Talk:Orson Scott Card/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

"U.S. homosexuality"

I've removed "U.S." from the heading "Views on U.S. homosexuality" because there is no such thing as American-specific homosexuality and the category is not only about US policy or anything. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:44, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Inaccurate language re: boycott

@Elizium23: It looks like the claim that the boycott was over his anti-marriage views is inaccurate, based on the body of the article. The sources note that it wasn't just marriage, but also his advocacy for the criminalization of homosexuality and his association of homosexuality with child abuse, that provoked the boycott. I think your simplification of the language is fine (no real need to say "are controversial"), but Card was known to be anti-gay for a long time, as the sources about the boycott note, so I don't agree with pinning it all on the boycott. Rather, we could include it in the previous statement, like maybe: "In addition to producing a large body of fiction, he has also offered political, religious, and social commentary in his columns and other writing; his anti-homosexuality views have been the subject of particular comment" or something. I'm spitballing the language but that's the idea. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:19, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay, how does that look now? I must say that the coverage of this stuff is perhaps sprinkled liberally throughout the article, so harmonizing it might take a bit more work. Elizium23 (talk) 03:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

It's definitely improved. I'm still mulling over whether it's best to single out any issue or whether it makes more sense to just note that his anti-gay views have provoked criticism/etc. (given that sources also note his claims and/or insinuations about homosexuality and child abuse, also made long-term in a number of venues). I don't mind waiting to see what other people think, either. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:37, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Controversial positions

I've restored the material about Card's controversial views because it is amply substantiated. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:39, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

reorganization?

Hi, I'm thinking of reorganizing Card's page. If I can find the sources for it, I'd like to make it more like Ursula K. Le Guin's amazing page. Do other editors have suggestions for sources or better section names? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 22:50, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@Rachel Helps (BYU): I support your proposed reorganization. I don't have any good sources to recommend at the moment, though. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:14, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Good idea, Le Guin's page is great and I can definitely help out on this. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 18:01, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I think one of the most important first steps is to establish a chronology of his works. Right now the article just kind of spits them out without much order. This will help get the article to the level of Le Guin's. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 18:58, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Views>Homosexuality

In the spirit of Wikipedia is not a directory, I plan to cut down on the Views>Homosexuality section. Card's Wikipedia page isn't going to have everything he has said about any topic, including homosexuality. I plan to summarize lengthy quotes and cut down on the number of specific listed instances of his views. I'm not trying to hide or excuse his views--just to make the section more encyclopedic. The lead will still mention his opposition to same-sex marriage, but the section will be more of a summary. Please let me know if you have issues with this plan or certain edits. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:42, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Lede reference to anti-gay views

"Homosexual marriage" is not style guide compliant anywhere. If you feel it's important to mention marriage specifically, "same-sex marriage" is preferred, but his opposition to the legality of homosexuality and his claims about homosexuality and child abuse were also noted by critics, which was why I wrote "opposition to homosexuality". –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:10, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for educating me. I see that the Wikipedia page is called "same-sex marriage." Is Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Identity_(failed_proposal) a guideline you recommend? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

It's not clear how this proposal relates to this topic? Anyway, I think the current language is better than what was there before, but I wouldn't necessarily call his view that homosexuality is caused by child abuse "opposition to gay rights", even though this fringe belief may motivate his opposition to gay rights. This is one case where "opposition to homosexuality" may be the most accurate. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:29, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

You mentioned "style guide compliant" and that proposal was the most relevant information I could find in Wikipedia's manual of style. I tried to make the lead more specific, but I'm not sure if I improved it or not. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 22:00, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Can you explain why you object to my wording? I think "opposition to homosexuality" covers "opposition to legality of homosexuality, to same-sex marriage, and fringe beliefs about the causes of homosexuality" better than enumerating them in the lede. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I know there has been some debate on the page with the term "homophobic" so maybe I was overcorrecting. I'm fine with "opposition to homosexuality" if other editors are. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:38, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

It's very clear he's opposed to homosexuality. However, I think "homophobic" is a bit extreme and shouldn't be used here. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

line criticizing Ender's Game boycott

Hi Orangemike. I noticed that you reverted my edit where I returned a line I had written about the Ender's Game boycott. The sentence mentioned that a writer criticized the boycott for targeting an individual (Card) rather than an organization. In your edit summary you stated that the sentence is not about Card and does not belong on this page. Could you explain a little more? The boycott against Card and its criticism are about Card. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

The writer was criticizing the boycott, not Squire Orson, so I feel the quote is about the boycott campaign. The writer is not commenting on Card himself, but on the boycotters. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:33, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Orangemike, by that logic, the whole paragraph about the boycott should be deleted. I think we should include information on the boycott though, including its criticism. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:26, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I feel like it's self-evident that some people supported the boycott and others opposed it, and we do not need to list the positions of various op-ed writers as though they are themselves notable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:30, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Then we can write the names of their newspapers and websites, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, although that since most news outlets publish a disclaimer that the opinions of journalists do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the publisher, it would be more appropriate to attribute the holders of those opinions. Elizium23 (talk) 04:11, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

It's not clear to me whether or not you misunderstood my comment. I am saying that "some people opposed the boycott and some supported it" is not itself such an earthshattering statement that we need to talk about it if we have only primary sources for it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:30, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Clarifying the titles for the two sections titled homosexuality

I wonder if it would be possible to reach consensus on changing the titles of the two section to make them distinct. If I dared to boldly edit anything in this page, I would have used titles like these: "depiction of homosexuality in Card's fiction" and "controversy regarding accusations of homophobia". However, since I have no wish to get reverted, I am open to suggestions for alternative titles as long as they are different from each other. Annette Maon (talk) 07:57, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

The current titles are both more succinct and more accurate. The former suggestion adds more words without adding more meaning ("Themes > Homosexuality" already conveys this) and the latter suggestion is a less accurate description of what the section contains, as it is about his views, not "controversy" over his views. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:04, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

NPOV concerns

As an avid fan of Orson Scott Card's writing (both fiction and his weekly opinion columns) I am disappointed at the lack of WP:NPOV in the article's coverage of the accusations of homophobia raised against him. Wikipedia offers many better ways to spend my time than arguing with activist editors who reverse my edits. Anyone interested in actually promoting WP:NPOV is welcome to use the information I posted at User:Annette Maon/Janis Ian and Orson Scott Card. Annette Maon (talk) 18:00, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I suspect that this article contains extensive and blatant violations of both WP:NPOV and BLP but I can not be sure. Even if I was sure, I have never reported a violation before, I do not (yet) know how to do it and I am not sure I want to. My experience as an editor (so far) has been limited mostly to contributing facts, fixing/adding citations, correcting factual errors and fixing typos. I do not consider myself to have enough experience to determine if these are indeed violations. Even if I did, I have no wish to risk becoming a target of Wiki-hounding by either side of the debate.

The blatant accusations and/or insinuations of homophobia and racism leveled against Card are clearly there (both in the article and on the talk page archives). Several of the "secondary sources" for these accusations may seem reliable on the surface, until you follow the links and realize that many of their "quotes" are provided out of context, purposely distorted and some are even outright false. If veiled "quotes" like these need to be subjected to WP:V this obviously has not happened in this article. Good faith editors who happen to share the agenda of these so called "sources" may trust them enough to believe that the accusations are true and that their edits are not causing harm to the person being attacked or to the credibility of Wikipedia.Annette Maon (talk) 03:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Pinging User:Rachel Helps (BYU) and User:Barkeep49 hoping they can help fix this. If someone more experienced is interested in improving the article I would be happy to collaborate. Annette Maon (talk) 03:39, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@Annette Maon my involvement with this article was as a GA reviewer. I am not interested in editing this article at this moment. The topic you're discussing was obviously discussed fairly extensively in that process and I don't know that I have a lot more to say beyond that. I applaud you seeking comment but obviously if no one offers any you can boldly make improvements as you see fit, taking into account the feedback that has been offered in the past. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Annette Maon. I read your user page with your argument. I added the sentence about Janis Ian's opposition to the boycott back on to the page. I know that some of the reactions to Card's work have snowballed from out-of-context quotes (but others, I believe, are justified). However, I believe that the outrage is important to document on his page, since it has affected his career and pubic perception. It might be more effective to find a published counter-argument (not from Card) to cite. I have verified most, if not all, of the sources on this page. I have reduced the section on homosexuality to be more of a summary (back in 2020 when I made extensive edits to this page). I personally feel that the actual analysis of his work is more interesting than the popular reactions to some of his more incendiary statements. Card's rhetoric is amazing, but part of it is making crazy, incredulous statements--a trait he shares with Brigham Young. Anyway, if you have a more specific complaint, I can look into it. One of the more vocal critics of my writing here, SlimVirgin, has since died. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:05, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi User:Rachel Helps (BYU), glad to see you are still working on the article. I assume that your edits are still in progress because the NYT citation in the current article is broken, a search for Janis Ian in the article page returns nothing and none of the conservative secondary source citations that quote Janis Ian have been added yet. I realize that you are trying to maintain NPOV as a steward of the article and I appreciate it. I am concerned however that you are trying too hard to accommodate a vocal militant minority of the LGBT agenda.

The current article looks like it has been hijacked by one POV which has managed to repress not only the conservative voices in earlier talk pages but even quotes from a prominent gay activist like Ian that supports Card personally and exposes the militant agenda sources as unreliable. Quoting "reliably liberal outlets [such] as the New York Times and Huffington Post [that] published editorials opposing the boycott" saying that we should judge the work and not the person may make it acceptable to the militant minority that hijacked the article but it does not establish WP:NPOV or satisfy the WP:BLP guidelines to remove personal attacks and put the burden of proof on the attackers.

This is a controversial WP:BLP. There is no justification for personal attacks - especially when they are quoted from sources that are clearly unreliable and are published in biased sources like Salon and Vice (according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources) in which some of the material is opinions rather than facts.

If someone wants to try and put together a balanced NPOV analysis of the controversy regarding Card's political views, I would be happy to collaborate and contribute. I agree that it may be important to document the outrage about both Card and Ian's controversial and often opposing views. The outrage and personal attacks had some relatively minor effects on their career and public perception. It also had significant effects on their personal lives that they prefer to keep private. Focusing on the ineffective outrage and personal attacks directed against these two friends is not a justification to ignore/neglect the way that their notable lives and work have managed to change the mainstream views on the issues they choose to champion. Annette Maon (talk) 19:57, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

In addition to the Forbes article cited above here is another which includes a link to an interview with Card that mentions a few of the ways that Card's work changed mainstream views. Note that while Card's words are only a primary source, information provided to Card by the interviewer is as reliable as secondary source can get since the primary is right there to confirm or deny its relevance to his work. Annette Maon (talk) 19:57, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

As I said before, I do not believe it is necessary to note that some people did not boycott. This is self-evident. A boycott that everyone signed on to would be rare and notable enough that sources would note that fact explicitly! Similarly, we do not need to note that some people supported it, beyond noting the encyclopedic fact that it existed. This article must not become a coatrack for the primary-sourced opinions of various op-ed writers. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I do think that the fact that the boycott didn't actually hurt Card's earnings (since he didn't receive royalties from the film's ticket sales) is worth putting on the page, since usually boycotts are focused on making a company "pay" for their ethical misdeeds. The boycott against the movie was not protesting the material depicted in the film or the treatment of the actors, but the political actions of the author of the book the film was based on. But it seems that we disagree. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Roscelese's comment that "This article must not become a coatrack for the primary-sourced opinions of various op-ed writers": Does that mean I should remove references to Romano's Salon piece? I admit that these days, and despite teaching an "op-ed" assignment in my past, the definition of an "op-ed" is unclear to me. The Forbes piece on Ender's Game makes a good case for the religious aspects of the book, but its discussion of Mormons being "ban bait" doesn't cite other precedents; other statements in the article seem similarly under-supported. The Salon piece is very biased against Card, but had better research. I felt like it was a good balance against the other criticism I found that praised his treatment of homosexuality.Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I think that all references to homoerotic elements in Card's work should be removed (or at least qualified). The nude and sexual scenes in Card's work are not notable enough to be mentioned - certainly not in comparison to what the last two generations have been exposed to on US television. All the scenes I remember reading in card's writing portray natural human behavior. There is nothing notable about people being naked in public showers or married people having sex. Commentators that find eroticism in these scenes are saying more about their own mind than about Card's work. It is not surprising that both prudish religious conservatives and some gay activists choose to make such comments - but they are not notable enough to be mentioned in the article. Annette Maon (talk) 19:57, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Your personal opinions are not relevant unless you become a published critic/scholar like the ones who are cited. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

On a talk page, my personal opinions are just as relevant (or irrelevant) as those of Roscelese. Not everything that every critic/scholar says needs to be included in a WP:BLP. My point is that besides being outdated and representing an insignificant minority, what those critics said about homoeroticism (and graphic violence for that matter) is irrelevant to anything that makes Card (or the later controversies about him) notable. Annette Maon (talk) 11:35, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I think what Roscelese is trying to get at is that the aspects of an author's work that are considered notable are defined by what critics choose to discuss. The job of the Wikipedia editor is to summarize the relevant criticism. Does my summary of the Salon piece give it undue weight? A vocal minority of his fans and enemies have been outspoken against his political opinions on homosexual marriage and (less-commonly) his treatment of homosexuality in his work. He also had a vocal minority of fans who thought his work was too open-minded and violent and didn't like his treatment of the Book of Mormon in his fiction. I honestly think both reactions are interesting and that they were well-documented enough to merit mention on his Wikipedia page. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Quote on homosexuality

Hi User:Nightscream. When I saw the edit summary that included your edit, I thought it was from the section on homosexuality in Card's work, which is where Eugene England made the inference about Card's idea about the causes of homosexuality. Obviously, I was mistaken. I still think that the meaning of "the development of homosexuality has environmental factors that can include abuse" and "the development of homosexuality is caused by environmental factors that can include abuse" are significantly different.

The "Humpty Dumpty Logic" essay of Card's is patronizing and insulting to the LGBTQ+ community--I'm not going to deny that. But simply quoting his most enraging sentence does not adequately summarize his position. Currently, the sentence is "Card also questioned in a 2004 column "how many homosexuals first entered into that world through a disturbing seduction or rape or molestation or abuse, and how many of them yearn to get out of the homosexual community and live normally."" In the same essay he also wrote: "In fact what evidence there is suggests that if there is a genetic component to homosexuality, an entire range of environmental influences are also involved." He didn't say that there wasn't a genetic component to having a homosexual orientation--just that if we assume that genes play a part, that environment also plays a part. That's why I thought that "the development of homosexuality is caused by environmental factors" was misleading. I tried to summarize a lot of Card's incendiary quotes because there are a lot of them and I don't want this page to become a collection of his political quotes. At the same time, I wonder if my summaries downplayed his positions. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:06, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@Rachel Helps (BYU): Hi, Rachel. Thanks for reaching out to me on the tp.

Saying "the development of [X] has factors that include [y]" is not the proper or clarified way to word what I thought you wanted to say. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you wanted to relate that Card was saying that homosexuality was caused by environmental factors, correct? If so, then it's merely a matter of properly relating this in the article, either by direct quotes, paraphrases, or a combo of the two, correct?

Now a short while ago, I figured a direct quote would fix this issue, because I didn't realize you were trying to summarize multiple statements on his part. But maybe a paraphrase is in order after all, albeit one that incorporates the second statement you quoted, right? How about this:

Card also questioned in a 2004 column the notion that homosexuality was purely an innate or genetic trait, and asserted that a range of environmental factors also contributed to its development, including abuse.

How's that? Nightscream (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Nightscream I prefer that wording. Thanks for responding. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:23, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

No prob. Nice collaborating with you. :-) Nightscream (talk) 18:44, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Card's point in the quoted paragraph was that as of 1990: "there is no scientific research whatsoever that indicates that there is no such thing as a borderline child who could go either way". The mention of abuse as one of many possible contributing factors was in a completely different section of his article. Conflating the two - whether it is done by a Wikipedian or by an external source would be a misrepresentation of Card's views. Annette Maon (talk) 04:43, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

The two are not being conflated. Rather, his views on the matter are being summarized. Nightscream (talk) 17:58, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Card's weekly War Watch column has many notable views that are not even mentioned in this article. The article already gives undue weight to claims by Card's opponents that distort his well documented views on homosexuality. A "summary" giving the false impression that the inline citation contains a claim by Card that "abuse contributes to homosexuality" only makes the NPOV violations worse. Annette Maon (talk) 22:16, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I've reverted your removal because the material was not only sourced, but was the entire reason Card's views on this matter were notably criticized to begin with. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:48, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

@Roscelese I am having trouble understanding your reason for reverting my removal. Are you trying to claim that any citation to a source justifies distortion of a living person's opinions in Wikipedia's voice? Are you really claiming that "the entire reason" for criticizing "Card's views on this matter" is more important than maintaining NPOV? Do you consider your long track record in this talk page's archives to represent a Neutral point of view? If you consider your edits to be legitimate POV pushing that is allowed under Wikipedia policies, where is the other POV? Are you willing to collaborate on adding it as well?Annette Maon (talk) 06:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Card as Mormon apologist

I was discussing with another user if Card belongs in the "Mormon apologist" category. I found a Sunstone article arguing that the Homecoming Saga and a few other works function apologetically. I'm happy to discuss this topic. See my talk page for our previous discussion. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:02, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Can the controversy regarding Card's views on Homosexuality be salvaged?

As it stands now, if someone were to complain about the BLP violations and lack of NPOV in this article (which I have not done and would prefer to avoid) the easiest solution would be to avoid teaching the controversy and delete any mention of homosexuality, homophobia and outdated boycotts which are not in themselves notable aspects of Card's work.

A more notable aspect of Card's fiction that is not even mentioned in the article is the common theme of focusing on how people who do their best to struggle with difficult moral choices are treated by later generations. Card's novels describe how his characters are mislabeled by society often by distorting and misquoting their own words and actions. Most of his heroes are forced into exile. Some notable examples include: Ender the "Xenocide", Alvin the "renegade, murderer and pedophile" and Lanik the "traitor". Card, much like his fictional heroes, has been falsely labeled as a "homophobe" and forced into "exile". That in itself is notable enough to be mentioned in his biography and I would have been happy to provide ample citations and sources to support it if I thought they would survive the hostile editing practices on this page. As it is I refuse to even attempt adding anything by myself and I have seen no interest in collaboration on this talk page.

In many of his opinion columns, lectures and interviews, Card makes a point of refusing to be labeled as either Republican or Democrat, Liberal or Conservative. He describes himself as a "communitarian" and as the article shows, he made active, productive and notable contributions to several communities (academic, young writers and sci-fi conventions) in the past. His participation in these communities has been significantly reduced as a result of blacklisting and Cancel culture. Card continues to contribute to other communities (Mormons, Christian universities, young writers and his readers) but the communities that caved in to the 2013 boycott have since lost his participation. Orson Scott Card used his influence to actively support real life heroes like Janis Ian long before it became popular to be LGBT or protest against racism. The fact that he is not welcome in some LGBT sub-communities that criticize his gay friends like Janis Ian for defending him may be notable, but it can not be mentioned on Wikipedia until it is published by an external source that has a stamp of approval from the "Inquisition".

Can someone help me understand why they believe that the following phrases in the article are not violations - not only of WP:BLPSTYLE but of WP:V as well?

• "he wrote in favor of laws against homosexual behavior to discourage the acceptance of homosexual people"
• "Card also stated in a 2004 column that the development of homosexuality has environmental factors that can include abuse"
• "which condemns the sin but loves the sinner"

I have seen no support for these violations and will reluctantly report them if we can not reach consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annette Maon (talk • contribs) 09:12, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I think that the theme of difficult choices is covered in the "child-genius savior" subsection under "themes." I think we could further include information about Card being a controversial figure in the "Card's views have had professional repercussions" paragraph. I vaguely remember a convention being boycotted because of his appearance there. Are there specific conventions you were thinking of? It is difficult to find evidence of blacklisting in reliable sources. Card's reduced appearances could also have been because of health concerns. Have you found a source that discusses it?

Regarding the page being a violation of BLP, I do not think it is a violation. The prose of the page is careful not to call him a racist or a homophobic person, but to summarize views that he has expressed. You wrote that that these views are not verifiable, but they come from material that is cited in-line. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:54, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

"I was referring to the "theme of focusing on how people [like Card] are are treated by later generations". Coverage of the "theme of difficult choices" is not relevant to that. Card's "Secular Humanist Revival Meeting" is a parody that challenges people to think about what they believe instead of following preachers blindly. He has consistently defended the rights of minorities in the US and criticized attempts to force smaller communities to conform to the majority government (not sure how to link/cite minutes 13:40-14:30 from this recording: http://www.thednastore.com/audio/secular1.mp3).

In the 1980s, when popular Christian Baptist preachers who attacked both Mormons and gays had influence in the Reagan government, some minorities followed Card blindly because they had a common enemy. They were disappointed in 1999 (Clinton Era) by replies like: "Religious nut cases aren't running the government right now ... why in the world would you want to attack the utterly powerless religious right?". Most of the so called "reliable" sources cited in the two homosexuality sections falsely label Card as a homophobe because he opposed courts enforcing same-sex marriage on states that voted against it. By 2013 (Obama Era) the boycott calls against Card openly tried to hurt him. Summarizing Card's opinions by quoting only those that opposed him creates multiple violations of BLPSTYLE and NPOV even if you do not include the actual word "homophobe" in the article.

There is no lack of more reliable sources that support Card on this matter: "Scott does get very passionate about things. Sometimes you have to read his words pretty carefully to get the whole drift. And on this subject, he's been misquoted and mis-read a lot. But I can't personally recall seeing anything nasty that he's written about being gay per se, and I'd want to know he wrote it, rather than taking the chance on a misquote."

For example, those who actually read his 1990 article in context instead of blindly following the boycott preachers might realize that Card did not "favor" laws against homosexual behavior. He defended the right to discourage flagrant displays of homosexuality within a minority community while showing empathy to homosexual people who choose to belong to other communities as long as they do not insist on doing it flagrantly within the LDS church.

His 2004 column never claims that "the development of homosexuality has environmental factors that can include abuse" that sentence reflects the editor's views about Card and not what Card actually said. The actual reference to abuse in the 2004 column mentions secrets that the POV pushers on this article would never allow to be quoted on Wikipedia if someone actually tries to adhere to NPOV policy.

The quote "which condemns the sin but loves the sinner" does not appear anywhere in the in-line citation and therefore does not satisfy WP:V. Even if someone does dig up a valid citation, the phrase is common enough not to be associated specifically with Card and is therefore not notable enough to be mentioned in the article.

BTW, I remember Card mentioning (in several interviews) the negative effects of the boycotts on his ability to contribute to some communities but I have no incentive to go find them. Annette Maon (talk) 23:23, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Aja Romano is not a Reliable Source

The following citation appears many times in the article as a supposedly Reliable source. In answer to User:Rachel Helps (BYU) earlier question: I believe that all references to Romano's Salon piece (as well as text quoted or summarized from it) should be removed.

According to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources Salon is a biased source that often contains opinions rather than facts. Opinions are not reliable sources. Moreover, a cursory check of Romano's so called "research" actually proves that the source is far from reliable.

Romano claims that in 1990: "Card argued that: states should keep sodomy laws on the books in order to punish unruly gays". However, the word "unruly" does not appear in the article and the word sodomy appears only once and not in the context of "sodomy laws". The only thing that comes close to Romano's preposterous claim is Card's argument that "Laws against homosexual behavior" which in 1990 still held that the right for privacy did not extend to private, consensual sexual conduct, at least insofar as it involved homosexual sex should not be "indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them".

Romano claims that in 2004: He claimed that most homosexuals are the self-loathing victims of child abuse, who became gay “through a disturbing seduction or rape or molestation or abuse.” Once again a search for the words "loathing" or "victim" returns nothing. Searching for the word "abuse" is even more interesting, it shows up twice in the article and in both cases Romano prefers to keep what Card actually says a secret from her readers.

Romano claims that in 2008, Card ... argued that gay marriage "marks the end of democracy in America," that homosexuality was a "tragic genetic mixup". What Card actually argued in that article is that court decisions in California and Massachusetts mark the end of democracy in America, striking down laws enacted by majority vote. The quote “few individuals suffer from tragic genetic mixups” clearly refers to the rare occurrence of Intersex and not to homosexuality. But these small details don't bother Romano, not when the agenda is to invent a "long history of homophobia" regardless of the facts.

The most tragic distortion is more subtle: Romano claims that "Card went on to advocate for, literally, a straight people's insurrection against a pro-gay government" and this time actually quotes Card's words:

[W]hen government is the enemy of marriage, then the people who are actually creating successful marriages have no choice but to change governments, by whatever means is made possible or necessary... Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down....

The distortion is by choosing what to omit with the ellipsis. What Card actually said was: "How long before married people answer the dictators thus: Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down". Card was not advocating for an insurrection (you'd have to actually read more of his articles to know what he advocates). He was warning us that an insurrection was coming. Romano lives in a bubble and rewrites the facts to fit her opinion. Card actually listens to what other people say and sometimes manages to correctly predict the actions of his enemies (which he happens to share with his gay friends).

There are many more distortions and outright lies in Romano's screed but they fade in comparison to that last one. Romano could not have known in 2013 that by 2021 Card's prediction would come true. Card was not one of those who stormed the Capitol - he tried to warn us and people like Romano blacklisted him for it. The tragic result is that Card's next warnings will not be heard by the people who need them the most.

Will Wikipedia be one of those places where Card's voice is silenced while Romano is quoted as a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annette Maon (talk • contribs)

I think that if we are disputing the Romano source, it should be with attention to how it is used on the page. I used Romano as a source for factual instances of homosexuality in Card's work, and for Romano's opinion that those instances are homophobic. It isn't used as a source for what Card's opinions on homosexuality are. I think it is used appropriately. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Citation formatting

@User:Schazjmd, @Nightscream Can you please look at my recent citations and fix the formatting. I am sure I got some of it wrong. I could not find anything about specifying multiple minutes within a recording so I improvised based on Wikipedia:Citation templates#Using_multiple_pages_from_the_same_source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annette Maon (talk • contribs) 17:23, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

{[u|Annette Maon}}, I fixed one error where you used cite journal for Deseret News. Newspapers should use cite news. I didn't notice anything else. I think using {{rp}} for the timestamps works. Schazjmd (talk) 17:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

{[u|Schazjmd}} I am afraid the cite journal predates my edits but glad you fixed it anyway. My remaining concern about the timestamps is that the named reference (which appears last in the article for some reason) contains the 58:00 timestamp (which happens to be close enough for two of the citations) instead of having a timestamp on each of the three citations. If I had three different timestamps I could have used the seconds to pinpoint the reference more accurately. I am also uncertain whether a timestamp of 1:28 means "1 minute and 28 seconds" or "1 hour and 28 minutes". Does it matter? Or do we just let the reader figure it out on their own by trial and error? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annette Maon (talk • contribs) 18:44, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Yep, you're right, Annette Maon; I noticed it in this edit but didn't catch that you were just moving it rather than adding it new.

If I had added the AV media ref and was going to specify timestamps in {{rp}}, I wouldn't put any timestamp in the ref definition and would use {{rp}} for each instance. Template:RP uses hour:minute:second in its example: e.g., "0:35:12" for a video source. Schazjmd (talk) 18:58, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

My recent edits

I edited Annette Maon's recent contributions. Let me know if you want to discuss my recent edits. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Rachel Helps (BYU) Thank you for streamlining my contributions. I appreciate your improvements but I still have some open questions.

1. It is easy enough for anyone to search for the word "condemn" and see that it does not appear anywhere in the the sunstone article. When I got no response to two challenges for the "condemns the sin but loves the sinner" quote, I replaced the WP:V violation with a "Citation needed" template. Why did you reverse my "citation needed" and restore the inline citation which does nothing to support the quoted text that I challenged? If you are so intent on reducing text, why not get rid of of that quote? Is there any reason to keep it?

2. When I expanded on C.S. Lewis's influence I tried to move the article text about Card dedicating "A Planet Called Treason" to "Dale and Maria who made me read the Chronicles of Narnia" into an explanatory inline note. It may not be noteable enough to be mentioned in the text but it still provides significant support for the influence of Narnia on Card's writing. The inline note seems to have been lost in the shuffle during your edit. Can you add it back?

3. Even after our modifications, this article still gives undue weight to statements whose only notability is that they are used by supporters of fringe theories alleging that Card is a homophobe or racist. Some obvious themes that permeate most of Card's fiction are "tolerance toward alien races" (Treason, Red Prophet, Xenocide, Pastwatch) and purposely writing from the "POV of cultures other than his own" (Native Americans, Afro-Americans, African, Catholic, Jewish). Until we have these main themes covered, the mere existence of a whole paragraph on homosexuality or racism gives them undue weight. "Note that WP:Undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements".

4. If brevity is an issue, eliminating all the paragraphs dealing with homesexuality and racism would be a good place to start. On the other hand, if some editors insist on keeping them, the least we can do is to maintain NPOV. Annette Maon (talk) 03:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the inane suggestion that Hamlet's Father was a "positive" depiction of homosexuality that was smeared by anonymous critics. Once again, your personal opinions about the beauty and humanism of Card's fiction do not trump reliable sources. You can become a published scholar or reviewer, and then your opinions will be considered WP:RS on Wikipedia. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:17, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@Annette Maon: Card has explicitly stated his support for laws criminalizing homosexuality. This is clear in the sources. If you cannot stop removing reliably sourced information for no other reason than that you worry it might make Card look bad (he certainly doesn't think it makes him look bad!), you need to find other articles to edit in which you are less emotionally invested. Please revert your disruptive edit, or I will. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC) Roscelese

Wikipedia is not a soapbox for opinion columns in Salon or for boycott calls by Fringe groups like GeeksOut neither of which are WP:RS. This is especially true when the false claims that they make violate both WP:V and WP:BLP. Your claim that Card "has explicitly stated his support for laws criminalizing homosexuality" is not supported by what he actually said. You have had ample chances to support these claims on this talk page but did not do so. Please do not revert my edits until you provide an actual quote to support your claims. Annette Maon (talk) 16:38, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

From that Sunstone article: "Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society." How much more blatant can you ask???? --Orange Mike | Talk 16:18, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Orangemike Thank you for jumping in. Have you read that quote in the context in which it was written? When Card wrote it "The Supreme Court had declared in 1986 (Bowers v. Hardwick) that a Georgia law prohibiting sodomy even in the privacy of one's own home was constitutional". What this quote shows is Card arguing not "in favor of" but against enforcement of the existing "laws against homosexual behavior" at the time. Card says that they should not be "indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but [used only] when necessary to send a clear message [to] those who flagrantly violate society's regulation". Card later stated that: "Those who now use this essay to attack me as a "homophobe" deceptively ignore the context and treat the essay as if I had written it yesterday afternoon ... I have no interest in criminalizing homosexual acts and would never call for such a thing, any more than I wanted such laws enforced back when they were still on the books". In light of that statement, any attempt to represent Card as arguing in favor of "laws against homosexual behavior" is a blatant violation of WP:BLP.

Annette Maon (talk) 17:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Editors should not be parsing Card's writings or analyzing their context to determine his support for/against anything. The article should summarize what independent reliable sources say about his views. Schazjmd (talk) 17:23, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Annette, I was not only alive but politically active in the time that was written (and just as straight and Christian then as now). There's no way to parse it as not arguing that gay-criminalizing laws were needed, to remind gays that society hates them (because God hates them), that they are not acceptable, equal citizens, and that they have no rights that straights need respect. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:01, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Both primary and secondary sources clearly state Card's support for laws criminalizing homosexuality and for enforcement of those laws for the purposes of maintaining the social mores he prefers. I would consider his more-recent denial of support for those laws more useful for this article if he weren't also denying that he said things that he clearly and explicitly said on the record before; as it is, we don't know if he has actually changed his views or not. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:11, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

This is me trying to fix my interpolated comments issue:

• Re: 1. I'm sorry about this. I assumed that the text in the Sunstone article was the same as the text of the essay on Nauvoo.com. Looking more closely, I see that the "some observations" section there was added afterwards.
• 2. I was confused about that note, since it was in ref tags. I removed it because in itself, it wasn't a reference. The usual way to make note-type footnotes is in Help:Footnotes#Footnotes:_groups. I felt like the information about the dedication was too detailed with the addition of The Screwtape Letters as another influence, and I don't want to make a notes section unless everyone else wants that.
• 3.Find me an article about Card's theme of tolerance to alien races and/or about his using cultures other than his own and I will gladly summarize it and add it. I feel like I did a pretty thorough search on criticism and discussion of Card's works in scholarly sources. If you like, I can send you my file on the print resources I used for this page. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:16, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Should Janis Ian be mentioned as an independent reliable source?

Acclaimed folk musician Janis Ian, who identifies as a lesbian has been subject to a lot of torches and pitchforks because of her friendship with Orson Scott Card and it prompted her to write this:

Let me say first that I consider Scott a close friend; the time we don't have together physically, we make up through the heart. If I had to lean on someone, or needed an ear, I would think of him. And if you've read my autobiography, you'll know that in a time of great trouble, he was very, very, good to me.

By the way, the gay community was nowhere to be seen when I was at my lowest.

Scott does get very passionate about things. Sometimes you have to read his words pretty carefully to get the whole drift. And on this subject, he's been misquoted and mis-read a lot. But I can't personally recall seeing anything nasty that he's written about being gay per se, and I'd want to know he wrote it, rather than taking the chance on a misquote.

Given that he's a devout Mormon, of course he doesn't think gay marriage is a good thing. Let's face it - a lot of people feel that way! His article ... speaks more to the courts and the separation of church and state than my own relationship with my partner - or for that matter, Scott's other gay friends.

And speaking of my partner... Scott has never treated my relationship, or my partner, with anything but the utmost respect. We've been welcomed into his home, invited to his childrens' weddings, sent announcements of births and deaths - all to both of us, as a family unit. His children regard us as a family unit, and I've never heard or felt the slightest breath of censure from any one of them.

Scott's also a Republican, while I'm a Democrat - and we manage to discuss our differences over the table without ever getting loud or crazy. Personally, I think if more people did that, the world would be a better place.

https://www.getreligion.org/getreligion/2013/02/playing-the-same-sex-marriage-card

This quote is probably "taken from a posting on Ian’s website where she defends Card against criticism about his public statements on same-sex marriage, as well as critiques against her own friendship with him." I would appreciate help in finding the original quote in the context where it was made.

Some may claim that as a close friend of the article subject Ian herself is not an independent source, but that is not my point. This is a quote about the subject of the article. The quote is notable enough to have been mentioned in three independent sources that I consider reliable - at least to the point of asserting that Ian actually said it.

Fuist and Josephsohn use it as an "opening quote" for their academic paper which deals with the "importance of boundaries for understanding intergroup relations". In that context, the quote is notable not just because of Ian and Card's name recognition and the personal example that they provide. Bridging boundaries and understanding intergroup relations are notable themes that are common to both Card's fiction and Ian's lyrics.

The repeated themes of tragic intergroup conflicts in Card's fiction and his emphasis on the value of understanding and tolerance that he shares with Ian are missing from this article. Janis Ian's quote is clearly notable and relevant to the question of Card's long term views on homosexuality, but there is no room for it in the current article. Trying to add it as a futile response to either of the two sections titled "homosexuality" would be the equivalent of stating that Card never stopped beating his wife in an attempt to maintain WP:NPOV.

Mentioning Ian or Card's actual complex views would be inconsistent with the agenda of those who want this article to focus on "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations" of card's statements about Homosexuality, Racism and American politics that are at best tangentially related to what makes Card notable.

Maybe, the notable themes should be covered in the Wikipedia article on Card. Maybe someday there will be a section where card's notable contributions to society could be discussed. Maybe not. I can't do it by myself and I see no point in trying to do it in a hostile environment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annette Maon (talk • contribs)

The quote is interesting. I see that it is re-quoted in the outlets that you linked to. In The American Conservative, there is no commentary or even explanation. The GetReligion article does have commentary, but I can't tell if it passes the reliable sources guidelines. It looks like a group blog with some editorial oversight--not ideal. The GetReligion article links to the original Janis Ian quote, but it's on a forum post whose link isn't working. Using the wayback machine though, we can see her original post. The third article that introduces their topic of intergroup relations with the quote doesn't actually discuss the context for the quote. The one paragraph about it ("In the opening quote...") discusses Janis Ian's feelings about Card. I did find more about their friendship in these excerpts from an interview Janis did with Locus. I don't think we should start collecting quotes about Card's character from his friends and associates. If we quote Janis Ian, should we then quote the Wired writer about how "Card had been avidly homophobic since long before I knew him"? We aren't interested in how Card's friends view him. We are interested in how newspaper articles interpret his words. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:23, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the topic of themes of tolerance in Card's works, I did find a quote when researching a good source that defends Card. You might be able to say something like, "in response to the planned boycott of Ender's Game, director Gavin Hood said that the novel is "full of wonderful themes like compassion and tolerance" (ignoring how Hood says that he finds Card's views distressing in the last part of that sentence?). I don't believe that Card needs to be defended. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:23, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Annette as an editor looking through past discussions to see what shouldn't be changed I feel like I should suggest you stop it with the constant personal attacks on other editors on this talk page. You haven't been active for a while on this specific topic but it's been recent enough that I just feel the urge to say something. Your constant accusations towards others of them being dedicated to ruining OSC's image are uncalled for and hypocritical given your oft stated intentions of trying to make the article reflect your own personal beliefs about the subject. You should familiarize yourself with assuming good faith and avoiding a battleground mentality. You could also just generally realize that most editors don't care enough about the article subjects to be running a coordinated anything against them. 174.90.223.1 (talk) 03:52, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

References

A thoughtful and critical review of what makes Card's and his writing notable.

"Card’s Game: The Unfortunate Decline of Orson Scott Card" Some quotes that may be useful someday when someone decides to write about what makes Card notable instead of focusing on his outdated political views.

Neither a scientist nor a futurist, Card is a humanist, a surveyor of man’s potential for great reason as well as devastating violence, a defender of both faith and skepticism, a believer in the permanence of human nature and traditional social institutions, an imaginative writer who looks to the future and wonders not how society will be different, but how its inhabitants will be the same.

During [his] early years, he earned a reputation for being somewhat bloody-minded — a reputation not entirely undeserved. ... The gore isn’t simply gratuitous; it serves as an opportunity for moral reflection about the preservation of life and the heavy cost of violence, subjects that make up the thematic backbone of much of Card’s later work.

Card’s novels ... display a deep loathing for hatred rooted in political and cultural difference.

The climactic simulator scene in Ender’s Game is just one of several instances of video games in Card’s corpus. Ender’s Game also features an eerie, self-directed computer game that provides the battle school’s authorities with psychological profiles of the students who play it — a game that, in the sequels, develops into a conscious entity. The lead character in Card’s 1992 novel Lost Boys, Step Fletcher, is a video game designer, and one of that book’s central mysteries involves a strange video game played by his son.

he has spoken publicly of having a video game “addiction” lasting well into his adult life. And in June 2007, Card told the gaming-news website Gaming Today that there are probably about twenty novels he never wrote because he was spending untold hours playing computer games.

Before the publication of Ender's Game, Card worked as a reviewer of Video games for Compute! Magazine. Card's son, who showed up briefly in the archives of this talk page is a video game designer, a fact that probably should not be mentioned in article space due to WP:BLPNAME and WP:BLPPRIVACY. Annette Maon (talk) 08:59, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Misuse of 2008 opinion piece

I just did a partial revert of a couple recent edits that both cited Card's 2008 opinion piece in the Deseret News [1]. The two statements that, imo, misrepresent Card's statements are:

1. "...that he would "act to destroy" any government that said otherwise, calling such a government his "mortal enemy"
2. "...has publicly decried no-fault divorces, cohabitation, and child support for mothers of children born out of wedlock."

For the first statement, my reading of the opinion piece is not that this is Card's personal statement, but that this is a potential response to judges' actions as indicated by the first sentence in the paragraph: "How long before married people answer the dictators thus:...". For the second statement, I think the more accurate statement would be that Card has decried the deteriorated state of marriage in society as evidenced by the acceptance of no-fault divorce and cohabitation. I really don't think you can read the text to say Card is decrying, ie condemning or denouncing, child support for children born out of wedlock. Rather, imo, he is stating that this is evidence of a contempt for the concept of marriage. Anyways, that's why I feel the added text was misrepresentative of the source and why a removed them. Given that this is a BLP, I think there should be discussion and consensus reached here before readding. --FyzixFighter (talk) 23:29, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I disagree that he's just suggesting this as a hypothetical thing other people might hypothetically do, within a piece where he attributes his own views to those "married people" as a whole and elsewhere in the piece, in his own voice, expresses the idea that a government which permits same-sex marriage has failed and deserves to be destroyed. When I was restoring the text, I considered rewording to include this "I'm just saying, it's a nice government you've got here, shame if something were to happen to it because of people who aren't me" thing, but it seemed like a waste of space given that he's obviously expressing his own views in the piece and reliable secondary sources interpret it that way. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Where in that piece does attribute he seemingly blur the lines between his own views and those of "married people"? Given the initial sentence of that paragraph, I argue that it is still too much for a BLP to use this source to support a statement of what he would do and what he sees as his "mortal enemy". The standard for BLPs is intentionally high. What are the reliable secondary sources - all I can find are opinion pieces, which would support that people have interpreted his statement as such. Discussion and consensus should be reached on the talk page before undeleting such material, per WP:BLPUNDEL. --FyzixFighter (talk) 14:22, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I've already added a source to the article that says this, before you responded. Here's another and another. No reliable source appears to entertain the interpretation that he is warning against the actions of dangerous extremists that he does not agree with, or to suppose that he is not speaking of his own views in the rest of the article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:29, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

That said, I think that married people would "act to destroy" any government that said otherwise, calling such a government their "mortal enemy" is maybe also fine? It doesn't mislead anyone about the nature of Card's making this statement. The important thing is to make sure we include the quote that so many sources highlighted as part of his controversial rant. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:34, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

There is no consensus for adding the "act to destroy" quote out of context on a BLP.

Proposition 8 passed in the November 2008 California state elections and was later overturned in court. When Card supported Proposition 8, he was likely exposed to other "married people" who saw the court as their "mortal enemy" a phrase that Card is unlikely to use unless he is quoting someone else. Predicting and warning that they may "act to destroy that government" does not imply that he wanted to do so in 2008, much less in 2013 when he called the issue of gay marriage moot.

When a "source" that acknowledges that by 2013 Card 'called the issue of gay marriage "moot"', goes on to quote Card's words out of context from an article titled "State job is not to redefine marriage" as in:

In a statement he shared with Entertainment Weekly, he called the issue of gay marriage "moot" and said his novel has nothing to do with the politics of the 1980s, when the best-selling book was written.

...

In 2008, Card -- a board member of the National Organization of Marriage, which supported Proposition 8 in California -- wrote that "marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down.

Ender's Game' author Orson Scott Card responds to calls to boycott film

that source establishes its own unreliability. The use of quotes to create the wrong impression that it is Card who would "act to destroy that government" may indicate a POV which Roscelese has been trying to push here, but it does not accurately describe Card's actual views. Card may have mentioned somewhere that court decisions that overturn the popular vote can alienate people like him that previously supported gay rights. I remember reading about his concern that people in the armed forces who tend to agree with his views may sit on the sidelines when other people destroy the government. I do not remember where that was, if someone wants to look for it, it was probably before 2014 and well before Trump announced his candidacy in 2015. Annette Maon (talk) 10:44, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

We have given as much context for the statement as it is possible to give. We are not going to fabricate some imagined context about Card meeting people and totally disagreeing with them but considering it his duty to report their fringe beliefs. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Citation to: Card has stated there is no need to legalize same-sex marriage and that he opposes efforts to do so

I believe card may have said something along these line, however the inline citation I removed is not where he said it. The source is still there in places where it probably does belong. Can someone please find a correct citation? Annette Maon (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I added the citation, but with more details. I also added a paragraph break. I think it would be great if we could condense his views on homosexuality to one paragraph (to avoid undue WP:WEIGHT), but given the general interest in his views, maybe two paragraphs are appropriate? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Rachel Helps (BYU) Annette Maon (talk) 21:16, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Some day in the future, it may be possible to condense his views on homosexuality and same sex marriage (which are quite different) into one paragraph which gives WP:DUE weight to these relatively insignificant aspects of Card's notability. It might also be a good idea to move some of the material into a separate section that discusses how the 2013 attacks on Card's views affected his (lack of) involvement with the academic and science fiction communities and the way he writes and self censors his fiction. If/when that eventually happens, I collected in the next section, some quotes, citations and links that may be useful.

The following section is intended for the talk page only. It may provide useful raw material for someone else who will eventually incorporate a small part of it in the article. I do not presume to try and incorporate any of it without consensus and that seems so far away in the future that I may no longer be here by then. Annette Maon (talk) 00:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I've contributed to the efforts to "condense" it by removing the rambling nonsense you recently added and restoring the version that was clearer and more concise. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:43, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Annette Maon, consensus is NOT we have to appease you. Two editors have taken issue with your edit. That by definition means there is no consensus supporting your change. Slywriter (talk) 14:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Taking issue with my minor edit is no justification for reverting Rachel Helps (BYU)'s contributions without a discussion. Annette Maon (talk) 14:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Not just I that has taken issue as Roscelese also reverted both edits.Slywriter (talk) 14:29, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

You don't get to add whatever garbage you want and demand a constitutional amendment before anyone's allowed to revert you. You would lack consensus for this even if only one of us disagreed with this addition, but we both do. You need to stop editing this article given that you clearly feel too emotional about the topic to edit in a policy-compliant manner. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@Roscelese: "People who live in glass houses ...". Have you tried reading what you wrote above and thinking whether it applies to you as well?

For the record, I support the changes made by Rachel Helps (BYU) and there is no consensus to remove them. If anyone wants to remove my edits, the least they can do is be WP:CIVIL to Rachel Helps (BYU), remove my edits one at a time and give others who watch the Article some time to chime in. Annette Maon (talk) 17:12, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I support a discussion of recent edits. One way to avoid an edit war is to find what, exactly, each person finds unsatisfactory about the text in question. I would like the section to be aligned with Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines. I would also like the text to be stable. If we are at an impasse, maybe we should get the opinion of a neutral third party. In the past, people have questioned my edits to this page because I work for Brigham Young University, so I don't think I should be that third party. But before we make a request for a third opinion on Wikipedia:Third_opinion, we need to be clear about what the disagreement is. What do you think, Roscelese and Annette Maon? What is the disagreement about, exactly, and should we ask for a third opinion? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

My biggest concern with your edit is I'm not sure the clarification actually improves understanding for a reader and does look like an attempt to confuse the issue by making a reader parse the statement to discover it amounts to "They are(were) against gay marriage". That may not be the intent but looks that way. Summarizing things succinctly should be the goal. Compared to other concerns, your edit was fairly low on the list.Slywriter (talk) 20:42, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• I prefer Rachel Helps (BYU)'s new NPOV wording. Reverting it without either providing a valid citation for the earlier wording or at least restoring the "citation needed" tag would be vandalism.
• Card wrote that since 2003, when the US Supreme Court had ruled those laws unconstitutional, he has "no interest in criminalizing homosexual acts and would never call for such a thing, any more than [he] wanted such laws enforced back when they were still on the books". Using only part of that quote without the context is a WP:BLP violation equivalent to asking when he stopped "beating his wife" or "waterboarding his children".
• The same goes for repeating unreliable sources that intentionally misquote "act to destroy" out of the context in which it was written. I would not mind having that quote and the context removed altogether. The only thing notable about it is the way it gets misquoted.

Annette Maon (talk) 22:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Stop with calling things vandalism, content disputes are not vandalism. It is a personal attack that you continue to make such claims. Also stop with claiming BLP violations. Neither of these are going to achieve your goal and are going to just add to the complaints that you should not be editing BLP articles. Slywriter (talk) 01:22, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

The recent change removes NPOV from the article by adding a bunch of pointless self-serving verbiage that contributes no information, clarity, or value. No amount of waffling will change the fact that Card stated his vehement opposition to the legality of same-sex marriage and homosexuality, and reliable secondary sources noted this fact. You must gain consensus if you want to change the article in this way. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:42, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Having failed to get consensus for proposed changes among the users already editing the article, Roscelese's next step must be to seek broader input through eg. a WP:RfC not to continue trying to insert the disputed text.

Quoting from Roscelese post on my talk page

Instead, they engage in an edit war while accusing me of doing so. Annette Maon (talk) 12:44, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I encourage you to stop this trolling if you wish to continue editing this article, which it seems deeply important to you to retain editing access to. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

My recent edit was an effort to get more specific in a hope of reaching consensus. I'm just guessing, but I probably also originally wrote the topic sentence "Card has stated there is no need to legalize same-sex marriage and that he opposes efforts to do so." If I wrote that, it would have been a summary of the other, cited information in the paragraph. Is this an inaccurate summary? Maybe we should wait for the ANI discussion on Annette Maon to close before continuing? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

"activist" categories

someone recently added these categories:

• Category:Activists from North Carolina
• Category:Activists from Utah
• Category:Activists from Virginia
• Category:Activists from Washington (state)

I'm not sure if these make sense for Card. What do you think? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:50, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't know that I'd consider him an activist, really. Yes, he sometimes makes comments on whatever topics, but he's not really an activist. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:42, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Summary - Views on Homosexuality

I created Revision 1175023420 to update the final sentence of the second paragaph of the Summmary section@. Original: "...his opposition to homosexuality has provoked public criticism." Change: "...his opposition to homosexuality has provoked public criticism from some groups, and received support from others."

This change was undone by @Rachel_Helps_(BYU), with the comment: "the lead is to summarize the body of the page, and the section on Card's views on homosexuality does not discuss support for his views on homosexuality"

Stating that his views received public criticism without the caveat that he received support from some groups gives the false impression that his views were universally criticized, which is inaccurate, especially at the time that the comments were made. The clarification should be restored. Jguttenburg (talk) 18:43, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

@Jguttenburg, the lead of the article should not be introducing information that isn't in the body. If you have reliable sources about support for Card's views, use them to expand that section of the body. Schazjmd (talk) 18:46, 13 September 2023 (UTC)