Jump to content

Talk:Orson Scott Card/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Citations to Card's views on homosexuality and gay marriage in the lead

"Lead doesn't typically need citations, but also these are not third-party sources or specific references for the content." Araignee

The lead already has several citations. And if we're going to have a tagline in the lead regarding his views about homosexuality then it makes sense to provide links to the articles where Orson Scott Card shared those views. The articles were both written by Orson Scott Card. Alternatively we could remove the tagline in the lead regarding his views about homosexuality, since that's dealt with later in the article. Lordvolton (talk) 20:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Card against homosexuality qua "sex"? or qua "orientation"?

Is card against homosexuality due to self-professed moral (chastity) concerns? The sources say yes. Along with Card's insistence he has nothing against gays individually or collectively, his overheated rhetoric itself is moralistic in nature. E.g.:

“[G]ay activism as a movement is no longer looking for civil rights, which by and large homosexuals already have. Rather they are seeking to enforce acceptance of their sexual liaisons as having equal validity with heterosexual marriages, to the point of having legal rights as spouses, the right to adopt children, and the right to insist that their behavior be taught to children in public schools as a completely acceptable ‘alternative lifestyle.’

“It does not take a homophobe to recognize how destructive such a program will be in a society already reeling from the terrible consequences of ‘no-fault’ divorce, social tolerance of extramarital promiscuity, and failing to protect our adolescents until they can channel their sexual passions in a socially productive way."

--Card's Sunstone opinion piece/rant.

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I thought the edit was a good one and from what I've read, I agree with these statements. Morphh (talk) 01:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
The edit was a poor one. Where in Card's writing or in secondary sources do we find the statement that he only opposes homosexual behavior which is unchaste? Is this a distinction he draws? No - HSG is attempting to insert personal analysis, apparently based on a general statement about the tenets of Mormonism rather than anything about Card's views specifically. Surely we can clear up what users believe to be ambiguities without having to insert things made up by users, instead of derived from the sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Roscelese. It's not obvious at all what opposing "unchaste" homosexual behavior is supposed to mean, or how "unchaste" homosexual behavior would differ from "chaste" homosexual behavior. Hodgdon's edit confused matters. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree, the edit seeks to read into the comments more than OSC is actively stating. OSC's writings tend to focus on the socio-politico-economic spectrum, not the religious. It's fairly clear that he's not against homosexuality as a trait, but instead regarding certain behaviours, but this edit is NPOV. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 13:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Card believes gay behavior immoral(/um civilizationally retrograde or whatever) whether betwixt those S.S.married or no; but I suppose an actual quote would have to spell this out, to accomodate wp:SYNTH, etc. In any case, 2013 will be seen as a watershed and coming years may bring about otherwise conservative religions' making accomodations for commited couples to have sex without pastoral discouragement/ecclesiastic sanction.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
It seems Card is askig for "tolerance"...with a part of his arguement being that, since his most egregious statements had been addressed to coreligionists within the Mormon corridor (UT, parts of so.ID/WY/no.AZ: which, of course...other than the parts crossing into NV or within CO/NM...are socially conservative states akin the Bible belt), his remarks should be given some leeway due this context. E.g., like accounting for the times when analyzing Churchill's closedmindedness w rgd Indian self-rule, etc etc.

Bytheway Sir Winston apparently was essentially pro gay rights? See here. ...Of course, Churchill himself had once been brought up for buggery charges while in the Royal Army. (The charges were hushed: apparently standard for a person of his social class, at the time.)

Meanwhile (per Wikipedia: "LGBT history in Russia"), "Joseph Stalin added Article 121 to the entire Soviet Union criminal code, which made male homosexuality a crime punishable by up to five years...."

Roosevelt? Well, according to "Newport sex scandal," as Wilson's Secty of War, Roosevelt approved trolling for gays in the Newport military installation, only to be embarrassed when it turned out that the undercover operatives who were trying to entrap the suspected personnel had been ordered to perform oral sex on their assigned suspects (or something to that effect).

Hooo! lol--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC) & wrt the Kaiser, see "Harden–Eulenburg Affair."--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Good points. Morphh (talk) 12:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not our job to condition Card's actions. He cast a people as fundamentally immoral and destructive to society; any equivocation by Card IS worthy of inclusion- but attempting to colour this aspect with ambiguity seems to promote his personal interest in mitigating damage. "It's fairly clear that he's not against homosexuality as a trait..." That's absurd. "Blacks/Jews/homosexuals are fundamentally immoral and destructive to society- but I have nothing against blackness/Jewishness/homosexuality unto itself." Right. Noteworthy, for sure- but presenting those equivocations in a way construed to lend credibility would be partisan.Mavigogun (talk) 06:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I find it fairly sad that we have all this discussion about his views on homosexuality and several paragraphs in the article, but we become anemic with regard to why Card is notable in the first place. If we spent half the time focusing on the other content, this would probably be a decent article. Morphh (talk) 13:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Card's anti-homosexual views, activism, and surrounding controversy are very much part of his fame. Card stepped into the public spotlight as an author of science fiction- and since then has used that notoriety as a platform to promote his ideology. This article is not "the literary works of Orson Scott Card" nor "the political life of Orson Scott Card"- it's the whole package. Your disappointment is misplaced.Mavigogun (talk) 13:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
That's my point, it's the whole package, but we spend 99% of our time on his homosexual views. I didn't suggest the views were not notable to him, just that we spend a significant amount of the time on that one subject. Considering the body of work he has produced, all the reliable sources that discuss this and his life, this issue is a small part. The section needs to be in proper balance with the article, which is why we're not including all kinds of quotes from every side of the discussion and not expanding on every detail that makes news. We have this WP:SPA attitude with these articles and it needs to move on. Morphh (talk) 13:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that the concept of "orientation" is not one that is shared between the two sides of this controversy, but is endorsed by the pro-gay/LGBTQ side only. Opponents to homosexuality on religious and moral grounds address it solely as a set of discrete acts, with very few to no exceptions. --BenMcLean (talk) 21:26, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Recent rearranging

I think the recent arranging of the article from this to this is incorrect in putting certain topics in sub-sub-sections. Personal views belong outside of the realm of OSC's writing; he's outspoken in many realms on many views, and I believe it belongs as it did: in a "personal views" section. Any one else? X~Araignee (talk • contribs) 02:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Why segregate opinions from referencing the fame of Card's columns themselves? From a tertiary POV, our subject has become famous for his outspoken Religious Right opinions about homosexuality only after 2008 and via his new Mormon Times column and before that, again encyclopedically speaking, whatever views he had (incl. his 1990 Sunstone piece) merely provided "color" w rgd his sci fi writings, IMO.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 16:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
There's no "segregation" of his columns from his columns; rather, the columns are only one outlet of his opinions. His opinions live outside of his writings, and should reflect that. If we're discussing a specific notable article he wrote (one that generated controversy in itself, for example), or the fact that he writes columns, that'd belong in his Columns section. If we're discussing an opinion he has voiced, supported by an aggregate of columns/writings/speeches, it belongs in his Personal Views section. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 03:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Update?

This biographical article seems to end in 2009 except scattered remarks: film adaptation forthcoming 2013, support for Gingrich2012 (, homosexuality/phobia controversy 2011-2013, stroke 2011.

Thirty months have passed since Card anticipated full recovery from that stroke (2011-01-05). Only from series article Ender's Saga, I know that three novels have been published since then, but #12. Shadows in Flight may have been complete before the stroke, or nearly so, and #13-14. are co-written. Series article Tales of Alvin Maker --remarkably, with no count and no dates in the lead-- seems out of date to me; so much time has passed since the last published book that some coverage of the delay may be expected.

Living at home in NC with daughter Zina may date from 2006-2009. Sections 3.1 and 3.3 end in the present tense, regarding the annual writing class and service as writing contest judge, but the source dates are 2001 and 2006.

I don't know that much recent information is available to be used for update on personal life, health, and work.

The Library of Congress may help now or soon, as it catalogs works that are officially forthcoming.

Of course it's a reliable source about the past in many respects. --P64 (talk) 00:50, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm far from an expert on OSC, but if you've got details, feel free to update the article. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 18:31, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Noteworthy current Card blog essay

(His most recent, altho dated May 2012). The commentary about it is too fresh for us to include yet but the essay still is creating quite a stir link. Inanycase our subject's continuing "fame" as a commentator seemingly remains assured.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm no fan of Obama, but wow, just wow:
"Orson Scott Card, the “Ender’s Game” novelist who ignited a firestorm over his comments about gay marriage, has written a paranoid essay comparing President Obama to Hitler in which he suggests Obama could be planning a coup to take over the United States."
Yeah, this belongs in the article. MilesMoney (talk) 03:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Just keep in mind WP:NOTNEWS. We have to look at Card's biography from a historical perspective and provide proper WP:WEIGHT to the man's life. So we have to avoid turning his biography in to a list of criticisms or cherry picking the latest news and quotes. In fact, for a WP:BLP we have to take extra care. Morphh (talk) 15:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
It belongs in the article because it's not just current events. What he said is so out there that it's bound to get noticed, and that's when we know it belongs in the bio.
In the meantime, I don't see how the Stern quote violates any of those policies ("WP:UNDUE, WP:IMPARTIAL, WP:PRIMARY in a WP:BLP"),. You're going to have to explain why you think so here before you remove it again. I'm listening. MilesMoney (talk) 16:54, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm afraid I agree with Morphh. There is no need to edit war recent sensationalist material into a BLP in this way. Mathsci (talk) 17:41, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
I didn't ask for agreement, I asked for justification. If you can't provide any, either, then the two of you have equally little to contribute. MilesMoney (talk) 19:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I was referring to this edit that you made.[1] The LA Times report is a different issue. I don't see why that particular article by Card needs to be described in his biography, per WP:WEIGHT. Mathsci (talk) 19:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
MilesMoney, You have that backwards. The burden is on the person inserting material to justify its inclusion when issues are raised, especially criticism in a WP:BLP, which is much more strict. The addition would give WP:UNDUE weight to the material for the topic and the article as a whole, also see WP:BALASPS. In addition, the material needs sufficient WP:BLPSOURCES, reflect WP:BLPSTYLE, and be WP:IMPARTIAL. These are just some of the issues. Please reread the policies if you're having trouble seeing the issues - a direct quote from WP:NPOV: "Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." And we certainly don't add material to articles because "it's bound to get noticed" and that's how we know it belongs - no, material belongs in the article when sufficient secondary reliable sources cover the material and it is weighed in relevance to the overall content in the article and the weight of the material in the topics. Famous people say outrageous things every day, it doesn't make it historical in the persons life biography. Morphh (talk) 19:54, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
To be honest, too, a self-published petition in itself is hardly noteworthy: I could go to the same site and start a petition demanding that Obama disclose all data related to Area 51 and Roswell, and I bet I could get many thousands of signers. In itself, it's an opinion of a non-noteworthy person who's entitled to his opinion, but the petition's wording stating that OSC is a "bigot" who supports "homophobia" already undermines its use as a direct neutral reporting source. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 01:38, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Card's politics

  1. ... Card’s politics are unconventional, blending some elements of liberalism and conservatism while rejecting others: “I grew up Republican but left in 1977, nauseated by the growing Reagan-worship,” he says. “Though the Democratic party was already on the road to extremist madness at that time, there were still Democrats like Daniel Patrick Moynihan — intelligent, capable of nuanced thought, and not given to hero worship.” Years later, Card came to admire George W. Bush: “the most honorable president of my lifetime,” he says. “No president since Lincoln has governed so well in the face of such vitriolic, dishonest, and hypocritical opposition.” He has served on the board of the National Organization for Marriage, a group that has become a hate object of the Left for opposing same-sex marriage. Card remains a registered Democrat but believes his own party is committed to “insane social experiments.” He sees the GOP as anti-immigrant and racist. “I really am a man without a party,” he says.

    Maybe it’s best to call Card ornery — he even blogs at the Ornery American (www.ornery.org), a website he runs — and recognize that creative types don’t need to be systematic political thinkers to engage the rest of us. ...

    John J. Miller in Nat'l Review

  2. "I once received a Libertarian award. While I didn’t decline it, I was baffled: Who could read my fiction and think of it as anything but to-the-bones communitarian in perspective?"

    Interviewer's question: "Can you define communitarian for me?"

    Well, the word I used to use was communist – small-C communist. Marxism/Leninism was by no means communism, they knew that themselves. What they were was climax capitalism. One owner. Capitalism where the capitalist owner is the state.

    OSCard, interviewed by David Larsen in New Zealand Listener--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Great interview

Would-be blackballee?

We probably should wait awhile to make much mention of this--such as a separate article akin to Chick-fil-A same-sex marriage controversy--but (per eg a July 20 opinion pc by a NYT editorial bd member) it's notable that Card has become a victim of attempt at sorta-kinda Hollywood [& more successfully comicbook publishing?] "blacklisting."

Meanwhile, a Forbes contributer suggests folks either strongly opposed / strongly supportive of Card's political/social views, per the free market, ought avoid the flick or see it twice.

And an Advocate columnist opines:

[...I]f two of Card’s projects are tanked as a result of his homophobic view in one year, then the author is likely to be considered a risk for other projects, which means less money in his pockets and less money that he then donates to antigay organizations like NOM. [...]

Of course, there is the question of tolerance — should we set a good example by refraining from a witch hunt against homophobes? I do believe that everyone is entitled to political beliefs, but the issue is not Card’s personal held beliefs. It's the hate speech that he has propagated as a result of his views. If you are going to say hateful and inflammatory things about a subgroup of the population, then you must be willing to accept the consequences.

So, though Card has a right to my tolerance (I will not throw bricks through his window, I promise), he is not entitled to my financial support.

It breaks my heart to have to find out the ugly truth behind a book that I loved as a kid. But this November 1, I will not be going to see Ender’s Game. [...]

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Preparing for the eventual "OSCard SSMarriage controversy" article:
  1. Southern Poverty Law Center terms the NOM a hate group. (Winter 2010)
  2. "Profile: National Organization for Marriage" By Political Research Associates, February 14, 2013

    "History, Leadership, and Goals

    "Conservative activist Maggie Gallagher and Princeton professor Robert George launched the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) in 2007. NOM’s mission is to defeat same-sex marriage at the polls, in the legislature, and in the courts, from state to state and across the country. The group functions as an organized infrastructure that coordinates state and federal initiatives into a national movement to ban same-sex marriage.

    "[... ...]

    "Gallagher previously worked for other antigay groups such as the Institute for American Values and the Marriage Law Foundation. In her book The Abolition of Marriage, Gallagher equates same-sex marriage with polygamy, stating that 'for all its ugly defects, [polygamy] is an attempt to secure stable mother-father families for children… [and] there is no principled reason why you don’t have polygamy if you have gay marriage.' Current board chair Dr. John Eastman, a Chapman University law professor, has vocally defended the Boy Scouts' antigay discrimination and referred to homosexuality as a form of 'barbarism.'" (LINK

  3. "[... ...] Utah Valley University President Matthew Holland [son of one of the Mormons' top advisory group of 12 clerics aka "apostles"] recently stepped down from the organization's board and was replaced by author and Mormon Times columnist Orson Scott Card.

    "'Everybody gets to speak out on issues they feel strongly about,' said [Utah gov.] Huntsman, a Mormon. 'It's the American way. I don't begrudge anybody their point of view.'

    "The commercial was the focus of a recent New York Times column by Frank Rich about the shift in sentiment among conservatives towards same-sex marriage. The column featured comments from Huntsman, a Republican, on his support for civil unions. [... ...]" ([Mormon-owned] Deseret News, April 24 2009 LINK)

  4. David Gerrold, the author of the Star Trek episode "The Trouble with Tribbles," has responded to Card with a Facebook post:

    "You want me to be tolerant, Scott? First be one of those people who understands. Or to put it bluntly — get your fucking foot off my neck, then we'll talk tolerance.

    "See, Scott — I don't dislike you. I honestly don't. I think you're a very interesting author and you've turned out some works I admire. But you've made PR Mistake Number One. You've sided with hate-mongers. You've targeted a minority and you've characterized yourself as the righteous warrior. That gives you a short-term gain and a long-term loss. Look up Father Coughlin and Anita Bryant and Kirk Cameron.

    "Now you've made PR Mistake Number Two — instead of honestly and sincerely apologizing for the hurt you have caused others, you have doubled down. You have played the martyr card, arguing that you are the victim."

    LINK

    (To be continued.)

    --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

  5. The Atlantic Wire's Esther Zuckerman (link), Aug. 6, 2013:

    As for the controversy over author Orson Scott Card's record of homophobia, we'll have to see if it pops up again. The creative team did a decent job of addressing the issue at Comic-Con, where producer Roberto Orci said that they were going to "use the spotlight — no matter how we got here — to say we support LGBT rights and human rights."

    --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  6. In a Mormon Times column from 2008 Card defines what he means by his requests for "tolerance" (link):

    We do not believe that homosexuals, by entering into a "marriage," are personally hurting anybody. Where the law makes such a thing available, even temporarily, those who "marry" are not our enemies. We believe the law is wrong and the marriage is not, in any meaningful way, what we mean by marriage.

    But my family and I are perfectly able to deal with such couples socially and keep them as friends, as long as they show the same respect and understanding for our customs and beliefs as we show for theirs.

    I speak from experience: My family and I have close friends who are gay, some of whom have entered into lawful marriages. They know we don't agree that their relationship is the same thing or should have the same legal status as our marriage, but we all accept that strong and clear difference of opinion and move on, continuing to respect and love each other for the values we share.

    Only when a gay friend demanded that I agree with his or her point of view or cease to be friends has the friendship ended. What is odd is that in every case they called me intolerant. They misunderstood the meaning of "tolerance." [... ...]

    --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 16:33, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  7. Hmmm, possibly w/in the "Irony Dept.": OSCard here (link) evaluates rather candidly the tendency for others to disregard (/i.e sort of the relative merits of...?) his many, varied (and apparently generally oft-outspoken...) notions.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:23, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
  8. NYT's Ari Karpel to Breitbart.com, Mar 4, 2013: "While the gay audience itself is not necessarily the core audience for an 'Ender's Game' series of movies, the younger demographic is increasingly sensitive to gay civil rights issues. Moviegoers are savvy. It's going to be hard to avoid making this an issue."[2]
  9. Ben Arnold, Yahoo UK Movies News, Aug. 16, 2013: "Writer Orson Scott Card appears to be doing his best to blackball himself in Hollywood."--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:08, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  10. Aug 30, 2013, LATimes feature story: "Yet one of the book’s strongest and more enduring themes is its timeless take on integrity and compassion, somewhat surprising given Card’s recent remarks about homosexuals (whom he’s called sinners) and President Obama (whom he compared to Hitler). Even amid so many explosions, “Ender’s Game” ultimately is a coming-of-age story about the personal and psychological cost of warfare and the inherent goodness of children such as Ender."
  11. Aug 27, 2013, CSMonitor: "Orson Scott Card seems determined to alienate most of the movie's potential audience. He's taken on gays, Muslims, Democrats, Turks, Russians and pretty much anyone who isn't a conservative white American. If audiences boycott the movie because of Card's beliefs, it will ruin Summit's plans to adapt subsequent books in the franchise. So Summit has a simple message: focus on the movie and forget about Card. That's not easy to do when he's comparing Barack Obama to Hitler."--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
  12. FireDogLake, Sep. 6, 2013: "Patrick Yacco of Geeks Out emailed me [Edited: Lisa Derrick] about the Respect fundraiser, Lionsgate and Ender’s Game: 'Until Lionsgate and their subsidiaries are more transparent about their production deal with homophobic activist Orson Scott Card for the rights to Ender’s Game, it’s difficult to see them as deserving of such an award [Edited: Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network's 2013 Respect Awards]. Unfortunately, it’s highly unlikely that those details will ever be revealed, so I feel that LGBT fans have few options to support that film, and should skip it when it’s released later this year.'"--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
  13. Card chimes in on debate, finally, after film debut (in Sunday Deseret News, both nat'l & UT editions).--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  14. Evan Smith Rakoff, Oct. 30, 2013, LATimes

    "Card is a Mormon[...]Christ of Latter-day Saints. [...] In 2012, during the divisive Amendment One movement to ban gay marriage in North Carolina, where Card lives, he wrote an opinion piece for micro-local paper the Rhinoceros Times stating why gay marriage should be prohibited.

    [...]

    "It may be of interest to anyone intent on keeping film profits from Card’s pocket that a typical book-to-film option has bonuses for bestsellers, so hypothetically, for every week a book is on the bestseller list, a film company, such as Lionsgate, would pay an author $5,000 -- even before the film is in theaters. If that’s the case, again, hypothetically, Card has already pocketed a quarter-million in addition to the price of the option.

    "Still, there’s hope Card’s views on humanity will evolve, just as the views of the Mormon Church evolved as the world changed around it. When informed Utah couldn’t join the United States unless it practiced monogamy, its leader, Wilford Woodruff, received a revelation from God that instructed him to ban polygamy and embrace monogamy."

    --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 16:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
  1. However note this information via investigative reporters at The Wrap: "Orson Scott Card Won't Make Squat From 'Ender's Game' Box Office - Boycott the Book Instead (Exclusive)". TheWrap. Retrieved 2013-10-31.: "Though it was whispered early on that Card’s contract had “escalators” – built-in box-office milestones with cash bonuses attached – individuals close to the film say he has no such profit participation."--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 16:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Card surprisingly (or not? see Chik-fil-a) believes booksales trend upward as a result of his pretty negative press, presumably due the "free publicity": "Will it [boycotts] affect the reception of my work? Of course, but not in ways that they expect. My sales go up with such attacks." link--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

New webpage on OSC's site w rgd his previous comments on SSmarriage

WEIGHT

The homosexuality section has yet again exploded in size creating WP:WEIGHT issues for the article violating WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. We worked toward a consensus several months ago, and now it's back to this nonsense. Cut it in half. Morphh (talk) 00:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I restored the version prior to User:Particled doubled it size in violation of weight policy and prior consensus achieved by many editors to reduce the size of the section and maintain proper balance with regard to significance in reliable sources. Please do not restore until discussion can pull out any significant pieces from the prior text that replace less significant text, maintaining weight within the article. To be clear, I'm not trying to remove any particular content or white wash it in any way, but the prose needs to be summarized and be limited in size as not to provide more weight in the biography of Scott Card then is due in reliable sources that discuss his life and work. So in short, it shouldn't be any larger then 3 or 4 paragraphs (not double the size of his science fiction section - what he is notable for) - so, include prose for the most significantly covered points for that subject and include references for the other notable criticism when similar in context. Morphh (talk) 00:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
No. The section of Card's Fiction Writing is 1252 words, and there is also a section about his other writing accomplishments (teaching, journalism, etc) that is 522, plus another 265 words for his Writing Awards. In addition to all of this, there are also separate articles for each of his novels and also a separate article for his Bibliography. The section on his views about homosexuality (which is now the second most prominent thing he is known for) was only 870 words before you just cut it down to 481 words. And you're claiming Undue Weight? There was never any issue with WP:WEIGHT here because the section on his views about homosexuality was always far less than the sections on his writing. I'm sure Card's defenders would love to see most if not all of this section swept under the rug because it doesn't paint a rosy picture of him, but Wikipedia isn't here to make him look good and as long as it's sourced and relevant then it belongs in the article (see WP:WELLKNOWN). Additionally, the section on his views about Homosexuality also includes Card's various responses to the issues mentioned in it, so there was no WP:NPOV violation like you claim. Whether you like it or not, Card's views on this topic are now extremely prominent and highly relevant in relation to his public persona and even his work (the boycott, the media storm it has caused, actors and film studios distancing themselves from him, etc). 88.104.28.206 (talk) 11:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
You're comparing a major topic heading and other articles to a sub-topic heading, which is not appropriate. The comparable sub-section on Science fiction is 469 words, which is close to half the size of the 900 word homosexuality section. We barely cover his most popular work, yet we have 8 paragraphs on his homosexuality views. A separate article on Enders Game doesn't change the weight relation in this article. You can just scroll the article and clearly see the balance violation in the sections. Per WP:BLP "The idea expressed in WP:Eventualism – that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape – does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times." I don't suggest the topic is unimportant or not prominent, but clearly for a Biography we must keep the size in balance. We don't need all this material to convey the major points and not drum on with "and he wrote this mean thing, and this mean thing (which he says he doesn't believe anymore), etc". We don't need to quote every absurd statement he's written - we need to give proper weight to what is important and not what is just WP:NEWS based on recent events. Many celebrities are known for some political view or controversy - it doesn't dominate their biography as we have here. Pick whatever juicy bits of controversy over the topic are most relevant and briefly make mention of the other points to include a reference. Also, I didn't claim it was unbalanced (of viewpoints) as you suggested - WEIGHT is part of NPOV. It could be the most balance section ever, but if takes over the article, it's still a NPOV violation. Morphh (talk) 14:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

First of all, there is no WP:WEIGHT or WP:NPOV issue here, for the reasons already stated. Card's views and activism against homosexuality and gay marriage are indeed now the thing he is most known for after his writing, yet, in total, the more comprehensive version of the section (which was 870 words, not 900 so please don't exaggerate) equated to less than one sixth of the overall article wordcount. His writing career by far makes up the bulk of the article, so there is no problem with WP:WEIGHT. It is suitably proportionate. If you believe it does not balance well against the Science Fiction section of the article, then perhaps it's the Science Fiction section that needs more work to expand it rather than using it as an excuse to butcher other sections because they are more critical of him. Your preferred version of the Homosexuality section seems intent on obscuring perfectly sourced relevant facts and comes across as a whitewash, despite your claim to the contrary. In the spirit of compromise I have condensed the comprehensive version and managed to shave over 200 words off it so it now falls exactly between the two preferred wordcounts. This allows the section to maintain its comprehensiveness but takes up less space, so the integrity of the overall article is preserved. Particled (talk) 18:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

This is an absurd argument. If not for his writing no one would care about his view on LGBT issues. Arzel (talk) 18:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
That might be true, but it doesn't detract from the fact he's a highly prominent anti-gay campaigner. His writing career and fame may have given him that prominence in comparison to other campaigners who aren't notable enough to have Wikipedia articles about them, but it's still the reality of the situation. The article is about him and all the things he is known for. Particled (talk) 18:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Having read them both, I didn't think there was anything wrong with the longer version, but the new version seems like a fair compromise. It's something he's extremely well known for. Roguana (talk) 18:52, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
So which of you is 88.104.28.206? Or are you all the same as 88.104.31.52? Use of sock's is not a good way to gain consensus. Arzel (talk) 19:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Nice attempt at a smear campaign, but I'm afraid it's you and Morphh who have dozens of shared articles in common. Now grow up, stop edit warring and learn to compromise. Roguana (talk) 19:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Dozens? Not sure what you're suggesting here. I've edited thousands of articles and I only recall seeing Arzel on a few of the articles I watch. This is not even a big topic interest for me. Just happen to wander here after looking up literary information for Enders Game. Morphh (talk) 21:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to exaggerate. I used http://www.wordcounter.net/ and pasted the section in there, which gave 904 words 5426 characters (minus title and maintaining ref markings) WP:AGF. For overall word count, minus the lead - the section was reporting closer to 1/4 of the article. However, it didn't take word count to see the issue - you could just scroll the article and the imbalance for that section was apparent. As for the condensed version, that looks better - thank you. I think there are a few things that could be summarized a little more (I worry about WP:IMPARTIAL) and prior discussions on included topic points that have altered the consensus at that time (Hamlet's father is given more weight that it should for a view Card doesn't even acknowledge - see here), but it's a good step forward. Morphh (talk) 21:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I've just full protected the article for three days due to the ongoing edit warring. Please discuss the issue here on the talk page instead of continually reverting. Also, semi-protection will have to be manually re-enabled when full protection expires. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:12, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose expanding the section, per the consensus a while back, and Morphh's arguments above. Card is most notable as a writer, not his opinions on SSM. I understand that's the controversial issue of the day, but this trend of writing really long sections on the subject for any living person who has ever expressed any controversial opinions on the matter doesn't make for good encyclopedia articles, and is a violation of WP:Weight and WP:BLP. Yeah, it's in the news and blog space right now, but see WP:Recentism...10 years from now nobody will remember Card for having opposed SSM, but he'll still be notable as an author. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Card is most notable as a writer, and the material in contention discusses critical reception of Card's writing and of some of his other creative projects (such as the film adapataton of Ender's Game). The argument that the material is recentism is also a bit silly, as Card has been known for his strongly anti-gay stances for years – something he seems to have worked very hard to achieve. Dezastru (talk) 23:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Morphh, you have said "we need to give proper weight to what is important and not what is just WP:NEWS based on recent events". What are your judgments as to what is proper and important for this article based on? Dezastru (talk) 22:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I was meaning Wikipedia:Recentism - so looking at it from a long term historical view. And that's not to suggest that the topic is recentism, but only that its inflated weight and notability in relation to his life's biography is the a product of recentism due to homosexual marriage being a current hot issue in the U.S. As you described above, he's been writing this stuff for 20 years, but it's only recently become notable due to the change of public opinion on the topic. I expect if we look at the references, we'll see that most of the criticism is in just the last several years. I expect we've seen it's peak notability, since he's already conceded the loss. Morphh (talk) 01:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I support using the full version of this section. We have articles dedicated to his various books, so there's plenty of material on Wikipedia about his fiction, in addition to filling the majority of this article. However, he's used his fame as a writer to make a stand as a social activist, so we should report this as well. MilesMoney (talk) 03:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Other articles are irrelevant to the weight balance of this article - a BLP. Perhaps more content should be taken from those articles and inserted into this article to better represent WP:SUMMARY. Morphh (talk) 03:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't see how this would be mutually exclusive with restoring the full version of this section. MilesMoney (talk) 03:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Card has had a national voice for about 30 years. For the last 10 of those years (that is, for the last third of the time he has been nationally notable), he has been known for his positions on homosexuality, which he has been very vocal about. Apart from his political opinion pieces, several of his fiction works have involved LGTB-related themes, and these have been a subject of comment in the criticism of his work. So it's not WP:RECENTISM for the article to cover his positions and reactions to them. If sources indicate that his positions have evolved over the course of his career, then that can also be noted in the article. Dezastru (talk) 01:07, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose expansion of the section, again per previous consensus. While OSC's views on homosexuality may be a hot topic in certain contexts within the U.S., by and large the global audience knows him for his writing, particularly of Ender's Game and the recent film adaptation. Half the statements in the expanded version are simply him defending himself or refuting himself over a limited-context or misrepresented statement. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 04:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

LGBT SECTION

It is too much for this article considering he has in effect said goodbye to his published views in the 1990s by all accounts. I do not like Wikipedia's increasing tendency to let editors develop "side bar" motivations. I do not see anyway what his personal views on anything have to do with a bio which should state a bit about his upbringing, and then in the context of being a writer, his books. He is surely entitled to his views and not to have emphasis moved to this aspect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.66.81.80 (talk) 15:53, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I want to make it clear when I said "surely entitled to his views" I was not condoning them or validating them. The "surely" meant he is entitled to his viewpoint not that his viewpoint was something I "surely agreed" with. It is just my clumsey English sometimes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.66.81.80 (talk) 19:44, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Card's positions on these matters have been widely discussed and have become a significant part of his notability. Had he kept his views to himself, there would be no mention of them in the article. Dezastru (talk) 00:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Liberalism at its finest. Free speech for all unless it is the wrong kind of free speech. No place better than wp to turn a molehill into a mountain. Arzel (talk) 02:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't see how your comment is in any way helpful. MilesMoney (talk) 04:30, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
I was responding to the irony stated by Dezastru and played upon by the left on a regular basis. Take Alec Baldwin for instance. Baldwin makes some truly offensive remarks about the LGBT community...Twice! Yet because of he is a protected class you hardly hear anything about it, and apparently nothing on WP (even though his show has been suspended because of these remarks). Yet the LGBT community condemns, to no end, Card because of his personal view regarding LGBT. I just find it ironic that the same players aren't fighting, or even trying for that matter, to add the same kind of crap to his article. Don't you find that the least bit ironic? Arzel (talk) 06:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

This is about editorial balance. Not about one freedom of speech having a "pissing-party" with another (forgive clumsey English). I cannot see how Dezastru can make the statement that LGBT views are "a significant part of his notability": where is the evidence of this and to whom? If you mean to politicized gay factions then that is a minority and hence the emphasis on this section per it length must therefore be skewing the article. My simple view is this: The entry is about a SF author and therefore minimized as a platform for LGBT viewpoints one way or another. The fact is, a very large section is devoted to this, when this man is not a career-sociologist or career-feminist etc. He is simply an SF author. I do not understand how his viewpoint one way or the other could be so-expanded to take such a portion. I am not the only one (unfortunately I did not read the proceeding section before I started this thread). I just went to see the movie here in Stockholm yesterday evening and read about it here, and then the author, and the was shocked to see so much about LGBT issues. I live in a very progressive society and even I can see it is too much.

In my viewpoint it runs the risk of being perceived by the average reader (who by the law of numbers is more likely not to be LGBT) as a "witch hunt" set on a "name and shame" mission. Creating the impression of a witchhunt is NOT Wikipedia. Surely? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.66.81.80 (talk) 09:55, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

This is part of Card's public persona, and we are here to include everything that is relevant to his public persona as per WP:WELLKNOWN. Wikipedia is not an Orson Scott Card fan site and we do not censor articles just because certain details may not be pleasant or because a few right-wingers want no mention of it. He has publicly spoken out against homosexuality and has publicly campaigned against LGBT rights, using his fame and fortune to do so. Just because he is a SF writer does not mean he can not also be a political activist. If he makes it public then it's fair game, and Card's anti-LGBT views and activism have become widely known over the years because he has made it that way. The section is impeccably sourced and cannot be disputed. Roguana (talk) 12:49, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

But even with all that you stated, it can still be unbalanced with regard to the overall content in Card's biography, which it is. You could include criticism of his public views in a couple paragraphs. What we have is a blow by blow, with quotes, of each controversial statement in back and forth prose. When placed against the rest of his biography, we get NPOV WP:BALASPS: "For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." Morphh (talk) 13:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


While I read WP:BALASPS with interest, I really did shudder with the Roguana's words "fair game". Also, I am not right wing because I think it risks coming across as a "name and shame" agenda. No disrespect to Roguana but I think the point I said about "overall editorial balance" is indeed lacking and I don't agree with "fair game" aspect as it comes across as "spiteful" motivation. I do not think it is part of Wikipedia to criticize anyhow as that is surely "original work"??? Wikipedia is not a forum for "op eds". And if the motivation for the over inclusion is an implied criticism, then that is wrong too. I come back to what I said: Creating the impression of a witchhunt is NOT Wikipedia and editors should be cautious.

Could this not be simply stated as:

"In the past, Card has courted controversy in some quarters because of his perceived stance regarding LGBT issues on account of his religious beliefs.<ref></ref> Publicly he has since retracted these views.<ref></ref>"?

Does that not efficiently deal with it if mention must be made? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.66.81.80 (talk) 18:22, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

No it does not "efficiently deal" with it at all. It's like writing "Card is the author of several science fiction books" in the section about his career as an author as if it was something trivial about him. His anti-gay activism is the second most prominent thing he is known for, and has been for several years now. There's no WP:RECENTISM issue here and it's certainly not a "name and shame" agenda, nor is the wording of the section itself critical of him. You're actually projecting your own agenda onto it by trying to dismiss it as such. The section simply reports that Card's views and activism has led to widespread controversy and criticism from other people and organisations, and it quotes various high quality third party sources to show this. The article doesn't make any judgements about it, it merely reports it, as it should do. Furthermore, Card has not retracted his views at all. He has only claimed that he now longer wants to have gay people prosecuted under the law, but that's all (and the fact remains he still said it in the first place). It seems pretty obvious to me that people who want this section cut down or even removed completely are simply trying to censor the article. As I've said before, this is not an Orson Scott Card fan site, and it has to show the good with the bad. I once again refer you to WP:WELLKNOWN. Roguana (talk) 23:54, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
WP:AOBF - Stating that others are acting in bad faith is inflammatory and will aggravate a dispute. Either position could claim the other is acting to push a pov. Set an example and WP:AGF. Morphh (talk) 01:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


Roguana: I am not a "cord fan". I am a Wikipedia fan. This is not a newspaper either and "reporting it" is not a simple matter-of-fact thing. This is not about being an "fan site" either. It is about balance in the context this is an entry about an author and should therefore be primarily about his work and a bit about his upbringing — and not giving the appearance of witchhunt (which Roguana fails to deal with). And of course there is "censorship". Every article contains "censorship" so that ultimately it conforms with the rules, of which WP:BALASPS is one -v- Roguana's claim is it is "well known" (to trump WP:BALASPS with WP:WELLKNOWN). I still am none the better for an answer to the point I made 2 days ago so I repeat it:

"I cannot see how Dezastru can make the statement that LGBT views are "a significant part of his notability": where is the evidence of this and to whom? If you mean to politicized gay factions then that is a minority and hence the emphasis on this section per it length must therefore be skewing the article."

I am only advocating balance, rather than risking the appearance of a LGBT witchhunt. Nothing else. I hope this helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.66.81.80 (talk) 12:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Two points from an uninvolved editor: Card's views on homosexuality make up less than an eighth of the article which seems like a proper implementation of WP:BALASPS and give due weight to his views. It's not a case of "he has his views and so does everyone else". His views were extensively self-published and brought up in interviews, etc. Secondly, do not make significant changes to this section/blank the section while this discussion is underway until consensus is reached. --Slazenger (Contact Me) 04:42, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum for POLITICS about LGBT issues!!!

Who cares about either side of these issues. It is absolutely inappropriate to use every breath to push either side of these views. Keep your agendas at home, PLEASE!!! It is getting so old. anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.72.203 (talk) February 15, 2014‎

Agreed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.55.78.101 (talk) 14:41, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Yep. 155.213.224.59 (talk) 14:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry guys I'm not used to editing wikis but

Sorry guys I'm not used to editing wikis but I thought I'd pop in to say; Why does his view on homosexuality take up more space than the bit on his entire political philosophy? It seems disproportionate. I'm British not American and while it might be a hot topic over there - over here the law's already settled on gay marriage and your scrutiny of it is bemusing. Anyway; I thought he was an author first and a politician second. I could be mistaken of course (I don't know everything about him) but come on guys. It doesn't appear to me to be a proportionate article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.180.230 (talk) 22:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Glad to have you here! I think you're not alone with the feeling that the article is disproportionately focused on his views on homosexuality, as he's clearly much more dynamic than that, and most well-known by his novels. The hard part is that "in the moment", articles tend to overfocus on the things in the media, and summarizing them often results in a firestorm/edit war, which I personally don't really have the energy to start or defend. As things blow over, it's easier to move forward. However, you're welcome to join Wikipedia and be bold in your edits! ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 22:39, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
I also find the section dealing with Card's views on homosexuality to be excessive: he is an author, not a politician or a psychologist. I also think that the secton dealing with his politics reads something like an apologetics treatise. Card may describe himself as a "moderate democrat," but his subsequent statements and actions clearly indicate that he is, in fact, a conservative with distinct Republican leanings. Both of these points should be mentioned, but in doing so this section should also be shortened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 22:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Why? It's nothing more than your opinion (not trying to be rude here). There is no requirement for Republicans or Democrats to hold particular views -- no litmus test, so to speak. He identifies himself as a Democrat. Who are we to say otherwise? 155.213.224.59 (talk) 14:53, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I concur completely. It has little to do with his biography as a writer. I suspect some sort of advocate(s) have added it for their own good feelings. 155.213.224.59 (talk) 14:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

text following "..opted to put Card's story on hold.." deleted

I did this because: the reference came from an article that uses non neutral terms like "a gay fan group" on referenced page which brought it into question as a source of reliable information. Deleted text was:

A number of individuals and media groups (including an openly gay comic writer Dale Lazarov) have argued that dropping Orson from the project only because of his political views would be a case of reverse discrimination, as well as an attempt to punish Card for "thoughtcrime".[1] 87.114.182.236 Gregkaye (talk) 09:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Living in NC, but working in VA ?

SVU/Buena Vista is long commute from NC. I suspect he used to live in NC but now lives closer to his work site. Can anyone verify? 155.213.224.59 (talk) 14:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I was one of Professor Card's students in Spring 2009. As I knew it, he had an arrangement to teach four days with arrangements for staying over then leave for home on a long weekend.74.123.229.10 (talk) 17:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
It would be nice to have a verifiable ref for that. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 13:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
How's this? "I'd commute to my teaching gig at Southern Virginia University by train -- if there were a train that went there from Greensboro." http://www.hatrack.com/osc/reviews/everything/2011-06-30.shtml EricJamesStone (talk) 19:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
That's fine, apart from it being a primary source. But it's probably the best we're going to get. If you want to add it to the article, feel free! — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 19:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I have a copy of Ender's Game, and it says Copyright 1977 as well as 1985. Why isn't the 1977 date used in this entry? Was it originally a short story before the novel?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hendee (talk • contribs) 00:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Attempt to find consensus for alternate wording for party in infobox

I would think that (based on the near consensus from the outside) it’s time to drop this argument, but HSG seems to feel we can find alternate wording. I don't know if there are a lot of other cases of this, but let's try. I’ll suggest “Self-described Democrat; consistently supports Republican candidates.” In the meantime, based in the RFC above, the support of brevity in WP:INFOBOX (implying empty is default) and the fact that the article has spent nearly all its life without party in the inbox, please leave it out. Bennetto (talk) 17:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Further cmt "Consistently" may be (arguably semi-)correct but may simply remain overly tinged with Kos-style polemicism for an encyclopedia entry IMHO. Better (and arguably more accurate) might be "usually"? After all, he had said many times during 2008 that he hoped to support Dem. pres. candidate Lieberman thru-out the primaries. Eg:

    There is only one Democratic candidate I know of who is openly pledged to support our just and necessary war against terror-loving governments: Joseph Lieberman. Therefore he is the only Democratic candidate that I -- as an American and as a Democrat who thinks that Jewish lives in Israel are worthy of our protection -- can in good conscience vote for.

    And Lieberman has stuck to his support for the war even when it didn't look politically wise. Can you believe it? Integrity!

    I just hope he can keep his campaign going long enough for moderate Democrats to come to their senses and realize that we have a responsibility to nominate a candidate who will, if elected, continue the war against terror until we win it.

    link

    --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
First, Lieberman didn't run in the 2008 primaries; he left the party in 2006. He did run in 2004, over ten years ago. And though OSC did support him then, he was supporting him over other Democrats. How long has it been since he's supported a Democrat over a Republican? Ten years? More? Ok, now explain again how "usually" is more accurate.
That said, I think this debate is over. No one other than the two of us seems to want to find alternate wording. Bennetto (talk) 06:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
.Ideology does not map 1-for-1 with party. Why should WP be so absolutist about such a matter, for crying out loud, ha ha. I mean, geez, let the man simply possess what political party affiliation he does. Is that really so complicated? It need not needlessly be considered so. Yes, several contributors believe the fact of Card's affil. provides useful information about his nuanced views (namely, basically as a quasi-"theocrat" and neo-Conservative--whether he accepts these two designations or not--who thus votes like a blue dog Dem). And of course, Card said (in a comment I quoted abv) Lieberman was his guy in that year otherwise he'd maybe consider Guilliani blah blah (...in other words, as far as voting in general elections he apparently considers the, dunno, 20% of his spectrum that is Conservative [sic] on foreign policy, um not to mention the 20% that is religious Right, trump the 60% of him that is liberal rgding economics, immigration, I dunno, free speech and whatnot, views). So he'd obv. support Utah's bluedog, rec. retired, Matheson over US Sen. Lee. In other words __HE__ wouldn't want to label himself a GOPper....--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 23:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
"So he'd obv. support Utah's blue dog, rec. retired, Matheson over US Sen. Lee." That's not obvious to me, but let's say he does. You'd think that, in he copious political writing, he would have mentioned that then, right? But he doesn't. There are thousands of Democratic politicians in this country, but rather than speaking positively about any of them he talks about being a "Tony Blair Democrat." His view may align with some Democrats, but it's almost as if he goes out of his way not to support any current Democrat. Bennetto (talk) 12:54, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Interestingly, though, Card does share a palpable sense of cultural and ideological commonality with Joe Lieberman, no?--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:04, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The RFC is finding overwhelming opposition to including his party in the infobox and most of the oppose votes are specifically citing the fact that we don't do this for non-politicians. Drop the stick and move away from the dead horse. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:58, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I can find no reliable source for "consistently supports Republican candidates" at all, and it makes a claim in Wikipedia's voice where a strong reliable source would be required. Opensecrets.org shows only 2 contributions by him from 1990 to date -- both to McCain, and totaling the huge sum of $1,250. Which seems not to support any claim of "consistently supports Republican candidates" at all. Collect (talk) 18:02, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
By "support" I was really thinking of verbal, not financial support. All his comments about current politicians and candidates in recent years have supported Republicans and not Democrats. But thanks for adding that; it actually is a lot of money for most Americans if not for him. Could you suggest some alternate wording or would you rather drop it from the infobox? Bennetto (talk) 18:13, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ Rod Dreher (2013-02-13). "Orson Scott Card: Thoughtcriminal". The American Conservative.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Orson_Scott_Card/Archive_4&oldid=1054691120"