've never had any direct encounters with him) of his trying to discourage people printing things about him that he doesn't like.
What I am trying to do here is to source what is a well-known issue with a well-known writer - his public homophobia - to sources that are valid for wikipedia. I think that's a valid objective.Yonmei 17:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Until there is a better source then an editorial on salon.com then we can't include it. The test on wikipedia is verifiability not truth. And there is no reason to believe he has the mental disorder of "homophobia." Your tossing around this phrase way to library. (a phobia is a deep-seeded physiological disorder... disliking homosexuals activity is either bigotry or the result of a particular religious interpretation) ---J.S (t|c) 17:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
And there is no reason to believe he has the mental disorder of "homophobia." Er, I think you are confused as to the meaning of homophobia. It can mean an "irrational fear of LGBT people", though psychiatrists tend to prefer "homonegativity" for a mental disorder, but it also means "aversion to" or "discrimination against". Orson Scott Card has made clear that he holds prejudiced beliefs about, and advocates discriminating against LGBT people - that's verifiable from his non-fiction writing. It is asserted in the article that he holds the homophobic belief that lesbian, gay, or bisexual people would be happier in a mixed-sex relationship than a same-sex relationship.
All of this is verifiable: the only question is whether it can be verified to Wikipedia standards that his homophobic beliefs are an issue for fans of his work, and this is what I am having a difficulty with, though the various links I provided make it clear, I hope, that his homophobic beliefs are an issue for some fans of his work.
But again, I repeat: this is not a question of identifying Orson Scott Card as having a "mental disorder": I never suggested that, and I'm surprised you would.
Yonmei 18:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
It's definitely not a fringe view, and it should be included somewhere; that being said, let's state it in a NPOV fashion and avoid weasel words; I'm all for that. BTW, Yonmei, if I could humbly offer some advise: continuing to call it homophobia, and using other terms like "anti-choice", might be OK on the discussion page, but it makes it look like you have an agenda in asserting these comments. This is not criticism, just a helpful hint. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 17:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm all for avoiding "weasel words", hence my attempt to find other non-selfpublished sources! It's taking a while, but I'll get there: I think a reference library visit may be in order this weekend (I know, what a prospect: page references instead of online links!)
Yonmei 18:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Removal of information per WP:BLP

Per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, which are particularly strict guidelines, I chopped out a lot of the information from the homosexuality section which was either unreferenced, poorly referenced, awkwardly worded, or weasel worded. This can be added back later but please discuss it here first. --Lethargy 18:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me if the material I just added is similar to what was cut - I hadn't read this discussion at that time, had just run across "Hypocrites of Homosexuality" in another context and saw it wasn't referenced here.
DanB†DanD 05:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I really don't understand why this section is in here anyway? Why not a section on how he feels about commies, or hairdressers? seems like someone has some kind of agenda at wok putting this here, i nominate the section for DELETION.--71.97.131.16 19:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Homophilia???

Um, has anyone raised or discussed the issue that, for an author that is avowedly against homosexual relations, there is quite a bit of gay sex in his books? After being criticized that the main characters engaged in gay sex in Songmaster, Card responded:

What the novel offers is a treatment of characters who share, between them, a forbidden act that took place because of hunger on one side, compassion on the other, and genuine love and friendship on both parts. I was not trying to show that homosexuality was "beautiful" or "natural" -- in fact, sex of any kind is likely to be "beautiful" only to the participants, and it is hard to make a case for the naturalness of such an obviously counter-evolutionary trend as same-sex mating. Those issues were irrelevant. The friendship between Ansset and Josef was the beautiful and natural thing, even if it eventually led them on a mutually self-destructive path. (quote pulled from Songmaster entry)

Additionally, in the Ender's game series, the main character Ender experiences a "crush" on an older boy while in military school, and later in the series is stuck in a sexless heterosexual marriage. It seems like Card's writing sure explores a lot of gay content, and particularly, older/younger male relationships. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.251.101.34 (talk) 21:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

What insinuation are you trying to make here? Orson Scott Card has written something on the level of forty books. How do two gay characters, one sexless marriage, and a "man-crush" (which you apparently made up) amount to "Homophilia" or "a lot of gay content" or (are you kidding?) "a lot of older/younger male relationships"? Especially when you compare it to "Enchantment" or "Alvin Journeyman" or any of the REST of his books, which are filled with wonderful, fulfilling, exciting heterosexual romances and relationships? Are you twelve years old, such that a few scanty references to gayness make you giggle, and override the entire experience of reading Orson Scott Card's work?

I'm horrified that people like you contribute to Wikipedia. It makes me want to follow you around all day, checking your edits to make sure you're not filling every article you touch with hate and ignorance.

What insinuation are YOU trying to make by suggesting that he has made an insinuation??? And read more carefully, he said "quite a bit", not "a lot". I found it quite interesting to read the quote, and gain a little insight into Card's view on the matter. Please also point out exactly what "hate and ignorance" was contained in the previous comment.4.249.21.108 13:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

No, he said "a lot." its right there. it says "a lot." hagermanbot said tehre was "quite a bit of gay sex" and "a lot of gay content."

Marvel.com

The primary purpose of the Marvel.com link is to sell his comics. That doesnt really add much value for the article. Wikipedia doesn't want to be a link-gallery. ---J.S (t|c) 16:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I hadn't realised it was a sales site. Yonmei 17:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

North Carolina writer?

I noticed that someone just added Card to "North Carolina writers" category. What does this mean? Does it mean:

  1. This writer writes about North Carolina
  2. This writers writings are influenced by North Carolina
  3. This writer is from North Carolina (but doesn't necessarily still live there)
  4. This writer lives in North Carolina

Card fails all but the last bullet. Card should be removed from the category, IMHO, until the category is clarified. This goes for all other "<Location> writers" categories. — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

If you don't like the definition of the cat, then the cat's talk page or CFD are the best places to deal with it.
As for how the cat relates to card... I think number 3 is the best qualifier. If card was born/raised in NC then I think it would be reasonable to include him in the cat. However, if he just live there right now... then it doesn't seem like a good cat for him. I'll raise this issue on the writers by location talk. Remove him if you want... but we need to find out whats going on with the cat for a long-term solution. ---J.S (T/C) 19:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Card lives there now, but didn't grow up there. I'll bring the ambiguity of the category up on the cat talk page. — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

IMO, location for categories refers to where the author did their writing, not birth or growing up. Avt tor 21:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

But he did write about North Carolina in several different books. (e.g. "Lost Boys", "Homebody", "Ender's Game", and a couple of the Shadow books.) Sounds like a North Carolina writer to me.

Video game

Didn't he also write a science-fiction video game recently? Brutannica 20:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe the game you are thinking of is called Advent Rising which he wrote the story for. Actually, he has done work on several Video Games, including a few by LucasArts where he did scripting work. It would probably be a good idea to at least mention it in the article. Does anyone here know his gaming credits? 66.52.222.79 03:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, he did some of the Dialogue for the video game "The Dig", and he wrote the insults for "Monkey Island 2:The Secret of Monkey Island". Hope that helps.--JYHASH 22:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Or perhaps you are thinking of Empire, which is part of a franchise that includes the book, a video game, and a comic book. Gotterfunken 03:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC) 

Yeah he is right  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loperty (talk • contribs) 23:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The eternal pendulum on Card and homosexuality

As seems to be its wont, this article has swung from vituperation of Card's views, back to minimisation. I find especially problematic the phrase "As a member of the LDS Church". This reads like editorialisation that his stance on homosexuality is normative or minimalist for a Saint, which I think is dubious -- and at any rate OR and POV. Certainly, most Church members don't have newspaper columns and high-profile political websites in which they go out of their way to campaign on these issues. I'm also less than convinced about deletion of mention of "fannish" criticism of Card: its volume is hardly in doubt, and isn't Cory Doctorow on BoingBoing a sufficiently notable instance of such? Alai 04:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Article Image

I think there should be a better picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.213.82 (talk • contribs)

So does everyone else, but it is the best we have. Tried to get one via his website, failed. He wanted a better one here too, but doesn't own the copyright to the photos on his site. The image we have now is much better than what we used to have. — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, I personally like the current one because it's natural, in a more candid setting, instead of in a studio protrait. The thing is, it sounds like hd does own the copyright - he did specifically "grant permission" for it to be used on WP. But Wikipedia:Fair use prohibits an unfree or "permission only" image when a free one exists (there was one before). Hbdragon88 05:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Political Writings Section

it doesn't have any citations... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Perpetualization (talk • contribs) 16:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC).


Director

Should there be a mention of his directing plays? 63.165.157.99 06:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

IMO, if the plays themselves are notable (not the texts, the performances, i.e. does the theater company have a Wikipedia entry), then directing would certainly be worthy of mention. Avt tor 21:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, he directed Shakespeare's "The Taming of the Shrew" that was "Adapted for Modern understanding by Orson Scott Card" (got that from the play's program)at SVU. It was acted outed by mostly students. 63.165.156.185 22:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
So that would be a "no", then. Avt tor 05:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
"Adapted for modern understanding by Orson Scott Card"? Wouldn't he have to possess a modern understanding himself in order to do that? DanB†DanD 22:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Well there's different definitions of modern. By most measures of development/education contemporary Barbados, North Carolina, and Utah are considered to be in the "modern world." (I listed places that have laws on sodomy or had them until Lawrence v. Texas.) The modern world usually includes 21st century societies even if they do not conform to European or New England standards of social modernization.--T. Anthony 08:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Create a Themes section?

Has anyone noticed how much of this article is actually original research? Ignoring the fact that the substantive Early life sections gets by with only five sources, the extensive Personal views section has 10 references that are exclusively attributed to Card himself! WP Biography guidelines certainly permit the subject's autobiographical writings as sources, but to rely on them solely is not good practice. I think it would be much more useful and interesting to include third-party sources in the mix. In fact, wouldn't it be more valuable to convert this section to a Ideas, themes, and influences section instead? Then Card's personal views can be more effectively tied to the story themes identified by other parties.
—  Jim Dunning  talk  :  13:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Kids' names?

This line: "He and his wife Kristine are the parents of five children, each named for famous authors (Geoffrey Chaucer, Emily Brontë and Emily Dickinson, Charles Dickens, Margaret Mitchell, and Louisa May Alcott)." makes it sound like those are the full names of Card's children, and that there are two Emilys. What's the truth? Is his son Geoffrey or Geoffrey Chaucer (etc.)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agatehawk (talk • contribs)

The names are of the authors. From his website:
I'll revise the wording in the article to make it clearer. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 13:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

"Smallville" example is kind of random, trivial

Is there no other example of Card's statements on heterosexual morality than a review of a WB show? It seems a trivial example to use as the lead-in for his entire position. Dybryd 19:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I've replaced it. Dybryd 20:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

For those interested

I just created an article (stub) for A Storyteller in Zion. Visit it and rip it apart... — Frecklefσσt | Talk 12:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Saintspeak merge

I don't see any reason for Saintspeak to be merged with this article - it's an independent article (albeit a stub without references right now). Anyone feeling differently, please do comment. Otherwise I'll pull that tag in a few days. Squalk25 23:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it; the "paired" tag was taken off some time ago, so there seems no point in having one here. (If there's an issue, one assumes that it's that Saintspeak may not (or may, I dunno) merit a separate article, not that this article is sadly incomplete without that material.) Alai 23:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

LDS Writer or not - please do not revert category without reaching consensus here first

A small revert war seems to be taking place on whether Card was an "LDS writer" or not. It is common for religions to claim writers, politicians, and actors (among others). I don't see what the problem is about allowing him to be declared an author who wrote who also happens to be a member of LDS. This happens to nearly every other personality. Judge Rehnquist, for example, is being claimed by Lutherans. I mean, who knew?  :) Student7 15:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

This has played back and forth through inclusions and elisions of the Category:Latter Day Saint writers. I restored this category because, for those familiar with the facts of his writings, he definitively conforms to the actual definition given for the category, i.e. "notable for writing on the topic of Latter Day Saints" and as opposed to merely being LDS.
This category was removed once under the justification "removing category per CFD August 31, 2007. author does not write on the topic of LDS", and later removed again under the justification "remove per category definition: the majority of his writings have nothing to do with LDS" (emphasis added).
As for the latter, the definition given on the category page is not "the author must have a majority of his works having to do with LDS", it is "notable for writing on the topic of Latter Day Saints". An erroneous standard was applied, one stricter than the given definition.
As for the former, as noted earlier in the edit comments and to expand on that, Card is eminently notable for his writings related explicitly to LDS topics. For his explicit LDS works about LDS characters, see the novels Saints, Lost Boys, and The Folk of the Fringe; see also the books A Storyteller in Zion and Saintspeak; the script commissioned from him by the LDS Church for The Hill Cumorah Pageant; the scripts for The Living Scriptures (see also); the old LDS-themed newsletter he edited, Vigor; the LDS-themed website he organized and runs, Nauvoo.com; his former work as an editor and short fiction writer of the official LDS magazine The Ensign and his current regular column at the unofficial LDS magazine Meridian; the frequent mention of LDS topics in his widely noted ongoing newspaper columns and blogs; etc.
Furthermore, one of his most prominent fantasy novel series, the Alvin Maker series, is openly acknowledged and widely recognized as a fantasy re-imagining of the Joseph Smith story; another of his more prominent science fiction series, the Homecoming Saga, is openly acknowledged and widely recognized as a science fiction re-imagining of The Book of Mormon; see also his four, soon to be five, Old Testament novels, including Stone Tables and the Women of Genesis series, that conform to LDS interpretations of the Old Testament. Even in the Ender's Game series, Ender's dad is explicitly a member of the LDS Church and gives him an LDS blessing, and even the Catholic nun Sister Carlotta is written as expressing to Bean ideals contradictory to Catholicism but in line with LDS teachings, in parallel to many implicit promotion of distinctly LDS moral ideals throughout most if not all of Card's writing.
None of these facts are secrets; Card's writings on LDS topics and themes are widely noted. Card therefore certainly meets the category's definition of being "notable for writing on the topic of Latter Day Saints". - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 20:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

You're reading more into my edit summary than I intended, which is my fault because it was badly phrased. I was just simply unaware of his LDS writings and didn't at all mean to suggest that thea cat requirement was that the majority had to be LDS. In other words, I mistakenly used the word "majority", and I'm glad you started this talk to inform me of his LDS writings, because in light of that I think he can be included in the category. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 01:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I would think that a religious writer might have a different category than that usually claimed for a person who happens to be a member of a religion and who also happens to have a particular occupation. It seems to me that folks are placing too much emphasis on his pro-LDS writings and other people are either annoyed with this or disagree with it. My original question wasn't answered - why can't someone who is a member of LDS and writes, not be considered for a given category with a religious affiliation regardless of whether anyone likes those writings or even agrees with them? It seems utterly harmless to me and not a question that requires a lot of discussion either. Student7 01:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Because being a merely being a Latter Day Saint who is a writer—unless the person is writing on an LDS topic—is a non-notable intersection of religion and other status, and if the category is being used that way, it's subject to deletion as a probable overcategorization because Latter Day Saint writers are treated no differently than non-LDS ones. Arguing that other categories do the same type of overcategorization too is not a convincing argument, see WP:WAX; nor is the argument that doing so is harmless, see WP:HARMLESS. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 07:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, maybe most categories of people are overcategorization in Wikipedia. I hope that fact doesn't change them. For example, "notable people from <state>/<city>." Sometimes people are great because they got their education in <state>/<city>. Most likely they would have been notable anyway and living (or merely residing) in a state or city is coincidental to their later (or sometime past!) success. If you wish to criticize all biographical categorization, feel free. I think you will meet with considerable disagreement.
So again, it boils down to: can Card be categorized based on his religion like every other person in Wikipedia or must he be uncategorized because someone doesn't like (or maybe likes, I don't know, maybe they consider it stereotyping) his writing? Student7 01:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with what an editor likes or dislikes. Read the policy I linked to. A "religion + anything else" categorization is only appropriate if the intersection of the two is notable for some reason. You are essentially making a WP:WAX argument, which, as I said above, is simply not convincing. The fact that there are many categories being misapplied in WP is NOT a good reason to misapply another one. But, because Card writes on matters relating to the Latter Day Saint movement, this discussion is pretty much moot with respect to this article since he meets the category qualifications. He is a writer and he writes about LDS topics, thus he fits in the category. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 01:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

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)

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:

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:


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

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:


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

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)

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)

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)

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 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)

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)
As of 01 May 2009, he has taken an activist stance, recently penning published articles promoting his views (within the last year), and People For The American Way has issued a widely-reposted press release responding to his explicit call for the overthrow of any government that legalizes gay marriage. This is noteworthy. If he is indeed afraid of spiders, he has not publicly promoted fear of spiders, nor been publicly responded to by prominent Arachnid Rights organizations, with anywhere near this level of visibility. SteubenGlass (talk) 19:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

Homophobia; "which he disputes", round 2

See discussion elsewhere. The key reason for including Card's views on homosexuality is that he has written several widely-discussed, controversial essays in which he outlines his views that homosexual sexual behaviour should be subject to prosecution, and that same-sex couples should not be allowed legal marriage, and that in fact legal marriage for same-sex couples justifies overthrowing the US government. These views have caused considerable controversy because they are considered homophobic.

The reason the controversy exists and needs to be documented in Wikipedia is because Card has published his views and people have reacted to those views as homophobic.

That Card thinks his views on homosexuality are not homophobic is not part of the controversy, and would not by itself justify the inclusion of those views in Wikipedia. Foregrounding Card's objections to having his views characterized as homophobic distorts the article: Card's opinion of his own views is more-than-adequately documented. This was discussed at length some time ago, and that was (in round 1) the conclusion arrived at. Nothing has changed since Yonmei (talk) 11:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Judging by your userpage, it's apparent that you hold very strong feelings about Card, LGBT issues, and American wikipedians in general. To be perfectly clear, I have not and do not in any way advocate removing content critical of Card's stance on homosexuality. Your first and second paragraphs are unnecessary, because you have no need to justify the section's existence to me - I personally think the label applies. But this is first and foremost a biography, and if we are to cover the controversy over Card's views, then the least we can do is accurately convey what they are to begin with.
When you reverted my edit, you said that "the consensus on the talk page...was that 'which he disputes' was not required." But looking at round 1 of the discussion, I don't see where the editor consensus came to this conclusion. Two editors there supported inclusion. The third, RedSpruce, originally advocated removing the wording in question, but did not seem opposed to the wording proposed by Zeborah. If I'm not reading this correctly, please tell me where in the discussion this conclusion was reached.
But to get to the point, the problem I have with this section is that the first sentence is distinctly separated from the first paragraph. In most articles, the purpose of such "unlinked" sentences is to quickly summarize the contents of the following section before delving into further detail. This sentence, as it stands, does not convey the full contents of the section, as it does not mention Card's denial of the label. The two remedies I see would be to tag 'which he disputes' onto the sentence, or to simply merge the sentence - as it is - into the beginning of the following paragraph. Either we convert it into an accurate section summary, or we don't leave room for it be misinterpreted as one. »S0CO(talk|contribs) 23:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

Homophobe?

I think the Homosexuality section needs some work after reading his latest article. In it, he rants about homosexuality not being treated fairly in art (used as an afterthought, as a joke). Just a thought. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 12:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The WP article already makes clear that Card's views toward homosexuals aren't one-dimensional. In the article you link, he doesn't retract any of his prior statements about the subject; he just expresses his view that gays in fiction should be "real and living characters" and that gays are "human beings with as complex a combination of good and evil in them as I find within myself." Both of those quotes are from the WP article, so there's nothing in the article you link that isn't already covered. RedSpruce (talk) 14:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the thoughtful answer! :) — Frecklefσσt | Talk 13:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Interpretation

"Elsewhere he writes that, with respect to the polity, the citizens at large:"

Umm... some of the controversy about that quote deals with whether "polity" means a church polity, or actually means citizens at large. This being so, isn't it inappropriate to assume one of those interpretations in the article? Ken Arromdee (talk) 20:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The sentence "This applies also to the polity, the citizens at large." is what Card wrote in his article, not an interpretation on the part of the WP article. I've moved it into the quoted text to make this clear. RedSpruce (talk) 22:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Interpretation of Thomas S. Monson's letter

--Moved from my Talk page-- RedSpruce (talk) 15:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I certainly don't want to get into any kind of revert war here. I just think we need something in the article that decodes the language of the President's letter for those not accustomed to the way that this kind of discourse takes place in the U.S.A. The "anti" crowd says "defend marriage" when they mean "don't allow gays to have anything that's equivalent to marriage"; the "pro" crowd says, "it's a civil rights issue, and those who disagree are obviously homophobes." The letter in question was explicitly about a referendum prohibiting any marriage or marriage-like status for same-gender couples, and I don't think it's unreasonable to clarify that for the non-Americans in the Wikipedia readership. (As a heterosexual born-again Christian, still married to my first and only wife after 27 years, I personally don't see how allowing my neighbors to marry their loves diminishes our marriage in any way; but that's my personal opinion and theology and has no place in Wikipedia.) --Orange Mike | Talk 13:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

As you yourself point out, once you get into "interpreting" what this person--or any person--has said, you invite arguments about how you're slanting what was said. Personally, I think your interpretation is reasonably neutral and probably accurate, but it's still wrong, because it's your interpretation, and not what Thomas S. Monson said. And apart from the question of whether any such interpretation is appropriate, there's the fact that no interpretation is needed here. If there's anyone, in any country, who doesn't know what's being referred to by "preserv[ing] the sacred institution of marriage", it doesn't matter. It becomes obvious what sort of thing this letter refers to by the action that Card took in response to the letter. If anyone wants more clarification, they can click on the California Proposition 8 (2008) link in the article.
So, bottom line: you're doing an inappropriate thing--interpreting or "decoding" what someone has said--when there's no reason or need to do so.
RedSpruce (talk) 15:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
OK, fair enough; I certainly follow your reasoning. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Removal by Beach drifter

Beach drifter removed tons of material from the article—such as views on homosexuality, political views, etc.—asking what it has to do with Card as an author. Card is a journalist as well as an author, and a public speaker, which is why we have so much of this material in the first place (it's all referenced). If he were just a sci-fi author, it probably wouldn't be appropriate for the article. But the fact that he speaks out on this stuff is why it's in the article. I don't want to get in an edit war here, but I think most editors who work on this article would agree with me. The sections removed by Beach drifter should be restored. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 13:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Card has achieved a certain notability as a social commentator as well as for being a writer. I agree that Beach drifter's excisions should be reversed. Ray (talk) 14:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure I removed more material than I should. I don't really remember doing it or what my reasoning was at the time. Looking over it again however, I still fail to see why these sections are so expansive. It's great that it's all referenced, but it seems that a few referenced statements on each topic would make his opinions clear. As the article reads now, his personal feelings on a few controversial subjects are out shining his accomplishments as a writer, journalists, public speaker, etc. It makes it appear as someone is taking issue with his stances, a POV type of situation. My original deletions were probably just a crappy attempt at getting someone else to whittle those sections down. Beach drifter (talk) 23:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE requires us to avoid placing undue weight on particular aspects of an individual's persona. There is far too much on Card's political writings as opposed to his fictional work here, and it is as a fiction writer that he is more famous. If you were to try to, say, summarize particular paragraphs rather than excising them completely, I think you'd find us quite on your side. Ray (talk) 20:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I was looking at some of the links under "Other" and I think that we:

  1. Have too many of them, and
  2. Some are only marginally related to the article

For example, one link is to an essay by someone who thinks Ender's Game is really an apologetic view on Hitler. I'm sure Card thinks Hitler was as much as a madman as any Rabbi you run across. Another is an essay critical of the character Ender. These have little to do with Card as a whole and more to do with his Ender-verse. And their content isn't discussed in the article at all. If they were important to Card's career or impact, they'd be discussed in the article, but they aren't. They are tangental views and anyone with anything like Card's body of work is likely to get criticized by someone. At least, they should be moved in an Ender article. However, I'd prefer removing them altogether. They're just more garbage in the External links section. Anyone else? — Frecklefσσt | Talk 20:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. Our guideline on Wikipedia:External links is pretty straightforward. Clear away the garbage. RayTalk 21:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your contribution and removal of the links mentioned. I also removed some which are already included as references and some that don't have anything to do with the subject of the article (misc. essays by him). The links section was effectively an Internet directory of every online article by him, clearly forbidden by Wikipedia:External links. I think it's trimmed down to a reasonable size now. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 11:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Is he a practicing Mormon?

I couldn't tell from the article. I think it's relevant to mention if he still is a member of the mormon church since that provides some context to his religious views. --Quasipalm (talk) 04:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

He is. The lead-in now mentions it. Also, I read his blog, and in it he often refers to his religion. It's apparent he is still a practicing member. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 15:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Active, devout, outspoken; that's why it belonged in the lede. You can't understand Card without knowing it. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Intro length

The introduction is currently four sentences long. While I'm aware that some people seem to regard lede sections as some kind of brevity contest, this is far too short for an article of this size. We should be aiming for at least a couple of proper paragraphs. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

And on the other hand, there's far too many headings. –xenotalk 15:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Political writing

This section is poorly sourced. Many things are asserted, but the two links provided do not provide documentation for the sentiments noted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davmpls (talk • contribs) 17:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Introduction

The words "anti-gay" were added. Is this NPOV? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davmpls (talk • contribs) 23:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me he's calling himself "homophobic"

"Some" call him homophobic? "...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." If that's not homophobia, the word is meaningless. This is an example of specious attempt at neutrality unbalancing the article in the subject's favor. The man has outed himself as a homophobe. A less weaselish wording would be "Card's statements on homosexuality and civil rights for gay people have drawn charges of homophobia." 72.229.55.176 (talk) 01:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Where's the evidence that he's afraid of homosexuals? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.73.166 (talk) 00:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the word "homophobia" is that has two uses. Its first use is in clinical psychology where it names a pathological condition characterized by irrational fear of homosexuals or homosexuality. Its second use is as a label to defame those who, for whatever reason, do not acquiesce in the demands of the gay rights movement. The second use is a borrowing, much like the word "gay", which despite centuries of usage to mean someone who is cheerful and happy, now also means someone who is homosexual. In fact, the borrowing has nearly completely subsumed the traditional meaning of "gay", which is probably the fate of the word "homophobia". According to the clinical definition Card is not homophobic; according to the second, he is. Odd situation, isn't it? Mike (talk) 01:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Homophobia is a fear of, or aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuals. This is the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition. The clinical definition is practically obsolete as a single meaning. And Card is indeed a "card carrying" homophobe. 80.47.82.65 (talk) 08:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Whether he is or not, he doesn't belong in the Category:Homophobia as you placed him. I removed it. Though he may be homophobic (according to the non-clinical definition), he doesn't have anything to do with the subject of homophobia. This would be like placing someone who had diabetes in the Category:Diabetes. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 23:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Family/Personal life

I want to add the information that Orson Scott Card is a known fan and supporter of the TV-Series Firefly. The only place I think it would fit if I was allowed to rename the 'Family' section into 'Personal life' and add the information there. Any objections or other suggestions? He can be seen in the DVD documentary Done the impossible, telling about his love for the show. Quiet photon (talk) 11:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Conservative?

I'm not going to edit this, because I'm not some kind of expert on OSC, but I'm pretty sure he's not conservative. I'm pretty sure he's a Democrat and considers himself to be liberal on many issues. The belief that he's conservative probably comes from his hawkish position on foreign policy, but that hardly makes him a conservative. Amulekii (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


He resigned from both the Republican and Democratic parties. He was Democratic for a time—because he was disgusted with the Republican party—but he later was equally disgusted with the Democratic party, though I am uncertain if he renounced his membership of that party. His political beliefs are very much inline with those of the Republican party, however. But he may not be a formal, registered Republican. If the article states he is Republican, it should have a reference. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 12:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ See, for example:
    Minkowitz, Donna (Feb. 3, 2000), My favorite author, my worst interview, Salon.com {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help),
    Cline, Austin (Jan. 3, 2004), Orson Scott Card: Criminalize Homosexual Behavior, About.com:Agnosticism / Atheism {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help),
    Friedrichs, Ellen (Jan. 22, 2008), Homophobic Author, Orson Scott Card, Gets Award, About.com:GLBT Teens {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help),
    Whelan, Debra Lau (Jan. 16, 2008), Controversial Author Wins Edwards Award, School Library Journal: Reed Elsevier Inc {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference hypocrites was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Orson_Scott_Card/Archive_2&oldid=1088449041"