Misplaced Pages

Politics

first of multiple new sections posted at once

I rewrote section Orson Scott Card#Politics using apt quotation rather than lame paraphrase, as I say in the edit summary. There is more interesting material in Card's 2008 to 2012 columns that are featured here. He wrote in January 2008 as a strong advocate of the US war in Iraq, credited GWBush with a big win nearly complete there (but must have liked Bush on immigration too). Of McCain, later "the moderate I support", he conceded "perhaps McCain (though moderation has never been his hallmark)". --P64 (talk) 18:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Card as a source

In four reference templates (currently refs 28-31) I simply inserted "|author=Card". It isn't worth doing more while there is no chosen ref format (dates, dashes, etc) but every use of Card as a source should name him at the start of the reference text. Someone skimming the references should not need to know that "WorldWatch" or "The Ornery American" is OSC.

P.S. I didn't notice that 'Scorsese' is mis-spelled. --P64 (talk) 18:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

SF awards source

The Science Fiction Awards Database (sfadb.com) is nearly a year old, successor to the Locus Index to SF Awards. Perhaps it can replace Worlds Without End, providing greater reliability, better background linkage (what is this award?), or less repetition in references. I haven't examined it yet but this is a suggestion I'll repeat at the bibliography where it may be urgent. --P64 (talk) 18:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Pseudonyms

last of four new sections posted at once

As someone says above about homosexuality, I have nothing constructive to say here but when section Pseudonyms is so long as section Science fiction, it seems kinda messed up for me.

I think detailed coverage of Pseudonyms belongs in the bibliography and I do have something constructive to say there. Talk: Orson Scott Card bibliography#Pseudonyms, momentarily --P64 (talk) 18:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

This could probably be fixed by making the Science fiction section longer? ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:40, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Would-be blackballee?

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:

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, is an attempt to secure stable mother-father families for children… 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 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 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. " ( 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."
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)

FireDogLake, Sep. 6, 2013: "Patrick Yacco of Geeks Out emailed me 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 . 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)

Last section of the lede

Somebody today committed a BLP violation by including a statement that Card was a closet homosexual. Could my reversion of that random piece of vandalism please could not be used as an excuse to restart the discussion about the last sentence in the lede? It will never be perfect. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 15:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The two are unrelated. Discussion is ongoing, but there's clearly no consensus to single out Card's opposition to marriage contrary to what's in the sources. You are mistaking your repetition of your own opinion for consensus from others. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Card's views are nebulous and changing. What is there at the moment is not speculation nor is it inflammatory. There has been consensus for a long while about including his past opposition to same-sex marriage. The NYT puts it in their headline. Mathsci (talk) 16:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

And the Los Angeles Times headline is "Orson Scott Card's antigay views prompt 'Ender's Game' boycott," the Hollywood Reporter headline is "'Ender's Game' Author's Anti-Gay Views Pose Risks for Film", and the Guardian headline is "Activists call for Ender's Game boycott over author's anti-gay views." We're going around in circles because you keep ignoring my argument: marriage is an issue but it isn't the only issue, and even if Card's views have changed, his support of criminalization, for instance, keeps coming up in sources. That's why I think it's a better idea to use more general language. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Might you show us where headlines are considered a "reliable source" per WP:RS? Last I checked, the article itself is a reliable source, the headline is not. Headlines are written to get attention, not to be the article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

That's why I don't think Mathsci's cherry-picking the NYT headline is valid. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Curiously enough, consensus does not agree with you about the claim. Nor do I see "cherry-picking" on his part in this. Now if you follow WP:CONSENSUS you well ought to accept it rather than raise pretty useless arguments. Cheers. `Collect (talk)

We're getting a bit meta here, but if you read the discussion that has taken place, a number of users have supported the use of more general language, eg. User:Millernumber1's suggestion "whose opinions, including negative comments about homosexuality" or User:Araignee's saying that general terms are fine and we do not need to mention same-sex marriage. There certainly is no consensus for a specific wording in general terms, but there's also an obvious lack of consensus to single out same-sex marriage in preference to other issues. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify - my suggested wording was not my ideal wording - I think I contributed to the original wording (the "including opposition to same-sex marriage") back in 2011, and I still think it's the most representative statement. Millernumber1 (talk) 13:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I guess you missed the name of the organization he used to be a member of, then. I kind of figure that since he was associated with that organization that it would be an eensy bit of a clue that it was an organization he was involved in, but your mileage may vary. Collect (talk) 19:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I guess you missed the part where his support for criminalization and other anti-gay remarks keep coming up in sources. It's okay, some people don't read very thoroughly; it doesn't make you a bad person. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Snark does not belong on a talk page. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Pot, allow me to introduce Kettle. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 19:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps of pertinent note?:

  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. That is absurd -- now that the law has changed (the decision was overturned in 2003) 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. But I stand by the main points of this essay, which concerns matters internal to the Mormon Church.---Orson Scott Card, May 2, 2013 link

  --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what point you're making here - that we should disregard reliable sources' pointing out that Card's previous remarks remain controversial because...why? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I think Hodgdon may have been responding specifically to the posts above talking about "his support for criminalization". ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• Well, IMO the contention that Card's statements wrt criminalization constitute prima facie evidence for his harboring of blatant homophobia is indeed widespread, emanating as they do from rather prestigious quarters...hence are inarguably "notable" (and--again, IMO--such notability overrides considerations of wp:UNDUE, Card being, of course, a Mormon corridor religio-political pundit of sorts). But it simply can't be phrased as a jujgement by Misplaced Pages itself but must be placed wuithin the mouths of the commentators that have made and make it. That said, Card's insistence that his view was and is misunderstood should be included as well (i.e.--my paraphrase of his explanatory statement here--something to the effect that he actually was simply advocating that Utahns never should enforce sodomy laws except in the most exrreme circumstances and his Let-the-laws--remain-on-the-books was simply a recognition that within the Utah political/social milieu at the time, his conservative LDS readers wouldn't have suppported decriminalization in any case, so blah blah blah. (Or something like that(?)))--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 13:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oh, I see. As I mentioned above, I do know that he's since changed his mind, but "said that he supported enforcing anti-gay laws, then stated that he didn't and that had never been his position, but his previous remarks are still coming back to haunt him" is way too much detail for a sentence in the lede; since it's still part of the controversy, I thought we needed something more general than marriage, but it seems like in this thread, consensus is emerging to mention marriage specifically. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

To repeat/clarify my comment from another section, I don't think we HAVE to mention "including same-sex marriage", but we definitely shouldn't say "LGBT rights" (too inclusive), and I can see value in leaving the "including" part, as his contemporary importance per volume of RS coverage seems to be 1) his views on same-sex marriage, and 2) Ender's Game. It doesn't hurt to leave those in so as to connect the reader to the topic. If all a reader read were the lead, they'd leave knowing what the majority RS says about him already. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 04:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Hm, do you think (re: weighting more towards recent coverage) that we should also mention the boycott? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. The name of the LGBT activist group (or groups) would have to be mentioned in the lede and that would be WP:UNDUE. Almost certainly WP:NOTNEWS applies here: the film has not even opened yet. The reference to the NYT was just a side remark. Mathsci (talk) 07:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

At this point, the boycott is not really the core. As mentioned, the film isn't even released yet, so there's been no boycott to date. That being said, the boycott is not because of the book/content, but instead, once again, because of his views on same-sex marriage. So it all leads back to that. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 13:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Comic Con

We currently write "One studio executive expressed the opinion that Card's involvement in promotion for the movie adaptation of Ender's Game could be a liability for the film, and Card did not take part in the Ender's Game film panel at San Diego Comic Con in July 2013 with the other principal cast and crewmembers of the film." Do we know that Card did not go to Comic Con for this reason? The way we present it, it seems like WP:SYN. I know the source speculated this, but seems we should qualify it or remove it if we don't have something that better sources the reason Card did not take part in the panel. For all we know, he was on vacation or preoccupied and it had nothing to do with this. Morphh 15:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I thought the edit was a good one and from what I've read, I agree with these statements. Morphh 01:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The edit was a poor one. Where in Card's writing or in secondary sources do we find the statement that he only opposes homosexual behavior which is unchaste? Is this a distinction he draws? No - HSG is attempting to insert personal analysis, apparently based on a general statement about the tenets of Mormonism rather than anything about Card's views specifically. Surely we can clear up what users believe to be ambiguities without having to insert things made up by users, instead of derived from the sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Roscelese. It's not obvious at all what opposing "unchaste" homosexual behavior is supposed to mean, or how "unchaste" homosexual behavior would differ from "chaste" homosexual behavior. Hodgdon's edit confused matters. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree, the edit seeks to read into the comments more than OSC is actively stating. OSC's writings tend to focus on the socio-politico-economic spectrum, not the religious. It's fairly clear that he's not against homosexuality as a trait, but instead regarding certain behaviours, but this edit is NPOV. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 13:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Card believes gay behavior immoral(/um civilizationally retrograde or whatever) whether betwixt those S.S.married or no; but I suppose an actual quote would have to spell this out, to accomodate wp:SYNTH, etc. In any case, 2013 will be seen as a watershed and coming years may bring about otherwise conservative religions' making accomodations for commited couples to have sex without pastoral discouragement/ecclesiastic sanction.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

It seems Card is askig for "tolerance"...with a part of his arguement being that, since his most egregious statements had been addressed to coreligionists within the Mormon corridor (UT, parts of so.ID/WY/no.AZ: which, of course...other than the parts crossing into NV or within CO/NM...are socially conservative states akin the Bible belt), his remarks should be given some leeway due this context. E.g., like accounting for the times when analyzing Churchill's closedmindedness w rgd Indian self-rule, etc etc.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Card's anti-homosexual views, activism, and surrounding controversy are very much part of his fame. Card stepped into the public spotlight as an author of science fiction- and since then has used that notoriety as a platform to promote his ideology. This article is not "the literary works of Orson Scott Card" nor "the political life of Orson Scott Card"- it's the whole package. Your disappointment is misplaced.Mavigogun (talk) 13:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

That's my point, it's the whole package, but we spend 99% of our time on his homosexual views. I didn't suggest the views were not notable to him, just that we spend a significant amount of the time on that one subject. Considering the body of work he has produced, all the reliable sources that discuss this and his life, this issue is a small part. The section needs to be in proper balance with the article, which is why we're not including all kinds of quotes from every side of the discussion and not expanding on every detail that makes news. We have this WP:SPA attitude with these articles and it needs to move on. Morphh 13:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Controversy around Superman inexplicably undefined

The section dealing with Card's penning of Superman conspicuously lacks explanation for why Card's views make him a controversial author for that franchise specifically; considering that protests aborting his work stemmed from perceived ideological dissonance between Card and Superman's philosophies, a few words demonstrating those differences are appropriate. The now-redacted quote I included for that purpose did so succinctly, clearly casting the tenor of the protest in the topical section- contrary to Morphh's assertion, neither WP:UNDUE, WP:BALASPS. Edit suggestions for filling this hole are needed.Mavigogun (talk) 13:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Read the policies. Especially including BLP and OR policies, and the reliable NPOV. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

It is our presentation that is to be neutral- not what we report. Card's view is what it is- as is that of those who spoke in opposition to him: not depicting those positions accurately is imbalanced. Inclusion of reporting on the topic is not OR. BLP is rightly sighted- and should be among foremost considerations when working to complete this section -no argument there. Consider drafting a solution that accommodates your concerns- that is, after all, what this section is about.Mavigogun (talk) 13:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The entire Superman thing is already given too much weight. We give it more space then his views on Ender's Game, and you want to add quotes from some other person's POV without any balance. How is that person's viewpoint represented, not only to the issue itself, but in the entire body of sources that is the life of OSC. It's the flea on the wing on the fly on the frog on the bump on the log in the hole in the bottom of the sea. If you want to add the reference as a source to the existing content, I'm fine with that - you can even add a footnote in the source, but beyond that.. inclusion would be improper in multiple ways. Morphh 14:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Let me also state that if we're looking at NPOV, there is very little with regard to Card's rebuttals. Almost the entire section is the critic POV. Not that I agree with Card, but if we're going to add any quotes, it should be from him, not some red link freelance writer. Morphh 14:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

You misunderstand me: I'm not soliciting a reiteration of what you judge unworthy, but the drafting of text that explains the core and cause of the protest. "He had views and some people didn't like them" is inadequate. Card's many other projects include comic books, children's books, and video games that were not scuttled by protest or petition. The subject of this particular comic played a key roll in the outcome- and that needs to be depicted here. An advocate for discrimination (Card) was rejected by some fans as inappropriate for voicing a champion of the oppressed (Superman); Card may have done a fine job- who knows? That's not for us to judge. A few words to that effect are warranted. Take your best shot. Contribute. Make it lean. Critique IS a contribution- but alone does not meet the need.Mavigogun (talk) 14:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Cmt - The Card / co-author Aaron Johnston Superman iteration's 2013 inkbrusher - pull out / intented boycott by a number of comicbookstores recv'd massive coverage so yes some reference to SM's all-American inconography IMO would be pertinent. (By the way, D.C. Comics never said the comic book had been shelved but just that they were hoping eventually to find a replacement for illustrator Chris Sprouse (eg see link). Heh heh - apparently arms-manufacturor Tony Stark is considered less clean cut? see OSC, Ironman @ Amazon--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 14:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, if we can craft something that better explains the cause in a balanced way and integrate it well, I'm fine with that. However, we can't say that Card is an advocate for discrimination or oppression without much sourcing and rebuttal (causing more weight issues), so it would be better to just append something like critics didn't feel Card's positions reflected the ideals of Superman or something to that effect. Morphh 15:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I modified the first sentence of the Superman issue to include the cause. Morphh 15:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

It's a good start- thanks. As to the use of the word "discrimination", if useful, it could easily be supported with reference without adding weight- that, after all, is why we reference sources to begin with- we aren't in the business of making arguments.Mavigogun (talk) 12:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but it's a point of view, an opinion regarding the larger issue, so we'd attributed it and then to remain neutral we might have to include the alternate pov. It becomes a coatrack for the debate, as all holding such views are labeled as discriminatory by one side, while the other side would argue they're not, defenders of traditional family values, yada yada yada. For example, see the first quote in this section which might be his rebuttal. So I think it better if we avoid it and leave that for the larger debate covered in those articles. Morphh 02:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Suggested quotation

Only when the marriage of heterosexuals has the support of the whole society can we have our best hope of raising each new generation to aspire to continue our civilization.—Orson Scott Card (The Mormon Times, 2009)

Of course it's critical - it was cherry plucked and placed at the end of that article for the purpose of describing his intolerance. It doesn't succinctly state his views - it doesn't even cover the premiss you discussed above regarding morality, which you stated is what the sources support. Why not use one of those quotes? Personally, I think we should avoid quote boxes as it could be WP:IMPARTIAL and gives the section additional weight that becomes WP:UNDUE. My point above was that most of the content in that section is critical and the tone is that of an opponent viewpoint. We're not stating how Card has received criticism for his "defense of traditional marriage" or how his views line up with the church and many christian Americans. We start from the position of a critic, that Card is wrong, he's oppressive, it's inequality, etc, and I agree with that position, but at some point we have to look at it and say with a strait face that we're being impartial and that the tone is balanced and both viewpoints are presented. And we have to do all that with some thought to the overall balance and weight of the article. Adding a quote from Card that presents his intolerance does not improve this. Morphh 16:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

WHOA. Stop right there. The quote is not critical- the quote just is. You- or another -may criticize the quote- but a quote can be reference from a source without referencing an argument present in that source. It is not our job to craft a presentation of Card that promotes a particular reception- parsing quotes to isolate the reader from them in order to promote a particular impression is sımple partisan advocacy. (It is not for us to craft and promote a neutral value reading of a holocaust, for example- presenting the pro-holocaust view is not "balance"). It is not our job to make Card look good- or bad -but to present the essence. It is up to the reader to consider the context. The noteworthyness of the quote is evident from the copious reporting. It's my impression that there is a partisan effort being made here to protect Card from his own history; that's not our job. Moreover, these events are a huge chapter in his story. Balance requires coverage.Mavigogun (talk) 13:16, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:NPOV states "The tone of Misplaced Pages articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." I think picking one quote of many regarding the issue and the only quote in the entire article for all of Card's career is partisan advocacy. Of his quotes, why this subject, why this quote? Seems Ender's Game would be a better subject to quote Card on if we were being objective. But even if picking just this topic, is this the most prominent? Not from all the articles I've read. By selecting this, we are doing just what you describe - parsing quotes to isolate the reader in order to promote a particular impression. I hope you're not charging me with bad faith and some partisan effort to scrub his history. I do not support his views and I feel ridiculous being the one here seeming to defend Misplaced Pages policies. If I followed my partisan views over policy, I wouldn't be saying anything. You can look at this talk and see where the partisan focus is regarding editing Card's article - it's not on his work, which is the basis for his notability. As for balance, the section on his Homosexuality views get more space then almost every other section in the entire article - second only to Science Fiction, but only because we quote some of his book titles. This is not balance for his biography. According to WP:BLP, "The idea expressed in WP:Eventualism – that every Misplaced Pages 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." Thus we should be very limited in the extent to which we cover this topic. We could quote all day long from a different POV that could portray him in positive or negative light - we shouldn't do that. No one is trying to remove the history, but we do need to use editorial judgement picking the most relevant disputes from reliable sources and present the conflict / controversy in a succinct way that provides article balance. Morphh 02:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

This is the root of the disconnection: "You can look at this talk and see where the partisan focus is regarding editing Card's article - it's not on his work, which is the basis for his notability". Card's notability has evolved. The article should reflect that. Protestations of inclusion seem circular: Card's advocacy of prohibition of gay marriage isn't noteworthy enough to warrant quotes from critics- and single quotes aren't representational- and accurate summation without quotes is decried as lacking neutrality- and including those quotes would add undue weight...

I'm not charging anybody with bad faith (perhaps a degree of fan-boy blindness). Let's move on in the only way we can- with consensus. This cycle of unilateral redaction isn't useful; I suggest replacing it by bring objections here, seeking consensus, floating proposed text, and counting hands. Of course, that, too, might be just another nightmare- if participants are working counter-purpose. The question is "how can I make this edit better?" not "this topic lacks legitimacy." That this is an important part of Card's story is not credibly disputable- all we should be contesting here is the most appropriate way to represent it- which, for sure, includes scale and tone. Of course, I could be wrong- and other considered voices would be helpful and appreciated.Mavigogun (talk) 10:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah Yes, I've been active on Misplaced Pages for 8 years and I'm such a Card FanBoy that I've first edited the article a couple weeks ago. ENOUGH - WP:NPA I agree Card's notability has expanded to cover additional topics and the article does reflect that. Most of what we're seeing recently is tied to and covered in the topic Ender's_Game_(film)#Controversy. We have to keep in mind the writing of an article from a historical perspective and not the latest news. 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." My logic is not circular - each one is WP:NPOV, it's linear as it shouldn't move past step 1, 2, or 3. I directly quoted NPOV above regarding quotes - let's follow the policy and "Try not to quote directly from participants". There is no edit to a quote box - you can only redact it. It's difficult to provide context, be impartial, or provide proper balance for a quote box regarding a controversial topic. It also has issues with WP:STRUCTURE as it draws the focus point to the quote - "Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure". If you think the section is missing an important point covered in the quote that is sufficiently covered in reliable sources, then bring it forward and we can look at how best to integrate it, as again I highlighted above "instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." We should be looking at how can we make this article better overall. Morphh 13:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

To follow up, it's not the contents of the quote I object to including. It's primarily the quote box and the entirety of the quote without context or balance. If we think it is important to relay that Card thinks heterosexual marriage is the best hope for future procreation, I'm ok with including that. I'd also be ok with quoting part of it as integrated into the overall prose of the section to convey the point. I do think we have to be cautious about making too many points with little context or balance. Hodgdon's secret garden described some of that in prior sections. It becomes... Card disapproves of homosexual behavior and same sex marriage - and he said this disapproving thing, and he said this disapproving thing, and he said this disapproving thing, and he said this disapproving thing. This does cause concerns with overall weight as we expand points and counterpoints, views and context. We need to weigh what are the most contentious and most discussed points regarding Card's views and cover those with balance, for the section and the article. Morphh 14:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I reckon we're on the same page, judging by the last sentence. I acknowledge that when the subject is speech, quotes may be both natural and necessary- or may introduce a burden that simply describing what they address would not. You rightly observe the excesses of the quote box. I'd much prefer a summation with ref's to a ping-pong quote match of condemnation, refutation, equivocation, and denial. As to WP:NPA, you introduced the topic of your motivation- "I hope you're not charging me with bad faith and some partisan effort to scrub his history"; I had no interest to impugn- only relay the impression that the source of differing values was not seen by me to be calculated. Frankly, talking about the messenger instead of the message usually produces nothing good. Mavigogun (talk) 11:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• My issue with the quote is that I'm not sure why we would choose this one over another one to highlight. It's not the one that sources zero in on as exemplifying his views. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• Cmt - As long-time WPdians know, use of appellations w negative connotations applied even to folks everybody's come to agree is/was bad (I dunno, Idi Amin) obv.ly is poor ency.pdc form, so "homophobic" etc are out; 'tis better to describe a subject's beliefs/acts and let readers come to their own conclusions.

  Anyway, to show a subject's beliefs via a quote (one contextualized within the flow of text and not in a stand-alone box, I suppose?) is one way--although it's entirely possible that the one I opened this discussion with wasn't the best for this purpose, either.

  As for how much weight is given to the issue. There are subarticles about his works and about the film adaptation, so stuff written there can eventually be summarized a bit here, if it hasn't been already. (Eg - Here is a current quote from a OSCard's Ender's Game - universe fanboy Dwight Wade @WhatCulture!):

  There is so much to work with here and Card did an amazing job of predicting what the world may look like. Written in 1985, Ender’s Game deals with topical issues like population control, rampant xenophobia and violent, excessive bullying. A major plot point revolves around the use of an anonymous “Net” that connects all of civilization through computers. The similarities to our world, almost 30 years later, are eerie.

  Beyond these plot points, though, lies an amazing adaptation of the traditional hero’s journey. Friends are made and lost. Lessons are learned. Battles are won. Harsh consequences are rendered with regularity.

  There is a reason Ender’s Game won the Nebula Award in 1985 and the Hugo Award in 1986. This is a great story, one worthy of the millions of fans who follow it and of an amazing film adaptation.

  Yes, Hollywood knows how to screw up a good thing. They also know how to make a damn good movie though. I for one choose to look on with optimism, with the hope that one the best books of my youth will get the treatment it deserves.

  I myself am a fanboy of sorts of Card's nonfiction, I suppose, having read a number of his essays and even a couple of his few non-fiction books. On the subject of gay rights, although I'm by instinct quite lefty/liberal, for lack of better terms, on the gay rights issue I wasn't among the first one to become enamored of the most radical of progressive change, either. (I suppose mine has been an everyday-person version of the so-called evolutions that the Clintons and that Barack have famously experienced, as well--if, in fact, theirs were somewhat politically calculated also...).

  All this said, what I enjoy about Card's nonfiction is his straightforward approach to expressing his opinions. And he is from Provo, Utah, moved out to attend Notre Dame for a tiny bit as a PhD candidate, then settled in the Bible belt where he commutes to teach at the Mormons' only independent Bible college (sic: I shd say Bk of Mormon college, I 'spose). And he is verrrry religious. So, in Card's heart of hearts (as well as those of other members, former or current, of NOM) he prolly would agree wholeheartedly with the stance taken by Vlad Putin. And Card is no dummy so knows that if one is outspoken and pithy, one becomes a poster boy for "Homophobia" - hence demonized by "the Liberal Establishment." So he was likely pretty aware of what he risked and was willing to endure what "abuse" he's so-far received, I'd guess. (That said, any boycott will perhaps have limited effect due to the fact that the movie's content and most of its makers are pro-gay and the fact that, whereas the online presence of gay activists is impressive, the mainstream public is less concerned about their issues, really. Just my impression. ((Heck, the circulation of Card's columns in the Mormon Times easily strip the circulation of, say, the Advocate, I'd imagine. A factoid that might be surprising to those who forget that there are as many LDS in the US as there are Jews....)))--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 14:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Uh, what is this wall of text hoping to accomplish? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Um, self-outting as a quasi Card fanboy? Well, I do likewise provide some contextualizing commentary wrt the fact that OSCard's secular 30,000-circ. Rhino Times pieces, tho featured in a NYTimes review, are arguably of a lower profile than his sectarian writing at the 178,000-circ. Mormon Times. (Guess I'll make an edit and add the Des News column to .)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Bytheway, w rgd repercussions Card senses have been due his NOM activism & anti-gay rights sectarian (LDS) punditry, he believes - per a Deseret News "Faith" section column of his in 2011 - " not invited to speak or teach at most universities, despite the popularity of fiction on college campuses; rarely mentioned for awards in field. Few are the fellow writers who list on social networking sites, or make positive references to work." (Card's assertion is refutedcountered by Kaimi Wenger at LDS blog Times & Seasons.) IMO Card's above quote should be summarized (/snippeted) somewhere in the article, eventually, as well.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 16:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I echo Roscelese's sentiment- a safety pressure valve for OCD this ain't.Mavigogun (talk) 09:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd too appreciate were we to limit the talk to specific changes rather than a superfluous spotlight on one's perception of OSC. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 03:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

Recent rearranging

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

Why segregate opinions from referencing the fame of Card's columns themselves? From a tertiary POV, our subject has become famous for his outspoken Religious Right opinions about homosexuality only after 2008 and via his new Mormon Times column and before that, again encyclopedically speaking, whatever views he had (incl. his 1990 Sunstone piece) merely provided "color" w rgd his sci fi writings, IMO.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 16:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

There's no "segregation" of his columns from his columns; rather, the columns are only one outlet of his opinions. His opinions live outside of his writings, and should reflect that. If we're discussing a specific notable article he wrote (one that generated controversy in itself, for example), or the fact that he writes columns, that'd belong in his Columns section. If we're discussing an opinion he has voiced, supported by an aggregate of columns/writings/speeches, it belongs in his Personal Views section. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 03:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Update?

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

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

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

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

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

• Orson Scott Card at Library of Congress Authorities --with 115 catalog records

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

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

Noteworthy current Card blog essay

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

I'm no fan of Obama, but wow, just wow:

"Orson Scott Card, the “Ender’s Game” novelist who ignited a firestorm over his comments about gay marriage, has written a paranoid essay comparing President Obama to Hitler in which he suggests Obama could be planning a coup to take over the United States."

Yeah, this belongs in the article. MilesMoney (talk) 03:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Just keep in mind WP:NOTNEWS. We have to look at Card's biography from a historical perspective and provide proper WP:WEIGHT to the man's life. So we have to avoid turning his biography in to a list of criticisms or cherry picking the latest news and quotes. In fact, for a WP:BLP we have to take extra care. Morphh 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)