Jump to content

Talk:Orson Scott Card/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

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)

Removed party affiliation from infobox

I've removed the "Political Party: Democratic" from the infobox because it's misleading and unnecessary.

I'd removed it back in 10 September 2011 (see discussion at [3]) but it was added back 23 July 2013 for reasons unclear.

OSC may have claimed to be a registered Democrat but has in recent years generally supported Republican positions and candidates. While that doesn't make him a Republican - these labels are, after all, self-declared - calling him a Democrat creates an incorrect impression of his views. He's not a politician and has no formal ties to the party, so there's no real reason to put it there (most people's entries don't have it). If people want to read about his politics they can go to that section of the article, but it doesn't belong in the info box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bennetto (talk • contribs) 05:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Reply -

Paraphrase: "OSC may be Dem'crat but generally supports GOP-ers."

WP is not in the business of shielding readers from "pluralisms"/diversities but that of reporting actual facts. Just as a novelist needs to somehow "explain" to readers unexpected character traits (an in ways soft-hearted assassin or whatev) to sort of keep reader's "trust" in the novelist's narrative; likewise, a reader of the infobox of the Card BLP will be able to find below within the body of the article the details of Card's actual political beliefs. So what, Card is that relatively rare political individual who is religious conservative but at the same time is rather so-called statist and non-libertarian. These are the facts that readers of his BLP will just have to deal with. As examples, compare OSC's with the political self-indentification of Card's fellow political commentator, the rather "Log Cabin Republican"-ish (or more specifically, the Roman Catholic and UK "Tory" -influenced) Andrew Sullivan. Sullivan is quoted below. LINK

I [Sullivan] prefer smaller government in general; I too believe in a robust defense; I have few issues with the free market; I think marriage and family are critical social institutions; I’m still a believing Christian; I have deep qualms about abortion and abhor affirmative action; I’m a fiscal conservative; want radical tax reform, cuts in unfunded entitlements, and culturally, I’m a libertarian, with a traditionalist streak alongside radical tendencies (so, for example, I both love the Latin Mass and intend to go to Burning Man next month). I haven’t renounced my precocious devotion to Thatcher and Reagan, even as I have out-grown them, as the world has as well.

But I am now regarded as a leftist by much of the right and to some extent, they’re right.

And now for quotes w rgd Card.

  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 [Card] 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

    Whooah! Card is "proto-Communist"? ...Eg, as anti-homosexuality as Russia's Putin, but likely might be more aligned with the ACLU than Putin w rgd religious freedom issues? (...As long as such religions are anti- free love, we'd imagine?) Alas, such are the realities we crowd-sourced encyclopedia contributors have to deal with. Given the reality that political parties are not perfectly aligned w/ ideology (eg see pro abortion repubs, anti abortion Dems, etc etc) and the of Card's actual political views, what in the world is misleading about Card's party membership?--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Since he's not a politician, I don't know why we include it in the infobox at all. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:42, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Dunno. However, Card is a (sometimes) political commentator within N. Carolina "secular" media and also once was a quite active so-called anti-gay (um, or "pro- family values," if you will?) activist, published in various venues of Mormon (viz., of course, "Salt Lake City based based, LDS denomination - specific") media.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)--(Plus minor copyediting.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC))
Lots of writers and actors have known political views, though. Including the party in the infobox for non-politicians doesn't seem to be standard. (even for people primarily known for political commentary!) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
...and to the extent he is known for his political views, he is not known as a Democrat. His statements in support of the party are pretty few; I don't see how a statement like "I am a Democrat and for good reason, as long as you define 'Democrat' the way it was defined in 1977" even counts as support. Bennetto (talk) 16:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Further cmt - Hmm. Well, do allow me to apologize on behalf of the not insubstantial number of Middle Americans impersonating genuine Democrats (see such blue doggers as Utah's Jim Matheson, etc etc. Hmm. I myself am a Dem who probably dragged my feet before joining the gay marraige band wagon.... <shrugs>) Anywho, be alla that as it may: Card himself happens to NOT be that kind of Hollywood guy who shades Libertarian (think Jon Voight, Clint Eastwood, etc)--if he WAS, he wouldn't have become involved with the National Organization for Marriage in the first place--rather, Card is what he is, a culturally conservative yet otherwise non-isolationist progressive/liberal (even if such philosophical consistency should render him susceptible to an Emersonian hobgoblinism...).

See the following qt, in the current Nat'l Rev, by Jonah Goldberg): "Liberals[...]are quite open about their desire to use the state to impose their morality on others. Many conservatives want to do likewise, of course. [But...]when conservatives[...]do it, liberals are quick to charge 'theocracy!'"

Or, obviously, this qt by the NRO's Rod Dreher: "Orson Scott Card is...more like a blue-dog Democrat."[4]

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
This is all irrelevant. It's a parameter that appears only to be used for politicians, regardless of users' own personal feelings about BLP subjects. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
See Jonette Engan, Scott Ashjian, Harold Windingstad, Mike Erlandson, ad infinitum. There's a reason for wp:OTHERTHINGS. Don't delete information from infoboxes based on a citation of bogus appearances. Edit by guidelines, which indicate infoboxes should briefly highlight important information about its subject...which ought in my opinion include, in Card's case, party membership, indicating so well some of the iconoclastic nature of this writer's various political commentaries/activisms!--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
What point are you trying to make? I pointed out that this infobox parameter is used for politicians, and you linked me to a bunch of politicians where it's used! This seems to be repeatedly coming back to "I personally find it interesting that he's a registered Democrat since his views are those of a Republican," but personal interest does not supersede policy. What sources prove that his party affiliation is "important"? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
And you seem mesmerized by the subjects obsession with countering SSM; but let's accept a truce regarding personalizing our arguments. Is Card a "conservative" or a "liberal"? This is beside the point. What is important are sourced facts such as Card's stated views, their resulting controversies, and his ongoing political affiliations.To any not too bored to consider the sources: Card has a history of disliking Goldwaterisms of unregulated free enterprise and to otherwise be a fan of foreign interventions of of political philosophies of collectivism and statism. (To the left of JFK? More along the lines of LBJ?) Probably any number of Middle American Democrats (Card lives in N. Carolina and teaches at a sectarian bible college in Virg.) hold similar views/predilections. And perhaps there are not just a few such individuals who possess Card's tin ear regarding personal sexual liberties.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
You haven't addressed my point about community practice at all. The talk page is not a venue for you to expound on your personal views about Card. Now, please explain which sources make such a big deal of Card's party affiliation that we can supersede our usual practice, or allow edits to be made that bring the article in line with our usual practice. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
So an article that mentions his party affiliation once, another that doesn't mention it at all, and a reader-prompted erratum? This is weak. You haven't produced the sources to back up your edit and you haven't produced evidence that it conforms to community practice. Give it a rest. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Ehrm, community practice is us and the edit removed longstanding information on the basis of non-cited guidelines (obviously impossible to cite owing to the fact it does not exist).

Let me see if I understand the editor who deleted mention of the party membership in the infobox correctly. Because Card joined the (Catholic-dominated) National Organization for Marriage in 2009, replacing his fellow-Mormon Matthew S. Holland (who quit just prior to Holland's accepting the post of president of a Utah public university), it shall forevermore be considered "misleading" to call Card a Democrat? WTF!--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:24, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

More - The cited "correction" wasn't really reader- (in the singular) driven. Dreher said a number of NRO readers acquainted him with non- cherry picked examples of Card's politics. Heck, it dunt take so great of googling smarts to navigate to Card's own, himself-scribbled bio!: "[... ] In the Card family, Broadway was always only just next door, and because in those days the Mormon Church also greatly encouraged the production of plays, he was surrounded by the flurry of rehearsals and performances.

"When Willard Card took a position at Arizona State University in 1964, the family moved to Mesa, Arizona, just in time for the 1964 presidential election. This was where Scott was first initiated into political activism. When the organizers of a mock political debate in the junior high school turned up not one student who admitted to being for Lyndon Johnson (Mesa was one of the most conservative towns in a pro-Goldwater state), Card volunteered and did his best to present LBJ's case to the student body. It was Card's first experience with the notion that it might be possible to be a Democrat.... [...]"

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Card: "I say this as a Democrat, for whom the Republican domination of government threatens many values that I hold to be important to America's role as a light among nations.

    "But there are no values that matter to me that will not be gravely endangered if we lose this war. And since the Democratic Party seems hellbent on losing it -- and in the most damaging possible way -- I have no choice but to advocate that my party be kept from getting its hands on the reins of national power, until it proves itself once again to be capable of recognizing our core national interests instead of its own temporary partisan advantages.

    "To all intents and purposes, when the Democratic Party jettisoned Joseph Lieberman over the issue of his support of this war, they kicked me out as well. The party of Harry Truman and Daniel Patrick Moynihan -- the party I joined back in the 1970s -- is dead. Of suicide."

    --Card qt., ca. 2006

    --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:42, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Introductory blurb on a Mormon blog, from 2008: "OSC never ceases to surprise me. He is a Democrat, a self-described “communitarian” who favors the Iraq war, opposes SSM and opposes Mitt Romney. LINK"--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Card interview from 2013: "...(in) 1976 I was a Daniel Patrick Moynihan liberal Democrat — and without changing any of my principles, I’ve now become quite a right-winger in the eyes of the left. And I’m a little baffled by it because I’m a liberal and they’re not. They’re repressive, punishing, intolerant of the slightest variation, absolutely the opposite of what it means to be a liberal. But that’s the way it goes. They still get the label. I am the fact of what it meant to be a liberal." LINK--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:50, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Card commentary from 2007: "...consider carefully: Senator Harry Reid of Nevada is also a Mormon. As far as I know, he’s a Mormon in good standing. And he’s a Democrat — a liberal Democrat, on most issues.

    If Salt Lake City is telling Mormon politicians what to do, they’re sure giving Harry Reid a different set of instructions from those they’ve been giving to Mitt Romney.

    Like Harry Reid, I’m a Democrat. If my own party nominates somebody that I think would make a better president than Mitt Romney, I’ll vote for the Democrat. If my party doesn’t, and the Republican Party nominates Romney, I might well vote for him." LINK--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Card commentary from 2012:

    ...I’m not a Republican, and there were lots of things in the Republican Convention that reminded me why I became a Democrat in 1976.

    But in this year of continuing economic decline — a decline that at this point is almost entirely caused by government “remedies,” just like the Depression of the 1930s — the contrast between the candidates could not be more clear.

    Romney and Ryan stand for making the tough, grown-up choices and fixing broken government programs, so that the safety net will actually be there when today’s young people need it — without taking it away from those now depending on it.

    They stand for creating a climate in which people can — by their own choices and their own work — raise themselves and their families to ever-higher levels of achievement.

    Obama stands for keeping certain groups in permanent victimhood, so they will always feel entitled to take what they “deserve” from others.

    Here’s the choice: Let’s say you make ten thousand dollars a year less than your family really needs. Life is a constant scramble of trying to find extra work, of doing without things, shopping for bargains, borrowing and scrimping. You don’t know how you’ll be able to get your kids through high school, let alone get them into college.

    Here come Romney and Ryan, and they promise that they’ll create an economic climate in which you have a decent chance to get a better job, or at least earn the extra money you need; you’ll get raises, and in three years you’ll have that additional ten thousand a year.

    But other people will probably make fantastically more money than you. You’ll get enough, more than enough — but a few other people will get ridiculously rich.

    Next, Obama and Biden show up and, from their track record, you know that in three more years, you’ll probably be making a little less than you are now — but at least you can chop those rich people down to size, so that nobody is making enough.

    In fact, that’s why you can’t make more money — because the economy is shrinking as “excess” money is taken away from the “greedy” people whose “selfish” spending fuels the whole economic jalopy.

    Your life will be even harder — but at least the rich won’t be so rich, either. (Unless they happen to be really good friends with Obama or his buddies, but the press won’t tell you about them.)

    In other words, Romney and Ryan promise you the Politics of Prosperity — as long as you work hard to try to improve your own situation.

    While Obama and Biden promise you the Politics of Spite — you won’t prosper, but at least the people who have more than you do will be cut down to size.

    Which would you rather have in the Olympics of life? A decent chance to run your own race? Or the “satisfaction” of seeing the people who are ahead of you in the race get tripped up or shoved out of bounds?

    Prosperity or Spite — that’s the choice this November.

    Unfortunately, a Republican victory will bring a lot of other Republican nonsense into play as well. But we’ve had the Democratic nonsense for the past three-and-a-half years, and frankly, I’m not impressed.”

    LINK

    --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Third opinion: It does not make sense to describe party affiliation unless the biographed person is a current member of a party and either holds office or runs as a candidate for the party. Even if he is a current member but does not speak as a candidate or office holder for the party, his affiliation may not be sufficiently relevant to include in the lead or infobox.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Fourth opinion: Where "politics" makes up a major part of a BLP (one major section directly, and about a third of the rest tangentially including the entire "opinion" section), it is reasonable to include self-identification relating to politics. This is not a person who hides his political views at all, thus the affiliation is relevant. Collect (talk) 19:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
This would be the case perhaps if the person was notable for his or her politics, or if the identification was consistent. Tagging someone who is merely self described as a democrat but who is not an actual affiliate of the party and tends to vote against it as a party member in the infobox is a clearly misleading and an abuse of the purpose of the infobox which is to provide information at a glance. This does not work when reality is more complex than a single word. Selfidentification is a requirement for categorization, but it is not always enough.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
If he is not noted for his opinions, why do they take up a third of his entire BLP? Collect (talk) 20:58, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Why was this listed at 3O? There were already three opinions in this discussion and two of them were that the parameter did not belong. HSG has got to do better than posting endless walls-of-text about his personal OSC fanaticism - he's got to either get community consensus to change how the parameter is used across the encyclopedia, or achieve local consensus to supersede it here when we don't do it for people who are actually known for their politics. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Geez, Empirically, no such community decision to delimit party to pols had been reached. Entered "infobox", "columnist" into WP search box. A handful of entries down list of results? "Lizabeth Scott." Gotta be a gazillion such non-pol instances thru-out the project, yeah?--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 22:02, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion of political party in infobox. The only guidance we have from the documentation of {{Infobox person}} says concisely, "If relevant". I think it's all too clear that Card's political party is relevant. I don't think any reader expects that the infobox will tell a complex and nuanced story, but it is their right to get basic facts such as this, as long as the article tells the rest. Elizium23 (talk) 21:07, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I think that determining relevance requires consultation of how we handle this elsewhere. Based on how infoboxes are used in articles about LPs that individual users aren't obsessed with, "if relevant" seems to me obviously to imply "if a politician." We're not labeling George Clooney or even Rush Limbaugh in their infoboxes. I think this sort of change can't be done piecemeal across a bunch of random BLPs; some consensus to greatly broaden the use of the parameter would have to emerge first. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:12, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Is there some kind of a consensus against it? Has it been discussed at length on Talk:George Clooney and ruled out as an option? It seems to me that the phrasing "If relevant" leads to a large spectrum of interpretation. For instance, I don't agree with yours. I think that if you want to narrow the scope of the field then the onus is on you to achieve WP:CONSENSUS to do so. Do it on WT:BIO or MOS:BIO if you want broad discussion. Run an RFC or something. Currently you have no consensus here. Elizium23 (talk) 21:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I disagree that the person advocating the status quo is the one who needs to go out and seek support for it. The prevailing interpretation of the infobox is that it's for politicians. I think you'd probably have to make an argument for including Card's affiliation even under a broader prevailing interpretation of "if relevant" since, as Bennetto pointed out, his unusual political opinions are of more note than his party. Now, I've reiterated my points several times and I see little point in continuing, so I recommend that if you wish to change the status quo, you continue to try to seek consensus. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
It might be helpful referring to the conversation from the previous time I removed it mentioned in at the top of this section. At the time someone had changed the info box to say he was Republican based on his writings. Others had argued that no, he's claimed to be a Democrat, that's what he is. I suggested removing it from the info box entirely, a couple people agreed, I did, and that was it for a couple years until Hodgdon's secret garden added it back (https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Orson_Scott_Card&diff=next&oldid=565497684). So I'd say I returned it to the prior consensus (albeit belatedly as I didn't notice the change).
In terms of the WP policy: as was pointed out above the question is whether the information is relevant. It seems to me that means that anything in an infobox should, standing alone, significantly adds to someone's understanding of the subject. The names of OSC's parents are valid infobox fields, for example, and are listed in the article, but aren't included as the names alone have little meaning. That's true for party affiliation as well. It's a self-identification he's made a very few times amidst his extensive writing; if anything it creates a false impression. Is anyone honestly claiming that telling most people OSC is a Democrat (without including more discussion) will help in their understanding of him? Bennetto (talk) 18:50, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Wall-o'-text(!) reply - Hi Bennetto. Thanks so much for the belated explanation. Yes, I suppose your edit now at least makes a modicum of sense: If readers are to equate Card with extremist or otherwise borderline politics, then the mere mention of his political affiliation might be misleading.

That said, I think this premise I've posited itself to be bogus. I don't think Card's politics should be assumed to be that far out of the mainstream, across the "spectrum." Sure, Card's has loudly vocal his angst regarding the "homosexual agenda" etc. etc., whatever those things mean for him. And, a good way to advocate on behalf of gay rights is to marginalize people such as Card.

Such politics words. People like David Duke are marginalized so that others avoid the same fate and the culture progresses. That's how it works. Sociology 101, I suppose. Thus, of course, we assume D.Duke "out of the mainstream" despite whatever Duke's actual views may be about whatever mundane politcal issue outside the part of the spectrum dealing with civil rights. And, during the Red Scare, those on the left who in some way had been fellow travelers of, say, Leon Trotsky were successfully marginalized in the United States as well.

But it's not an encyclopedia's business to align its articles with such subtle shadings, in my opinion. Rather, it is simply to report the facts and reveal complications, allowing readers draw their own conclusions (...eg Hitler wasn't mean to his pet dog and we must make of that whatever we will...).

... ... ...

So, if Card isn't "out of the mainstream" across the Conservative or Liberal spectrum(s), what ARE his politics? I quickly one of Card's own website for such a characterization and the first one I surfed across, by a "commenter", is what follows.

"[...Card] believe that a benevolently authoritarian dictatorship is preferable to a pandering democracy. Card's a socialist, which is why he opposes the Republican Party's financial stance; however, he's also a committed member of the Religious Right -- and therefore feels alienated from many of the social libertarians who've fled to the Democrats since the '60s. [Bill] Clinton, as a social libertarian and economic conservative, must have been Card's worst nightmare -- and I think a lot of his [Card's] lingering nastiness towards Democrats in general is just a symptom of the loathing that Clinton seemed to inspire in many such people. [...]" LINK

I observed that Card seems, in some sense, to be looking for some kinda "inspired" authoritarianism(...?). After all, Card has been greatly influenced by his religious beliefs (and conservative culture) in his politics. That said, Card is a self-described liberal (meaning a "blue dog"/moderate?).

In any case, what follows is a Card qt. I found rgdg his politics, from a decade ago:

"Is [Card's fellow Mormon] Mitt Romney the Best Candidate?

"I have no idea. I don't know enough about the other candidates -- or about Mitt Romney, for that matter. Just as I hope no one will reject him because he's a Mormon, I am not going to support him just because he's a Mormon.

"I'm a Democrat. I would be really grateful if my party would nominate somebody who doesn't make my skin crawl just thinking of them in the White House (i.e., someone who isn't Hillary Clinton). I'm still looking long and hard at Barack Obama.

"If there were a chance that Joe Lieberman could get the Democratic nomination, he'd be my candidate this year no matter whom the Republicans nominated.

"On the Republican side, I'm looking long and hard at Giuliani. McCain, on the other hand, is so volatile, so unreliable, so self-serving that despite his noble war record and his ironclad stance on the need to win the War on Terror, I would have a hard time choosing him over anybody but Hillary.

"In short, I'm still making up my mind."

By the way, in this same essay, Card went on at some length about his observations regarding Mormonism and politics.

"[...] I'm a Mormon public figure, of sorts, and I know a few others. And I'm aware of exactly how the Church hierarchy deals with public figures.

"A writer like me is a constant target of meddling middle-level bureaucrats who seem to think that their job in life is to afflict me for anything I write that wouldn't be appropriate to put in a Sunday school lesson. But in all the years of low-level harassment, the actual Church authorities, in Salt Lake and locally, have always stood by my right to do my job as I see fit.

"Government figures are more like sports figures in the way they get treated: Mid-level Mormons suck up to them mercilessly. But, once again, the higher-level authorities leave them alone to do their jobs.

"Do you want proof? Look at the career of Reed Smoot. He was as reactionary a Republican Senator as you could hope to find back in the early 1900s -- a tariff-loving protectionist. He was also not just a Mormon, but a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, the second-highest governing body in the Church.

"At the time, the President of the Church, Heber J. Grant, was a Democrat. Other leading Church authorities were Democrats. Nobody told Smoot how to vote in Congress.

"Or a more recent example: Ezra Taft Benson, who served as Secretary of Agriculture under President Eisenhower. Benson was also one of the Twelve, but if anybody thinks he paid the slightest attention to anything the other Church leaders said to him, you don't know anything.

"Even today, when the Church seems to have adopted the Republican Party as their favorite stepchild, there have been prominent Mormons who are obviously not being told how to vote or govern. My proof: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is a Mormon and a Democrat, and some of the stuff he's done just makes Mormon Republicans insane.

"Frankly, folks, I'd be a lot more worried about George Soros telling a Democratic President how to govern than the Mormon Church trying to control a Mitt Romney presidency.

"But let's suppose that the Mormon Prophet did tell Mitt Romney what to do. What would their instructions be? What do Mormons want the United States to do?

"Well, the most important political goal of the Mormon Church is for every nation on earth to have freedom of religion, so people can freely learn about, teach, and choose to join or leave any church.

"And since Mormon missionaries don't go into war zones, the Church would also appreciate it if we could avoid war whenever possible.

"Beyond that, the Mormon Church would like the tax exemption for religious buildings and enterprises to remain in place."

"The Mormon Church believes that abortion should be far less available than it is, and that marriage, as recognized by government, should be exclusively between a man and a woman.

"Think about that. If Mitt Romney is elected President, and he does what the Mormon Church tells him to do, we'll have peace and freedom around the world, religions will continue to have a tax exemption, marriage will continue to mean what it has always meant unless the people vote otherwise, and the federal government wouldn't be in the business of protecting a woman's right to kill unborn babies right up to the moment of birth.

"There are millions of people who want that exact list of things! And they didn't even need the Mormon prophet to tell them so.

"The Mormon Church doesn't tell its members whom to vote for, and doesn't tell elected officials how to do their jobs. Except that they should be honest. So I guess Bill Clinton would have had a problem. Good thing he wasn't Mormon. [... ... ...]" - Orson Scott Card, March 18, 2007 LINK

Hmm. So, Card could have been a Guiliani guy? who is social liberal and pro-business conservative? But, Card greatly preferred Joe Lieberman (left-of-center guy both socially and economically who is definately not a pacifist/isolationist)? ...

I have no idea if Card has ever really got behind a N. Carolina Democrat for Congress or statewide office. Gotta google up whatev N.C. names immediately spring to mind...

  1. "My first North Carolina election was Jim Hunt's challenge to Senator Jesse Helms. I watched the debate hoping, as a Democrat, to see Helms go down. But Helms -- who was, by any measure, by far the more extremist candidate in his political record -- appeared amused, avuncular, happy. Meanwhile, he calmly said things that goaded Jim Hunt into getting angrier and angrier." - Orson Scott Card March 21, 2010 LINK
  2. "Kerrey is a credible candidate for the Democrats -- a senator with a real record of service. If he is nominated and wins the election, Democrats won't have to be embarrassed.

    "And as Gephardt bows out -- probably a victim of his own political maneuvering over the campaign in Iraq as much as anything -- it's worth pointing out that just because a career ends with a whimper does not erase the good fights he fought in his many years of public service.

    "The shock to me is that Iowans would vote in such numbers for Edwards, a man who has never actually served in any public office. (He was elected Senator, but his contribution to that legislative body is invisible.) Then again, they are much more likely to know John Edwards than anybody in North Carolina is, since Edwards wrote this state off the moment we put him in the Senate."

    - Orson Scott Card, January 18, 2004 LINK

  • OK, whatever.

    Nevertheless, are Card's politics REALLY necessarily all that complicated for a pundit's? See my quote by Andrew Sullivan up above--who gets on lists as one of the most influential of liberals yet calls himself conservative. That's the nature of the beast. Sullivan's fellow "libertarians" who are Mormon (instead of Sullivan's Catholicism) include: self-described rodeo clown Glenn Beck, who has declined ever to campaign against SSM; John Dehlin, who is very active in his pro-SSM acitivism (tho himself heterosexual); the (also hetero, and Republican) law school professor Nathan Oman, who seems to believe that a case can be made for SSM as something social conservatives perhaps should support(? LINK).

    On the "left" are, of course, pro-life Harry Reed (who only recently changed over to supporting SSM LINK), and ...<laughs> Orson Scott Card!

    (ps - sorry again for my excessive length here!)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

This sort of thing is why I keep saying that putting it in the infobox seems to be more about your deep personal interest in and love for Card than any semblance of a relation to Wikipedia policy. What are these quotes supposed to prove other than your own personal knowledge of the venues in which Card has published and been quoted? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Reply to Roscelese - W/rgd "This sort of thing". Hmmmm. Are you using coded language hoping to ghettoize contributors merely hailing from a religious minority in common with that of a blp subject? There's simply gonna be lots of people with LDS backgrounds contributing to this article simply because there are lots of us. Self-identifying Jews equal 1.7% of the US and so do self-identifying Mormons (altho I am no longer among 'em) and about half of the world's Jewry live in the US just as do about half of the world's Mormons. To be safe, see wp:BIAS about sensitivity to the amount of ideological neutrality that will be ideal among WP contributors. The end-all be-all is simply that all those who may be interested in whatever topics are certainly more than encouraged to contribute in a neutral manner to articles upon them, full stop. The "love for Card" was offensive for the simple reason I harbor little. I'm coincidentally also of the leftist but, opposed to Card, am more of the pacifistic or isolationistic variety. I mean, Henry M. "Scoop" Jackson? Jos. I. Lieberman? No thank you, please. In any case, OSC is demonstratably a talented writer. I can only speak myself of his non-fiction tho: I've read his two published tomes on writing; oh and I also used to glance at his Sun. Deseret News Nat'l edition column on occasion, as my mom would have the weekly national edition sent to me. (Many in my family are Mormons altho I'm Buddhist.)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
HSG, I think giving you more opportunities to pontificate about your own feelings and Card trivia is counterproductive to achieving consensus. I'm going to start an RFC below, since we're still a bit deadlocked here; please limit yourself when commenting there. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't know if there's much point arguing here any more, but (lest someone reading this imagine his only conservative stance is his opposition to SSM) a better indication of his views is from his essays at [5]. Nearly every one is an attack on the the "Leftist media," the Left, or Obama, and nearly everyone espouses conservative views. One of the few essays that supports the traditionally liberal side of an issue is about immigration [6] but he still can't bring himself to praise the Democrats or liberals for their views. Instead he says
Here is the punishment that Republicans have already received for their harsh, unforgiving attitude toward illegal immigrants, and the ugly anti-hispanic rhetoric and policies they have endorsed or tolerated: They have lost elections they should have won, and now live in a country much worse governed than it needed to be, because the Democratic Party has been able to count on the votes of those that the Republican Party has shoved away.
In other words, he believes that Democrats being elected has hurt the country. And that's really the point, not OSC's specific views on issues but the relationship with the party itself, or at least its candidates and politicians. You bring up "Jim Hunt's challenge to Senator Jesse Helms" as an example of his support for a Democrat; that was 30 years ago. Kerry and Gephardt were 10 years ago, and his comments on them could only barely be called praise. I haven't seen a single positive comment from him on any current Democrat or word of support on the party itself in recent years. Have you? Bennetto (talk) 17:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Hmm. Well, Card waxes eloquent in praise of Georgia's lt. gov. Zell Miller here. Of course, we contributors to WP are not ourselves sources so follows self-ID in such matters in blp's, other than to quote actual sources' characterizations. Card btw is (1) a critic of unrestrained capitalism (2) is anti-gun (3) is pro-immigration (4) is a critic of fans of segregationism who (use language-coding to) race-bait, etc.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:25, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

No one has replied in a the past day, so I reread the entire thread and each of the references at least in part and did some more research on the web and current practice in wikipedia. I think I’ve gained a better understanding of OSC’s opinions but haven’t changed my opinion on the issue.

First, there’s the issue of current practice. Roscelese has requested examples of non-politicians with a party in the infobox, and Hodgdon's secret garden stated "Roscelese, one, you well know that party is cited in all sorts of blp infoboxes, not just those of politicians” and later produced one:

Geez, Empirically, no such community decision to delimit party to pols had been reached. Entered "infobox", "columnist" into WP search box. A handful of entries down list of results? "Lizabeth Scott." Gotta be a gazillion such non-pol instances thru-out the project, yeah?

So I went hunting through Category:20th-century_American_novelists and Category:21st-century_American_novelists, clicking on a few dozen names at random, and found none that listed a political party. I looked for names I recognized there, and found one with a party, the politician Newt Gingrich. No one else I looked at listed a party in the infobox, even authors with politics mentioned in the article such as W. E. B. Du Bois, Philip K. Dick, and Robert A. Heinlein. So this situation of listing a party for an author seems highly unusual.

And I went further, looking through Category:American_political_pundits to find examples, first clicking randomly and then looking at those whose views I knew, going through George Frederick Will, Rush Limbaugh, Amy Goodman, Oliver North, Arianna Huffington and P._J._O'Rourke all without finding a mention of party in an infobox, before finally reaching Ann Coulter. She’s a Republican.

Hodgdon's secret garden has written extensively here on OSC's views but was only able to provide one example of a non-politician with an infoboxed party; I have to believe he hasn’t had more success than I. The only conclusion is that listing a party in an infobox for a non-politician is highly unusual in current practice.

But the page Template:Infobox_person says "If relevant”. Collect said:

Fourth opinion: Where "politics" makes up a major part of a BLP (one major section directly, and about a third of the rest tangentially including the entire "opinion" section), it is reasonable to include self-identification relating to politics. This is not a person who hides his political views at all, thus the affiliation is relevant.

It’s true that OSC is known for his political views so those are relevant, but he is not known party identification, so that is not. And while affiliation might be relevant, OSC doesn’t affiliate with the party at all. I haven’t seen any reference of support for the Democratic party of any Democratic candidates on any level. What I have seen is that

  • Although he’s best known for and most vocal about his conservative views and support of Republican politicians, this doesn’t tell the whole story and he has other views as well. He believes deeply in the importance of acting to help our communities and not merely selfishly (the communitarian thing that HSG calls proto-communist) but I believe that belief exists across the political spectrum.
  • He may share views with blue-dog democrats (a minority within the party) but again, I’ve seen nothing to suggest he supports any specific Democrats matching that label or any group within the party.
  • He states clearly he is not a Republican and expresses distastes for certain (rarely-mentioned) aspects of the Republican party.
  • He was a Democrat, but believes the party has changed its views, saying they “kicked [him] out” and he is “really a man without a party”. He’s upset that they get to keep the label, and he doesn’t.

Of the references HSG lists above (around nine), all but two are ambiguous, either not actually mentioning the Democratic party, talking about past connection while disclaiming it in the present. The remaining two:

"OSC never ceases to surprise me. He is a Democrat, a self-described “communitarian” who favors the Iraq war, opposes SSM and opposes Mitt Romney.”

The link to the original National Review interview is broken, so it’s hard to really discuss this; if someone can find a link that would be great.

And finally:

Card commentary from 2007: "...consider carefully: Senator Harry Reid of Nevada is also a Mormon. As far as I know, he’s a Mormon in good standing. And he’s a Democrat — a liberal Democrat, on most issues.
If Salt Lake City is telling Mormon politicians what to do, they’re sure giving Harry Reid a different set of instructions from those they’ve been giving to Mitt Romney.
Like Harry Reid, I’m a Democrat. If my own party nominates somebody that I think would make a better president than Mitt Romney, I’ll vote for the Democrat. If my party doesn’t, and the Republican Party nominates Romney, I might well vote for him.”

This is in the middle of an article about the definition of a Christian with reference to LDS; it’s about claiming labels. But still, that one statement seven years ago (pre-Obama, who he frequently attacks) is the only place HSG has found where OSC unambiguously said that he is a Democrat. It certainly doesn’t say anything about any sort of support for the party.

So OSC self-identifies as a Democrat, but it’s a pretty weak identification at that (again note his quotes that they “kicked me out” and he’s a “man without a party”). His politics are relevant (I'll support finding a way to describe his political views in the infobox). But his qualified self-identification with a party he no longer supports is not. Bennetto (talk) 18:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Bennetto, I appreciate your research. Card doesn't have to unilaterally support a party he claims membership in; he's a essayist/columnist, after all, not a party functionary.(Btw, the reason I put "infobox, Democrat" into the search box is because a lot of articles have no or merely nominal infoboxes and I wouldn't want to run afoul of wp:OTHERTHINGS.) In any case, the original NRO link should be easy to find. I'll be right back. Thanks. --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
This one? [7]--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Good summary Bennetto. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
OK. Here is the full link (pdf) from Nat'l Rev.[8]--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for the link, so the person who unambiguously said he was a Democrat in the first quote I referred to is doing it based on another article you'd quoted, one that stated he was registered as a Democrat but quoted OSC as being "man without a party." So has the same ambiguity. As a final point (since you asked about policy earlier) Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Infoboxes states that "The less information [an infobox] contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." That suggests to me that the default is minimal information and the burden of finding consensus lies on those wanting to add more to the infobox. Bennetto (talk) 06:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Actually the summary at Millennial Star (w/rgd Card's then opposition to Romney, Card's communitarianism, etc. etc.) summarized an audio interview with Card hosted at NRO, to which indeed the link IS broken. Maybe it can be found. I'll look.

So it can be agreed then that there exists no prohibition on political affiliations in non-pol infoboxes? (I.e.--wp:OTHERSTUFF be damned--we observe from the list I first gave after seconds of searching included a non-pol or two after about its third or fourth link; then my second super quick check produced another; and then finally, your own very quick check found the blp for Coulter.) Another way to check community practice, however, is to examine feature articles. Here is one for Jack Warner (who, like Card, is noted for his political views, per Jack_Warner#Political_views.)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Nope, the link to Nat'l Review's Miller's podcast with Card is broken at the NRO. LINK--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 16:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

(non-trivial!...) Sources rgding Card's (self-described) "communitarianism", resulting, per Card, from worldview adopted from his faith

  1. Notre Dame poly sci prof. David Campbell, John C. Green and J. Quin Monson, on Mormon "communitarianism"[9]--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:52, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. From "liberal" Utah intellectual journal SunStone (incidentally, venue at which Card at very first broached[10] his anti- "gay agenda" views):

    "[...] The uneven and inorganic nature of capitalism's development in the U.S. along with the persistence of an agricultural economy and culture well into this century, allowed for developments on the periphery of capitalism not unlike the emergence of socialist movements in Russia and China at the end of the last century and in the first decades of this century. This unevenness also allowed for an uneven and, in the best reading, critical appropriation of Enlightenment ideas. Thus we see, in Joseph Smith and others (perhaps most notably Orson Pratt), an Enlightenment materialism combined with the "magic world view" (as D. Michael Quinn puts it). Incidentally, I believe that this combination--perhaps we should call it "magical materialism"--is best worked out in Orson Scott Cards Alvin Maker and Ender Series. This theology, developing in Joseph's day and again today, was coherent (for the most part) and corresponded to certain significant structural features of the U.S. frontier--which was why Mormonism was successful in ways other new religious movements ultimately were not."[11]

    --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:12, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  3. "But on economic matters, I’m a committed communitarian. I regard the Soviet Union as simply state monopoly capitalism. It was run the way the United States would be if Microsoft owned everything. Real communism has never been tried! I would like to see government controls expanded, laws that allow capitalism to not reward the most rapacious, exploitative behavior. I believe government has a strong role to protect us from capitalism. I’m ashamed of our society for how it treats the poor. One of the deep problems in Mormon society is that really for the last 75 years Mormons have embraced capitalism to a shocking degree." --Card, in Salon magazine, 2004[12]--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:19, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

  4. "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?

    -- 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.

    "Whereas what I believe in – you have to realise that growing up Mormon we all live in these little villages. Our Mormon wards, our congregations, our parishes. For instance, right now in my ward, I’m second counsellor in the bishopric. That means that I’m involved in the key decisions in the ward, and I understand how absolutely powerless the leadership is without the willingness of the members of the congregation to do what they’re asked to do. To get excited about even the humblest of what we call the callings. And some people get confused and think they’re on a career track, ever rising. Those people are going to be very unhappy, because almost no one in the church has that kind of career track. What we have is, one moment you’re in the leadership, then you’re teaching a class, then you’re being a clerk, then you’re helping put a roof on somebody’s house, or doing yard work for them. I find that as a bishopric member, I’m as likely to end up going round the church building after everybody else has gone, emptying all of the garbage cans and taking them out to the dumpster – you begin to get a sense that you’ll do whatever it is the community needs. That’s what we’re raised on, in the Mormon church. We go out into the world, we might have lovely, splashy careers, or very humble careers. But Mormons tend to end up in middle management – every now and then there’s a Mitt Romney, but even then he was helped along. You can find an occasional phenomenally rich Mormon, but most of the time Mormons rise to a certain position in a company and then they refuse to accept a job promotion that requires a transfer. And why? Because their kids are in high school. Their priority is their family, their kids don’t want to move, so they don’t move. They turn down the promotion because their life isn’t about their worldly career, it’s about their life in the community, it’s their life in their family.

    "That’s the perspective I bring to my fiction – that that is the ideal life. In a way, whether we know we do or not, I think we all live in those communities, it’s just we’re trained by our culture to pretend we don’t, to be rugged individualists, or to try to have careers where we get to dominate other people. But that doesn’t work. What works is making sacrifices for the good of the whole, as long as everyone else is also making sacrifices. That’s what works. So without meaning to, that’s what I’ve found myself writing. I don’t have to preach it, because honest storytelling for me will always lead to that place.

    "So: what it means to me to be a communitarian is you find a good community – and immediately we hit the philosophical problem of infinitely receding definitions of “good”, it’s impossible to define good without using the term in its own definition, which means it’s not a definition at all, but we won’t go into logic 101 here. What matters to me is you have a community you believe in and care about, and then you subsume your own interests in helping bring about the continuation and expansion of that good community. Furthering its goals. If the community is not good, then you try to repair it. If it becomes irredeemibly not good, then you leave it, and you find another, or try to build another. So the communitarian is not a blind believer in the community. He still has individual standards, and he judges the community by those standards. But to the degree possible he tries to shape the community so it fulfils those standards, and then if it can’t, he tries to build a separate community or a community within that one, that keeps the standards."[13]

    --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:25, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Cmt - Don't think it much a coincidence Card's politics align so well with those rather consistently expressed by US Roman Catholic cardinals: pro-immigration, sceptical of excesses of free enterprise, less than careful in verbiage rgding homosexuality. I'd term Card is 80% "Archbishop Bergogliovian" (ha ha, my humorous after the former Archbishop of Buenos Aires) with an additional admixture of 20% Norman Podhoretzianism. (Catholic bishops aren't that big on war.)

    So-called nat'l security issues are extremely important to Card, apparently. (Indeed, he'd surely consider his fellow "socialist" Noam Chomsky a panderer to terrorists. But truly, rather than to Podheretz, Card would likely hold more common political viewpoints with Dem. activist Alan Dershowitz. See on WP, Alan_Dershowitz#Views.)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:52, 10 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_5&oldid=1273537277"