![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
According to OSC at http://www.hatrack.com/osc/reviews/everything/2007-02-18.shtml , the article has several factual errors.
---
Just thought I'd give some feedback on how to improve the article, the first thing I notice is that the current lead section is far too long, see Wikipedia:Lead section:
“ | The lead section should provide a clear and concise introduction to an article's topic, establish context, and define the terms. It should contain several paragraphs, depending on the length of the article, and should provide an overview of the main points the article will make, summarizing the primary reasons the subject matter is interesting or notable, and including a mention of its notable controversies, if there are any. The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, should be written in a clear and accessible style, should be carefully sourced like the rest of the text, and should encourage the reader to read more. | ” |
Also see Wikipedia:Lead section#Length:
“ | The appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article. As a general guideline, the lead should be no longer than three to four paragraphs. | ” |
Bold added by me. -- Lethargy 20:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
The next thing I see is that there are a lot of needed citations (see Wikipedia:Footnotes). I'll add them as I can, but this will need to be a group effort. -- Lethargy 20:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I think we should just remove all of his personal opinions and politics from the article as this should remain an article about him and his work. Many of the opinions in this section seem POV and I think the section should just be removed as it doesn't belong. Grand Slam 7 00:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think this section is ever going to be completed as the two side's are never going agree on "Fair and Balanced". Witness "Orson Scott Card is a bigoted asshole/you're an intolerant liberal". Put this huge cesspool of a discussion that will never end on another page.
I came to this site hoping for a list of books, and I was a little disappointed. It has a lot of biography and explanation, but little talk of his writings, which is probably what most people come here for. See Terry Brooks for a good example of what I'm talking about. Do I have any takers? - Patstuart 05:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to move the list to the top, under a {{see also}} tag so it's more obvious. If anyone has a problem, go ahead and revert it. - Patstuart 01:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
That source (A salon.com interview) doesnt backup the assertion that "religious and political beliefs have drawn the ire of science fiction fans"... It's an opinion peace of one author. And it's Salon.com... common. That's a highly bias website... we need to be exceptionally careful when we use it as a source like this. Unless we can reword the paragraph or find a better source I'll be removing the paragraph in a day or two. Thanks, --- J.S ( t| c) 06:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Do we really need huge sections on a science fiction writer's specific political and religious views, while focusing relatively little on his literary work and biographic information? -- NEMT 21:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Would it be possible to have a section of the page dedicated to his philosophy. His books arent just science fiction they have a certain evaluation of humans and humanity and it quickly becomes philosophy in the later series of his books (homecoming series included). Of course this will all be oppinionated but as long as it's realistic to OSC's books i think it would be more interesting then talking about his "morality" and "political oppinions". Anyone motivated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.255.139.101 ( talk • contribs)
I noted that Lethargy had changed "many fans" to "some fans" and requested a cite.
This is difficult, and I'd appreciate advice how to resolve it. It's possible to find out that many/some fans of Orson Scott Card's do not agree with/dislike his homophobic beliefs googling - yet I appreciate that we can hardly link to a googlesearch in a wiki article! We could of course link to the multiple references to Orson Scott Card's homophobia by fans of his work, but I'm concerned that this would overload the reference section.
There exist at least three interviews/essays written by self-identified fans of his work, all three of which are cited from the article, which clearly state both that they are fans of his fiction but disagree with the homophobic views expressed in some of his non-fiction essays. How many more references do we need to be able to say that many/some of his fans do disagree with his homophobic beliefs? Yonmei 21:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, three sources have been cited from self-identified fans. What more do we need to be able to say "some"? Yonmei 21:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
This article isn't on the web, so it'll be hard for everyone here to read it an verify the source, but there is an original research article (by an academic, not a fan) in the 2002 New York Review of Science Fiction which thoroughly describes the images of male bodies in OSC's fiction and the violence that happens to gay characters. This should be cited here. The article is Kate Bonin, “Gay Sex and Death in the Science Fiction of Orson Scott Card”, 172, 15, 4 (December 2002), pp.17-21. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lkondolian ( talk • contribs) 02:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
If we can't link to a notable/reliable source that says they have this view... then the view is fringe and we are under obligation to cover it. If we need to link to a dozen no-name blogs to prove the point then we are engaging in OR. --- J.S ( t| c) 16:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, which are particularly strict guidelines, I chopped out a lot of the information from the homosexuality section which was either unreferenced, poorly referenced, awkwardly worded, or weasel worded. This can be added back later but please discuss it here first. -- Lethargy 18:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Um, has anyone raised or discussed the issue that, for an author that is avowedly against homosexual relations, there is quite a bit of gay sex in his books? After being criticized that the main characters engaged in gay sex in Songmaster, Card responded:
What the novel offers is a treatment of characters who share, between them, a forbidden act that took place because of hunger on one side, compassion on the other, and genuine love and friendship on both parts. I was not trying to show that homosexuality was "beautiful" or "natural" -- in fact, sex of any kind is likely to be "beautiful" only to the participants, and it is hard to make a case for the naturalness of such an obviously counter-evolutionary trend as same-sex mating. Those issues were irrelevant. The friendship between Ansset and Josef was the beautiful and natural thing, even if it eventually led them on a mutually self-destructive path. (quote pulled from Songmaster entry)
Additionally, in the Ender's game series, the main character Ender experiences a "crush" on an older boy while in military school, and later in the series is stuck in a sexless heterosexual marriage. It seems like Card's writing sure explores a lot of gay content, and particularly, older/younger male relationships. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.251.101.34 ( talk) 21:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC).
What insinuation are you trying to make here? Orson Scott Card has written something on the level of forty books. How do two gay characters, one sexless marriage, and a "man-crush" (which you apparently made up) amount to "Homophilia" or "a lot of gay content" or (are you kidding?) "a lot of older/younger male relationships"? Especially when you compare it to "Enchantment" or "Alvin Journeyman" or any of the REST of his books, which are filled with wonderful, fulfilling, exciting heterosexual romances and relationships? Are you twelve years old, such that a few scanty references to gayness make you giggle, and override the entire experience of reading Orson Scott Card's work?
I'm horrified that people like you contribute to Wikipedia. It makes me want to follow you around all day, checking your edits to make sure you're not filling every article you touch with hate and ignorance.
No, he said "a lot." its right there. it says "a lot." hagermanbot said tehre was "quite a bit of gay sex" and "a lot of gay content."
The primary purpose of the Marvel.com link is to sell his comics. That doesnt really add much value for the article. Wikipedia doesn't want to be a link-gallery. --- J.S ( t| c) 16:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that someone just added Card to "North Carolina writers" category. What does this mean? Does it mean:
Card fails all but the last bullet. Card should be removed from the category, IMHO, until the category is clarified. This goes for all other "<Location> writers" categories. — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Card lives there now, but didn't grow up there. I'll bring the ambiguity of the category up on the cat talk page. — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
But he did write about North Carolina in several different books. (e.g. "Lost Boys", "Homebody", "Ender's Game", and a couple of the Shadow books.) Sounds like a North Carolina writer to me.
Didn't he also write a science-fiction video game recently? Brutannica 20:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I believe the game you are thinking of is called Advent Rising which he wrote the story for. Actually, he has done work on several Video Games, including a few by LucasArts where he did scripting work. It would probably be a good idea to at least mention it in the article. Does anyone here know his gaming credits? 66.52.222.79 03:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Or perhaps you are thinking of Empire, which is part of a franchise that includes the book, a video game, and a comic book. Gotterfunken 03:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah he is right —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loperty ( talk • contribs) 23:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
As seems to be its wont, this article has swung from vituperation of Card's views, back to minimisation. I find especially problematic the phrase "As a member of the LDS Church". This reads like editorialisation that his stance on homosexuality is normative or minimalist for a Saint, which I think is dubious -- and at any rate OR and POV. Certainly, most Church members don't have newspaper columns and high-profile political websites in which they go out of their way to campaign on these issues. I'm also less than convinced about deletion of mention of "fannish" criticism of Card: its volume is hardly in doubt, and isn't Cory Doctorow on BoingBoing a sufficiently notable instance of such? Alai 04:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I think there should be a better picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.213.82 ( talk • contribs)
it doesn't have any citations... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Perpetualization ( talk • contribs) 16:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC).
Should there be a mention of his directing plays? 63.165.157.99 06:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Has anyone noticed how much of this article is actually
original research? Ignoring the fact that the substantive Early life sections gets by with only five sources, the extensive Personal views section has 10 references that are exclusively attributed to Card himself!
WP Biography guidelines certainly permit the subject's autobiographical writings as sources, but to rely on them solely is not good practice. I think it would be much more useful and interesting to include third-party sources in the mix. In fact, wouldn't it be more valuable to convert this section to a Ideas, themes, and influences section instead? Then Card's personal views can be more effectively tied to the story themes identified by other parties.
—
Jim Dunning
talk :
13:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
This line: "He and his wife Kristine are the parents of five children, each named for famous authors (Geoffrey Chaucer, Emily Brontë and Emily Dickinson, Charles Dickens, Margaret Mitchell, and Louisa May Alcott)." makes it sound like those are the full names of Card's children, and that there are two Emilys. What's the truth? Is his son Geoffrey or Geoffrey Chaucer (etc.)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agatehawk ( talk • contribs)
“ | Their first child, Michael Geoffrey, was born in 1978, and as other children were born -- Emily Janice, Charles Benjamin, Zina Margaret, and Erin Louisa -- they were all given at least one name in honor of a writer that Scott and Kristine admired: Geoffrey Chaucer, Emily Bronte and Emily Dickinson, Charles Dickens, Margaret Mitchell, and Louisa Mae Alcott. (Their third child, Charles Benjamin, was afflicted with cerebral palsy and died soon after his seventeenth birthday. Their fifth child, Erin Louisa, died the day she was born.) | ” |
Is there no other example of Card's statements on heterosexual morality than a review of a WB show? It seems a trivial example to use as the lead-in for his entire position. Dybryd 19:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I just created an article (stub) for A Storyteller in Zion. Visit it and rip it apart... — Frecklefσσt | Talk 12:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any reason for Saintspeak to be merged with this article - it's an independent article (albeit a stub without references right now). Anyone feeling differently, please do comment. Otherwise I'll pull that tag in a few days. Squalk25 23:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
A small revert war seems to be taking place on whether Card was an "LDS writer" or not. It is common for religions to claim writers, politicians, and actors (among others). I don't see what the problem is about allowing him to be declared an author who wrote who also happens to be a member of LDS. This happens to nearly every other personality. Judge Rehnquist, for example, is being claimed by Lutherans. I mean, who knew? :) Student7 15:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
You're reading more into my edit summary than I intended, which is my fault because it was badly phrased. I was just simply unaware of his LDS writings and didn't at all mean to suggest that thea cat requirement was that the majority had to be LDS. In other words, I mistakenly used the word "majority", and I'm glad you started this talk to inform me of his LDS writings, because in light of that I think he can be included in the category. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 01:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Because being a merely being a Latter Day Saint who is a writer—unless the person is writing on an LDS topic—is a non-notable intersection of religion and other status, and if the category is being used that way, it's subject to deletion as a probable overcategorization because Latter Day Saint writers are treated no differently than non-LDS ones. Arguing that other categories do the same type of overcategorization too is not a convincing argument, see WP:WAX; nor is the argument that doing so is harmless, see WP:HARMLESS. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 07:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
It's nothing to do with what an editor likes or dislikes. Read the policy I linked to. A "religion + anything else" categorization is only appropriate if the intersection of the two is notable for some reason. You are essentially making a WP:WAX argument, which, as I said above, is simply not convincing. The fact that there are many categories being misapplied in WP is NOT a good reason to misapply another one. But, because Card writes on matters relating to the Latter Day Saint movement, this discussion is pretty much moot with respect to this article since he meets the category qualifications. He is a writer and he writes about LDS topics, thus he fits in the category. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 01:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
my reading of Hypocrites of Homosexuality is that the statements it makes about laws against homosexuality, etc, are only in reference to such laws within the Mormon church, rather than for the nation at large as the article implies. These are very different because the Mormon church is a religious institution joined and left by choice and has the bible as a reason while the nation...doesn't have these same factors. Perpetualization ( talk) 21:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
This applies also to the polity, the citizens at large. Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those whoflagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.
The goal of the polity is not to put homosexuals in jail. The goal is to discourage people from engaging in homosexual practices in the first place, and, when they nevertheless proceed in their homosexual behavior, to encourage them to do so discreetly, so as not to shake the confidence of the community in the polity's ability to provide rules for safe, stable, dependable marriage and family relationships.
A recent blog post [1] very well-read in the library world has recently expressed disappointment that Card's views on homosexuality are not presently included in the article: the author points out that their inclusion is relevant and necessary to let people judge him on the basis of sound information. As a result I'm planning to restore the "Views on sex" section, somewhat edited.
I've read the history and the discussions above. I see that Pmcalduff and Bellwether have concerns about whether the section is important enough - I hope the blog post explains why it is relevant - and that Perpetualization has concerns about slander, which I hope I've addressed by keeping the section NPOV and well-sourced. I've included the quote about the "polity" because it has been quoted and discussed so widely in the blogosphere, but I haven't editorialised it in any way, as even reading closely in context I can't tell whether he's still talking about the Church or has moved on to talk about society at large. If anyone thinks it's important to mention the ambiguity, I'd be happy to discuss wording.
My proposed section is as follows; if no-one suggests any amendments or raises any objections by the end of the week (NZ time) I'll reinsert it as is into the article:
Card is opposed to premarital sex. He has written that an increase in crime in USA of the 1970s and 1980s "might well have been the result" of what he calls "the New Morality and the Pill" because they may have increased the number of babies born to "the people with poor impulse control" who are "most likely to be irresponsible parents." [1]
Card has called same-sex marriage a "potentially devastating social experiment" and argued that same-sex marriage is not necessary to ensure equal rights for all, since "Any homosexual man who can persuade a woman to take him as her husband can avail himself of all the rights of husbandhood under the law." [2] He is against "changing the word 'marriage' to apply to something it's never applied to." [3]
Of the Mormon Church's attitude towards homosexuals, he argues that the Church leaders and prophets teach against homosexual behaviour, therefore it is hypocritical for a practising homosexual to claim to be a Church member, yet still deny that their behavior is sinful. [4] He writes further that:
“ | This applies also to the polity, the citizens at large. Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those whoflagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.
The goal of the polity is not to put homosexuals in jail. The goal is to discourage people from engaging in homosexual practices in the first place, and, when they nevertheless proceed in their homosexual behavior, to encourage them to do so discreetly, so as not to shake the confidence of the community in the polity's ability to provide rules for safe, stable, dependable marriage and family relationships. [4] |
” |
He views individual homosexuals as "human beings with as complex a combination of good and evil in them as I find within myself" and says "That we must treat sinners kindly is true; that we must courageously and firmly reject sin is also true." [4]
-- Zeborah ( talk) 08:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
My opinion: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmcalduff ( talk • contribs) 03:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC) First of all a blog entry titled “Orson Scott Card is a Big Fat Homophobe” is about as far from a reliable source of information as you can get.
However, if it is agreed that the "Views on sex" section should be reintroduced I will go along with the consensus. That is the way we work here. But I have to warn you that if it is reintroduced as it stands it will be removed by me within hours.
My objections:
Writing:
This proposed addition only shows one side of the issue:
Also I have one question for you, have you read the articles by Card that you are insisting on putting into the Wikipedia article. I ask because instead of writing anything yourself you seem to have dug up someone else’s rather one sided research. Pmcalduff ( talk) 02:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Is this better?
Card is opposed to premarital sex. He has written that an increase in crime in USA of the 1970s and 1980s "might well have been the result" of what he calls "the New Morality and the Pill" because they may have increased the number of babies born to "the people with poor impulse control" who are "most likely to be irresponsible parents." [1]
Card has called same-sex marriage a "potentially devastating social experiment" and argued that same-sex marriage is not necessary to ensure equal rights for all, since "Any homosexual man who can persuade a woman to take him as her husband can avail himself of all the rights of husbandhood under the law." [2] He is against "changing the word 'marriage' to apply to something it's never applied to." [3]
Writing of the Mormon Church's attitude towards homosexuals, he argues that because the Church leaders and prophets teach against homosexual behaviour, it is hypocritical for a practising homosexual to claim to be a Church member but still deny that their behavior is sinful. [4] He writes further that:
“ | This applies also to the polity, the citizens at large. Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.
The goal of the polity is not to put homosexuals in jail. The goal is to discourage people from engaging in homosexual practices in the first place, and, when they nevertheless proceed in their homosexual behavior, to encourage them to do so discreetly, so as not to shake the confidence of the community in the polity's ability to provide rules for safe, stable, dependable marriage and family relationships. [4] |
” |
He views individual homosexuals as "human beings with as complex a combination of good and evil in them as I find within myself". Speaking of tolerance, he says "That we must treat sinners kindly is true; that we must courageously and firmly reject sin is also true." Thus he condemns the behaviour but equally condemns violence against those practising it: "I think there is no room in America for violence directed against any group (or any individual) for any reason short of immediate defense against physical attack -- which doesn't often come up with homosexuals." [4]
As a result of these views, he says, he is attacked both for homophobia and for being too tolerant of homosexuals, when he is in fact walking a middle way. Likewise he explains that when homosexuality appears in his fiction (see Songmaster and The Ships of Earth) it is not to argue for or against homosexuality, but rather "to create real and living characters". [4]
-- Zeborah ( talk) 06:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
An objection (via RV) has been made to these two edits The reasoning behind these edits is clear; I removed an improbable and unreferenced statement and replaced it with a well-referenced statement. Please use this space to explain the objection to them. Thanks. RedSpruce ( talk) 12:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
(undent) I consider using the word "homophobic", sourced only to an opinion piece from Salon, to be "poorly sourced." If you readd without consensus for the addition, I will remove it, per the above cited policy on BLPs. The burden of proof is on you to show why it's necessary that the article refer to him as "homophobic" (or even point out that people who don't like his positions call him that), when his positions that could be classified as such are clearly illustrated in the article. Prove the need for such rhetoric, or it must be removed. Bellwether B C 20:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
What do you all think of posting this issue to the WP:BLP discussion page, as well as--possibly--the WP:3O page? I have no problem including information on his attitudes about homosexuality in particular, and sexuality in general. And if the regulars at the BLP talkpage have no issues with "homophobic", then I don't either. Bellwether B C 20:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
(Remove indent) Can I suggest we just have a 24-hour informal moratorium on edits to this Talk page, the OSC page, and the BLP page, by myself, Redspruce, and Bellwether? I think the three of us are all getting a bit heated over this, and rather than bring in an administrator, maybe we could just drop the current topic for a day, see who weighs in on the BLP page and the Talk page? Yonmei ( talk) 17:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Is our only source an About.com post that claims his critics have called him homophobic? If there's nothing better, it doesn't belong in the article. BLPs should not report the weasely allegations of questionably reliable sources. Cool Hand Luke 20:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, fine. I still think this is a borderline BLP violation though. The secondaries covering this controversy seem really weak to me. The best secondary source—School Library Journal—doesn't even use the term in relation to his controversy. If this is the standard for covering "homophobia" controversies in BLPs, a lot of biographies could have such claims. Virtually every well-known social conservative has been called homophobic by someone, often by someone in a source like Salon. However, most of these op-ed "controversies" don't have much in the way of secondary analysis, and I think we should have a fairly high bar for this kind of "controversy."
I think that labels like "homophobic" tend obscure the actual issues. The controversy is about his allegedly intolerant opinions, not the political slur that's slapped on them.
All this said, I won't edit the article as long as his views are described first. You have a practical consensus as far as I'm concerned, but I do understand where editors like TES are coming from. Cool Hand Luke 08:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
That's how the School Library Journal was able to write about the controversy without once using the word "homophobic." Cool Hand Luke 08:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
one of the most contentious parts of Orson Scott Card's contentious article on homosexuality, The Hypocrites of Homosexuality, [ [2]], is the following:
“ | This applies also to the polity, the citizens at large. Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society | ” |
This is quoted in the article, but i am unsure about the meaning of polity. I have heard two suggested interpretations of it, one being that it refers to everybody (the citizens at large within the world), or just to the church (the citizens at large within the church, as opposed to the clergy). As the article was about the church, i would assume that it means the citizens at large within the church, but it significantly changes the meaning of the rest of the quote (as people can leave the church, but not as easily leave the country). I am curious as to other editor's interpretations of what it means. Perpetualization ( talk) 21:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Perpetualization, it isn't necessary or important for you to agree with me. It is, however, contrary to Wikipedia rules for you to put your personal interpretation of Card's writing into the article and present it as fact. I've RV'd your edits for that reason. RedSpruce ( talk) 02:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay. Now, I think it's safe to say that the deal with his views on homosexuality has gone far enough. Card is known primarily as a writer, but the section on homosexual views has now bloated to be longer than the section detailing his writing career. It's time to put a leash on this debate already, and cut the section back down to something which meets some semblance of proportion. ~ S0CO( talk| contribs) 01:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
The first sentence of the "Homosexuality" section has been edited by a couple of users from Card's views on homosexuality have led a number of critics to accuse him of being homophobic. to Card's views on homosexuality have led a number of critics to accuse him of being homophobic, which he disputes.
It's my opinion that the "which he disputes" addition is not a good edit. The fact that Card disputes the characterization of himself as homophobic is already very well covered in the article. In fact, most of this section consists of Card defending himself against the accusation. Beyond the single word "homophobic", no coverage whatsoever is given to the actual statements by those who have accused him. so this addition is at best unnecessary. Also, since "Homophobic" is by definition a form of flawed reasoning, it obviously goes without saying that Card would dispute this. By adding this phrase to the first sentence of the section, the article is bending over backwards to defend Card; that is, it is taking Card's side, and that is a violation of WP:NPOV. RedSpruce ( talk) 15:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
See discussion elsewhere. The key reason for including Card's views on homosexuality is that he has written several widely-discussed, controversial essays in which he outlines his views that homosexual sexual behaviour should be subject to prosecution, and that same-sex couples should not be allowed legal marriage, and that in fact legal marriage for same-sex couples justifies overthrowing the US government. These views have caused considerable controversy because they are considered homophobic.
The reason the controversy exists and needs to be documented in Wikipedia is because Card has published his views and people have reacted to those views as homophobic.
That Card thinks his views on homosexuality are not homophobic is not part of the controversy, and would not by itself justify the inclusion of those views in Wikipedia. Foregrounding Card's objections to having his views characterized as homophobic distorts the article: Card's opinion of his own views is more-than-adequately documented. This was discussed at length some time ago, and that was (in round 1) the conclusion arrived at. Nothing has changed since Yonmei ( talk) 11:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I find the inclusion of Lost Boys this phrase "He has since branched out into contemporary fiction, such as Lost Boys" to be confusing. In Lost Boys, a major plot point has dead children appearing in a video game - that is clearly a novel that is part of the SF genre. Can someone explain how that is 'branching out'? TheRedPenOfDoom ( talk) 04:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm at a bit of a loss as to why OSC's pseudonyms are maintained as a separate article. There seems to be no real need for it. This article is only 33K long, nowhere near a length so unmanageable as to necessitate splitting off the sub-articles. Otto4711 ( talk) 23:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I think the Homosexuality section needs some work after reading his latest article. In it, he rants about homosexuality not being treated fairly in art (used as an afterthought, as a joke). Just a thought. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 12:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
"Elsewhere he writes that, with respect to the polity, the citizens at large:"
Umm... some of the controversy about that quote deals with whether "polity" means a church polity, or actually means citizens at large. This being so, isn't it inappropriate to assume one of those interpretations in the article? Ken Arromdee ( talk) 20:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I certainly don't want to get into any kind of revert war here. I just think we need something in the article that decodes the language of the President's letter for those not accustomed to the way that this kind of discourse takes place in the U.S.A. The "anti" crowd says "defend marriage" when they mean "don't allow gays to have anything that's equivalent to marriage"; the "pro" crowd says, "it's a civil rights issue, and those who disagree are obviously homophobes." The letter in question was explicitly about a referendum prohibiting any marriage or marriage-like status for same-gender couples, and I don't think it's unreasonable to clarify that for the non-Americans in the Wikipedia readership. (As a heterosexual born-again Christian, still married to my first and only wife after 27 years, I personally don't see how allowing my neighbors to marry their loves diminishes our marriage in any way; but that's my personal opinion and theology and has no place in Wikipedia.) -- Orange Mike | Talk 13:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Beach drifter removed tons of material from the article—such as views on homosexuality, political views, etc.—asking what it has to do with Card as an author. Card is a journalist as well as an author, and a public speaker, which is why we have so much of this material in the first place (it's all referenced). If he were just a sci-fi author, it probably wouldn't be appropriate for the article. But the fact that he speaks out on this stuff is why it's in the article. I don't want to get in an edit war here, but I think most editors who work on this article would agree with me. The sections removed by Beach drifter should be restored. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 13:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Card has achieved a certain notability as a social commentator as well as for being a writer. I agree that Beach drifter's excisions should be reversed. Ray ( talk) 14:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure I removed more material than I should. I don't really remember doing it or what my reasoning was at the time. Looking over it again however, I still fail to see why these sections are so expansive. It's great that it's all referenced, but it seems that a few referenced statements on each topic would make his opinions clear. As the article reads now, his personal feelings on a few controversial subjects are out shining his accomplishments as a writer, journalists, public speaker, etc. It makes it appear as someone is taking issue with his stances, a POV type of situation. My original deletions were probably just a crappy attempt at getting someone else to whittle those sections down. Beach drifter ( talk) 23:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I was looking at some of the links under "Other" and I think that we:
For example, one link is to an essay by someone who thinks Ender's Game is really an apologetic view on Hitler. I'm sure Card thinks Hitler was as much as a madman as any Rabbi you run across. Another is an essay critical of the character Ender. These have little to do with Card as a whole and more to do with his Ender-verse. And their content isn't discussed in the article at all. If they were important to Card's career or impact, they'd be discussed in the article, but they aren't. They are tangental views and anyone with anything like Card's body of work is likely to get criticized by someone. At least, they should be moved in an Ender article. However, I'd prefer removing them altogether. They're just more garbage in the External links section. Anyone else? — Frecklefσσt | Talk 20:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I couldn't tell from the article. I think it's relevant to mention if he still is a member of the mormon church since that provides some context to his religious views. -- Quasipalm ( talk) 04:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
The introduction is currently four sentences long. While I'm aware that some people seem to regard lede sections as some kind of brevity contest, this is far too short for an article of this size. We should be aiming for at least a couple of proper paragraphs. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
This section is poorly sourced. Many things are asserted, but the two links provided do not provide documentation for the sentiments noted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davmpls ( talk • contribs) 17:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
The words "anti-gay" were added. Is this NPOV? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davmpls ( talk • contribs) 23:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
"Some" call him homophobic? "...a clear message that those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society." If that's not homophobia, the word is meaningless. This is an example of specious attempt at neutrality unbalancing the article in the subject's favor. The man has outed himself as a homophobe. A less weaselish wording would be "Card's statements on homosexuality and civil rights for gay people have drawn charges of homophobia." 72.229.55.176 ( talk) 01:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Where's the evidence that he's afraid of homosexuals? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.73.166 ( talk) 00:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
The problem with the word "homophobia" is that has two uses. Its first use is in clinical psychology where it names a pathological condition characterized by irrational fear of homosexuals or homosexuality. Its second use is as a label to defame those who, for whatever reason, do not acquiesce in the demands of the gay rights movement. The second use is a borrowing, much like the word "gay", which despite centuries of usage to mean someone who is cheerful and happy, now also means someone who is homosexual. In fact, the borrowing has nearly completely subsumed the traditional meaning of "gay", which is probably the fate of the word "homophobia". According to the clinical definition Card is not homophobic; according to the second, he is. Odd situation, isn't it? Mike ( talk) 01:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I want to add the information that Orson Scott Card is a known fan and supporter of the TV-Series Firefly. The only place I think it would fit if I was allowed to rename the 'Family' section into 'Personal life' and add the information there. Any objections or other suggestions? He can be seen in the DVD documentary Done the impossible, telling about his love for the show. Quiet photon ( talk) 11:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not going to edit this, because I'm not some kind of expert on OSC, but I'm pretty sure he's not conservative. I'm pretty sure he's a Democrat and considers himself to be liberal on many issues. The belief that he's conservative probably comes from his hawkish position on foreign policy, but that hardly makes him a conservative. Amulekii ( talk) 21:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help),{{
citation}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help),{{
citation}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help),{{
citation}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
hypocrites
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
According to OSC at http://www.hatrack.com/osc/reviews/everything/2007-02-18.shtml , the article has several factual errors.
---
Just thought I'd give some feedback on how to improve the article, the first thing I notice is that the current lead section is far too long, see Wikipedia:Lead section:
“ | The lead section should provide a clear and concise introduction to an article's topic, establish context, and define the terms. It should contain several paragraphs, depending on the length of the article, and should provide an overview of the main points the article will make, summarizing the primary reasons the subject matter is interesting or notable, and including a mention of its notable controversies, if there are any. The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, should be written in a clear and accessible style, should be carefully sourced like the rest of the text, and should encourage the reader to read more. | ” |
Also see Wikipedia:Lead section#Length:
“ | The appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article. As a general guideline, the lead should be no longer than three to four paragraphs. | ” |
Bold added by me. -- Lethargy 20:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
The next thing I see is that there are a lot of needed citations (see Wikipedia:Footnotes). I'll add them as I can, but this will need to be a group effort. -- Lethargy 20:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I think we should just remove all of his personal opinions and politics from the article as this should remain an article about him and his work. Many of the opinions in this section seem POV and I think the section should just be removed as it doesn't belong. Grand Slam 7 00:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think this section is ever going to be completed as the two side's are never going agree on "Fair and Balanced". Witness "Orson Scott Card is a bigoted asshole/you're an intolerant liberal". Put this huge cesspool of a discussion that will never end on another page.
I came to this site hoping for a list of books, and I was a little disappointed. It has a lot of biography and explanation, but little talk of his writings, which is probably what most people come here for. See Terry Brooks for a good example of what I'm talking about. Do I have any takers? - Patstuart 05:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to move the list to the top, under a {{see also}} tag so it's more obvious. If anyone has a problem, go ahead and revert it. - Patstuart 01:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
That source (A salon.com interview) doesnt backup the assertion that "religious and political beliefs have drawn the ire of science fiction fans"... It's an opinion peace of one author. And it's Salon.com... common. That's a highly bias website... we need to be exceptionally careful when we use it as a source like this. Unless we can reword the paragraph or find a better source I'll be removing the paragraph in a day or two. Thanks, --- J.S ( t| c) 06:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Do we really need huge sections on a science fiction writer's specific political and religious views, while focusing relatively little on his literary work and biographic information? -- NEMT 21:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Would it be possible to have a section of the page dedicated to his philosophy. His books arent just science fiction they have a certain evaluation of humans and humanity and it quickly becomes philosophy in the later series of his books (homecoming series included). Of course this will all be oppinionated but as long as it's realistic to OSC's books i think it would be more interesting then talking about his "morality" and "political oppinions". Anyone motivated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.255.139.101 ( talk • contribs)
I noted that Lethargy had changed "many fans" to "some fans" and requested a cite.
This is difficult, and I'd appreciate advice how to resolve it. It's possible to find out that many/some fans of Orson Scott Card's do not agree with/dislike his homophobic beliefs googling - yet I appreciate that we can hardly link to a googlesearch in a wiki article! We could of course link to the multiple references to Orson Scott Card's homophobia by fans of his work, but I'm concerned that this would overload the reference section.
There exist at least three interviews/essays written by self-identified fans of his work, all three of which are cited from the article, which clearly state both that they are fans of his fiction but disagree with the homophobic views expressed in some of his non-fiction essays. How many more references do we need to be able to say that many/some of his fans do disagree with his homophobic beliefs? Yonmei 21:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, three sources have been cited from self-identified fans. What more do we need to be able to say "some"? Yonmei 21:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
This article isn't on the web, so it'll be hard for everyone here to read it an verify the source, but there is an original research article (by an academic, not a fan) in the 2002 New York Review of Science Fiction which thoroughly describes the images of male bodies in OSC's fiction and the violence that happens to gay characters. This should be cited here. The article is Kate Bonin, “Gay Sex and Death in the Science Fiction of Orson Scott Card”, 172, 15, 4 (December 2002), pp.17-21. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lkondolian ( talk • contribs) 02:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
If we can't link to a notable/reliable source that says they have this view... then the view is fringe and we are under obligation to cover it. If we need to link to a dozen no-name blogs to prove the point then we are engaging in OR. --- J.S ( t| c) 16:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, which are particularly strict guidelines, I chopped out a lot of the information from the homosexuality section which was either unreferenced, poorly referenced, awkwardly worded, or weasel worded. This can be added back later but please discuss it here first. -- Lethargy 18:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Um, has anyone raised or discussed the issue that, for an author that is avowedly against homosexual relations, there is quite a bit of gay sex in his books? After being criticized that the main characters engaged in gay sex in Songmaster, Card responded:
What the novel offers is a treatment of characters who share, between them, a forbidden act that took place because of hunger on one side, compassion on the other, and genuine love and friendship on both parts. I was not trying to show that homosexuality was "beautiful" or "natural" -- in fact, sex of any kind is likely to be "beautiful" only to the participants, and it is hard to make a case for the naturalness of such an obviously counter-evolutionary trend as same-sex mating. Those issues were irrelevant. The friendship between Ansset and Josef was the beautiful and natural thing, even if it eventually led them on a mutually self-destructive path. (quote pulled from Songmaster entry)
Additionally, in the Ender's game series, the main character Ender experiences a "crush" on an older boy while in military school, and later in the series is stuck in a sexless heterosexual marriage. It seems like Card's writing sure explores a lot of gay content, and particularly, older/younger male relationships. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.251.101.34 ( talk) 21:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC).
What insinuation are you trying to make here? Orson Scott Card has written something on the level of forty books. How do two gay characters, one sexless marriage, and a "man-crush" (which you apparently made up) amount to "Homophilia" or "a lot of gay content" or (are you kidding?) "a lot of older/younger male relationships"? Especially when you compare it to "Enchantment" or "Alvin Journeyman" or any of the REST of his books, which are filled with wonderful, fulfilling, exciting heterosexual romances and relationships? Are you twelve years old, such that a few scanty references to gayness make you giggle, and override the entire experience of reading Orson Scott Card's work?
I'm horrified that people like you contribute to Wikipedia. It makes me want to follow you around all day, checking your edits to make sure you're not filling every article you touch with hate and ignorance.
No, he said "a lot." its right there. it says "a lot." hagermanbot said tehre was "quite a bit of gay sex" and "a lot of gay content."
The primary purpose of the Marvel.com link is to sell his comics. That doesnt really add much value for the article. Wikipedia doesn't want to be a link-gallery. --- J.S ( t| c) 16:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that someone just added Card to "North Carolina writers" category. What does this mean? Does it mean:
Card fails all but the last bullet. Card should be removed from the category, IMHO, until the category is clarified. This goes for all other "<Location> writers" categories. — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Card lives there now, but didn't grow up there. I'll bring the ambiguity of the category up on the cat talk page. — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
But he did write about North Carolina in several different books. (e.g. "Lost Boys", "Homebody", "Ender's Game", and a couple of the Shadow books.) Sounds like a North Carolina writer to me.
Didn't he also write a science-fiction video game recently? Brutannica 20:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I believe the game you are thinking of is called Advent Rising which he wrote the story for. Actually, he has done work on several Video Games, including a few by LucasArts where he did scripting work. It would probably be a good idea to at least mention it in the article. Does anyone here know his gaming credits? 66.52.222.79 03:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Or perhaps you are thinking of Empire, which is part of a franchise that includes the book, a video game, and a comic book. Gotterfunken 03:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah he is right —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loperty ( talk • contribs) 23:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
As seems to be its wont, this article has swung from vituperation of Card's views, back to minimisation. I find especially problematic the phrase "As a member of the LDS Church". This reads like editorialisation that his stance on homosexuality is normative or minimalist for a Saint, which I think is dubious -- and at any rate OR and POV. Certainly, most Church members don't have newspaper columns and high-profile political websites in which they go out of their way to campaign on these issues. I'm also less than convinced about deletion of mention of "fannish" criticism of Card: its volume is hardly in doubt, and isn't Cory Doctorow on BoingBoing a sufficiently notable instance of such? Alai 04:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I think there should be a better picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.213.82 ( talk • contribs)
it doesn't have any citations... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Perpetualization ( talk • contribs) 16:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC).
Should there be a mention of his directing plays? 63.165.157.99 06:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Has anyone noticed how much of this article is actually
original research? Ignoring the fact that the substantive Early life sections gets by with only five sources, the extensive Personal views section has 10 references that are exclusively attributed to Card himself!
WP Biography guidelines certainly permit the subject's autobiographical writings as sources, but to rely on them solely is not good practice. I think it would be much more useful and interesting to include third-party sources in the mix. In fact, wouldn't it be more valuable to convert this section to a Ideas, themes, and influences section instead? Then Card's personal views can be more effectively tied to the story themes identified by other parties.
—
Jim Dunning
talk :
13:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
This line: "He and his wife Kristine are the parents of five children, each named for famous authors (Geoffrey Chaucer, Emily Brontë and Emily Dickinson, Charles Dickens, Margaret Mitchell, and Louisa May Alcott)." makes it sound like those are the full names of Card's children, and that there are two Emilys. What's the truth? Is his son Geoffrey or Geoffrey Chaucer (etc.)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agatehawk ( talk • contribs)
“ | Their first child, Michael Geoffrey, was born in 1978, and as other children were born -- Emily Janice, Charles Benjamin, Zina Margaret, and Erin Louisa -- they were all given at least one name in honor of a writer that Scott and Kristine admired: Geoffrey Chaucer, Emily Bronte and Emily Dickinson, Charles Dickens, Margaret Mitchell, and Louisa Mae Alcott. (Their third child, Charles Benjamin, was afflicted with cerebral palsy and died soon after his seventeenth birthday. Their fifth child, Erin Louisa, died the day she was born.) | ” |
Is there no other example of Card's statements on heterosexual morality than a review of a WB show? It seems a trivial example to use as the lead-in for his entire position. Dybryd 19:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I just created an article (stub) for A Storyteller in Zion. Visit it and rip it apart... — Frecklefσσt | Talk 12:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any reason for Saintspeak to be merged with this article - it's an independent article (albeit a stub without references right now). Anyone feeling differently, please do comment. Otherwise I'll pull that tag in a few days. Squalk25 23:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
A small revert war seems to be taking place on whether Card was an "LDS writer" or not. It is common for religions to claim writers, politicians, and actors (among others). I don't see what the problem is about allowing him to be declared an author who wrote who also happens to be a member of LDS. This happens to nearly every other personality. Judge Rehnquist, for example, is being claimed by Lutherans. I mean, who knew? :) Student7 15:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
You're reading more into my edit summary than I intended, which is my fault because it was badly phrased. I was just simply unaware of his LDS writings and didn't at all mean to suggest that thea cat requirement was that the majority had to be LDS. In other words, I mistakenly used the word "majority", and I'm glad you started this talk to inform me of his LDS writings, because in light of that I think he can be included in the category. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 01:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Because being a merely being a Latter Day Saint who is a writer—unless the person is writing on an LDS topic—is a non-notable intersection of religion and other status, and if the category is being used that way, it's subject to deletion as a probable overcategorization because Latter Day Saint writers are treated no differently than non-LDS ones. Arguing that other categories do the same type of overcategorization too is not a convincing argument, see WP:WAX; nor is the argument that doing so is harmless, see WP:HARMLESS. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 07:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
It's nothing to do with what an editor likes or dislikes. Read the policy I linked to. A "religion + anything else" categorization is only appropriate if the intersection of the two is notable for some reason. You are essentially making a WP:WAX argument, which, as I said above, is simply not convincing. The fact that there are many categories being misapplied in WP is NOT a good reason to misapply another one. But, because Card writes on matters relating to the Latter Day Saint movement, this discussion is pretty much moot with respect to this article since he meets the category qualifications. He is a writer and he writes about LDS topics, thus he fits in the category. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 01:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
my reading of Hypocrites of Homosexuality is that the statements it makes about laws against homosexuality, etc, are only in reference to such laws within the Mormon church, rather than for the nation at large as the article implies. These are very different because the Mormon church is a religious institution joined and left by choice and has the bible as a reason while the nation...doesn't have these same factors. Perpetualization ( talk) 21:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
This applies also to the polity, the citizens at large. Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those whoflagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.
The goal of the polity is not to put homosexuals in jail. The goal is to discourage people from engaging in homosexual practices in the first place, and, when they nevertheless proceed in their homosexual behavior, to encourage them to do so discreetly, so as not to shake the confidence of the community in the polity's ability to provide rules for safe, stable, dependable marriage and family relationships.
A recent blog post [1] very well-read in the library world has recently expressed disappointment that Card's views on homosexuality are not presently included in the article: the author points out that their inclusion is relevant and necessary to let people judge him on the basis of sound information. As a result I'm planning to restore the "Views on sex" section, somewhat edited.
I've read the history and the discussions above. I see that Pmcalduff and Bellwether have concerns about whether the section is important enough - I hope the blog post explains why it is relevant - and that Perpetualization has concerns about slander, which I hope I've addressed by keeping the section NPOV and well-sourced. I've included the quote about the "polity" because it has been quoted and discussed so widely in the blogosphere, but I haven't editorialised it in any way, as even reading closely in context I can't tell whether he's still talking about the Church or has moved on to talk about society at large. If anyone thinks it's important to mention the ambiguity, I'd be happy to discuss wording.
My proposed section is as follows; if no-one suggests any amendments or raises any objections by the end of the week (NZ time) I'll reinsert it as is into the article:
Card is opposed to premarital sex. He has written that an increase in crime in USA of the 1970s and 1980s "might well have been the result" of what he calls "the New Morality and the Pill" because they may have increased the number of babies born to "the people with poor impulse control" who are "most likely to be irresponsible parents." [1]
Card has called same-sex marriage a "potentially devastating social experiment" and argued that same-sex marriage is not necessary to ensure equal rights for all, since "Any homosexual man who can persuade a woman to take him as her husband can avail himself of all the rights of husbandhood under the law." [2] He is against "changing the word 'marriage' to apply to something it's never applied to." [3]
Of the Mormon Church's attitude towards homosexuals, he argues that the Church leaders and prophets teach against homosexual behaviour, therefore it is hypocritical for a practising homosexual to claim to be a Church member, yet still deny that their behavior is sinful. [4] He writes further that:
“ | This applies also to the polity, the citizens at large. Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those whoflagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.
The goal of the polity is not to put homosexuals in jail. The goal is to discourage people from engaging in homosexual practices in the first place, and, when they nevertheless proceed in their homosexual behavior, to encourage them to do so discreetly, so as not to shake the confidence of the community in the polity's ability to provide rules for safe, stable, dependable marriage and family relationships. [4] |
” |
He views individual homosexuals as "human beings with as complex a combination of good and evil in them as I find within myself" and says "That we must treat sinners kindly is true; that we must courageously and firmly reject sin is also true." [4]
-- Zeborah ( talk) 08:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
My opinion: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmcalduff ( talk • contribs) 03:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC) First of all a blog entry titled “Orson Scott Card is a Big Fat Homophobe” is about as far from a reliable source of information as you can get.
However, if it is agreed that the "Views on sex" section should be reintroduced I will go along with the consensus. That is the way we work here. But I have to warn you that if it is reintroduced as it stands it will be removed by me within hours.
My objections:
Writing:
This proposed addition only shows one side of the issue:
Also I have one question for you, have you read the articles by Card that you are insisting on putting into the Wikipedia article. I ask because instead of writing anything yourself you seem to have dug up someone else’s rather one sided research. Pmcalduff ( talk) 02:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Is this better?
Card is opposed to premarital sex. He has written that an increase in crime in USA of the 1970s and 1980s "might well have been the result" of what he calls "the New Morality and the Pill" because they may have increased the number of babies born to "the people with poor impulse control" who are "most likely to be irresponsible parents." [1]
Card has called same-sex marriage a "potentially devastating social experiment" and argued that same-sex marriage is not necessary to ensure equal rights for all, since "Any homosexual man who can persuade a woman to take him as her husband can avail himself of all the rights of husbandhood under the law." [2] He is against "changing the word 'marriage' to apply to something it's never applied to." [3]
Writing of the Mormon Church's attitude towards homosexuals, he argues that because the Church leaders and prophets teach against homosexual behaviour, it is hypocritical for a practising homosexual to claim to be a Church member but still deny that their behavior is sinful. [4] He writes further that:
“ | This applies also to the polity, the citizens at large. Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.
The goal of the polity is not to put homosexuals in jail. The goal is to discourage people from engaging in homosexual practices in the first place, and, when they nevertheless proceed in their homosexual behavior, to encourage them to do so discreetly, so as not to shake the confidence of the community in the polity's ability to provide rules for safe, stable, dependable marriage and family relationships. [4] |
” |
He views individual homosexuals as "human beings with as complex a combination of good and evil in them as I find within myself". Speaking of tolerance, he says "That we must treat sinners kindly is true; that we must courageously and firmly reject sin is also true." Thus he condemns the behaviour but equally condemns violence against those practising it: "I think there is no room in America for violence directed against any group (or any individual) for any reason short of immediate defense against physical attack -- which doesn't often come up with homosexuals." [4]
As a result of these views, he says, he is attacked both for homophobia and for being too tolerant of homosexuals, when he is in fact walking a middle way. Likewise he explains that when homosexuality appears in his fiction (see Songmaster and The Ships of Earth) it is not to argue for or against homosexuality, but rather "to create real and living characters". [4]
-- Zeborah ( talk) 06:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
An objection (via RV) has been made to these two edits The reasoning behind these edits is clear; I removed an improbable and unreferenced statement and replaced it with a well-referenced statement. Please use this space to explain the objection to them. Thanks. RedSpruce ( talk) 12:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
(undent) I consider using the word "homophobic", sourced only to an opinion piece from Salon, to be "poorly sourced." If you readd without consensus for the addition, I will remove it, per the above cited policy on BLPs. The burden of proof is on you to show why it's necessary that the article refer to him as "homophobic" (or even point out that people who don't like his positions call him that), when his positions that could be classified as such are clearly illustrated in the article. Prove the need for such rhetoric, or it must be removed. Bellwether B C 20:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
What do you all think of posting this issue to the WP:BLP discussion page, as well as--possibly--the WP:3O page? I have no problem including information on his attitudes about homosexuality in particular, and sexuality in general. And if the regulars at the BLP talkpage have no issues with "homophobic", then I don't either. Bellwether B C 20:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
(Remove indent) Can I suggest we just have a 24-hour informal moratorium on edits to this Talk page, the OSC page, and the BLP page, by myself, Redspruce, and Bellwether? I think the three of us are all getting a bit heated over this, and rather than bring in an administrator, maybe we could just drop the current topic for a day, see who weighs in on the BLP page and the Talk page? Yonmei ( talk) 17:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Is our only source an About.com post that claims his critics have called him homophobic? If there's nothing better, it doesn't belong in the article. BLPs should not report the weasely allegations of questionably reliable sources. Cool Hand Luke 20:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, fine. I still think this is a borderline BLP violation though. The secondaries covering this controversy seem really weak to me. The best secondary source—School Library Journal—doesn't even use the term in relation to his controversy. If this is the standard for covering "homophobia" controversies in BLPs, a lot of biographies could have such claims. Virtually every well-known social conservative has been called homophobic by someone, often by someone in a source like Salon. However, most of these op-ed "controversies" don't have much in the way of secondary analysis, and I think we should have a fairly high bar for this kind of "controversy."
I think that labels like "homophobic" tend obscure the actual issues. The controversy is about his allegedly intolerant opinions, not the political slur that's slapped on them.
All this said, I won't edit the article as long as his views are described first. You have a practical consensus as far as I'm concerned, but I do understand where editors like TES are coming from. Cool Hand Luke 08:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
That's how the School Library Journal was able to write about the controversy without once using the word "homophobic." Cool Hand Luke 08:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
one of the most contentious parts of Orson Scott Card's contentious article on homosexuality, The Hypocrites of Homosexuality, [ [2]], is the following:
“ | This applies also to the polity, the citizens at large. Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society | ” |
This is quoted in the article, but i am unsure about the meaning of polity. I have heard two suggested interpretations of it, one being that it refers to everybody (the citizens at large within the world), or just to the church (the citizens at large within the church, as opposed to the clergy). As the article was about the church, i would assume that it means the citizens at large within the church, but it significantly changes the meaning of the rest of the quote (as people can leave the church, but not as easily leave the country). I am curious as to other editor's interpretations of what it means. Perpetualization ( talk) 21:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Perpetualization, it isn't necessary or important for you to agree with me. It is, however, contrary to Wikipedia rules for you to put your personal interpretation of Card's writing into the article and present it as fact. I've RV'd your edits for that reason. RedSpruce ( talk) 02:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay. Now, I think it's safe to say that the deal with his views on homosexuality has gone far enough. Card is known primarily as a writer, but the section on homosexual views has now bloated to be longer than the section detailing his writing career. It's time to put a leash on this debate already, and cut the section back down to something which meets some semblance of proportion. ~ S0CO( talk| contribs) 01:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
The first sentence of the "Homosexuality" section has been edited by a couple of users from Card's views on homosexuality have led a number of critics to accuse him of being homophobic. to Card's views on homosexuality have led a number of critics to accuse him of being homophobic, which he disputes.
It's my opinion that the "which he disputes" addition is not a good edit. The fact that Card disputes the characterization of himself as homophobic is already very well covered in the article. In fact, most of this section consists of Card defending himself against the accusation. Beyond the single word "homophobic", no coverage whatsoever is given to the actual statements by those who have accused him. so this addition is at best unnecessary. Also, since "Homophobic" is by definition a form of flawed reasoning, it obviously goes without saying that Card would dispute this. By adding this phrase to the first sentence of the section, the article is bending over backwards to defend Card; that is, it is taking Card's side, and that is a violation of WP:NPOV. RedSpruce ( talk) 15:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
See discussion elsewhere. The key reason for including Card's views on homosexuality is that he has written several widely-discussed, controversial essays in which he outlines his views that homosexual sexual behaviour should be subject to prosecution, and that same-sex couples should not be allowed legal marriage, and that in fact legal marriage for same-sex couples justifies overthrowing the US government. These views have caused considerable controversy because they are considered homophobic.
The reason the controversy exists and needs to be documented in Wikipedia is because Card has published his views and people have reacted to those views as homophobic.
That Card thinks his views on homosexuality are not homophobic is not part of the controversy, and would not by itself justify the inclusion of those views in Wikipedia. Foregrounding Card's objections to having his views characterized as homophobic distorts the article: Card's opinion of his own views is more-than-adequately documented. This was discussed at length some time ago, and that was (in round 1) the conclusion arrived at. Nothing has changed since Yonmei ( talk) 11:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I find the inclusion of Lost Boys this phrase "He has since branched out into contemporary fiction, such as Lost Boys" to be confusing. In Lost Boys, a major plot point has dead children appearing in a video game - that is clearly a novel that is part of the SF genre. Can someone explain how that is 'branching out'? TheRedPenOfDoom ( talk) 04:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm at a bit of a loss as to why OSC's pseudonyms are maintained as a separate article. There seems to be no real need for it. This article is only 33K long, nowhere near a length so unmanageable as to necessitate splitting off the sub-articles. Otto4711 ( talk) 23:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I think the Homosexuality section needs some work after reading his latest article. In it, he rants about homosexuality not being treated fairly in art (used as an afterthought, as a joke). Just a thought. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 12:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
"Elsewhere he writes that, with respect to the polity, the citizens at large:"
Umm... some of the controversy about that quote deals with whether "polity" means a church polity, or actually means citizens at large. This being so, isn't it inappropriate to assume one of those interpretations in the article? Ken Arromdee ( talk) 20:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I certainly don't want to get into any kind of revert war here. I just think we need something in the article that decodes the language of the President's letter for those not accustomed to the way that this kind of discourse takes place in the U.S.A. The "anti" crowd says "defend marriage" when they mean "don't allow gays to have anything that's equivalent to marriage"; the "pro" crowd says, "it's a civil rights issue, and those who disagree are obviously homophobes." The letter in question was explicitly about a referendum prohibiting any marriage or marriage-like status for same-gender couples, and I don't think it's unreasonable to clarify that for the non-Americans in the Wikipedia readership. (As a heterosexual born-again Christian, still married to my first and only wife after 27 years, I personally don't see how allowing my neighbors to marry their loves diminishes our marriage in any way; but that's my personal opinion and theology and has no place in Wikipedia.) -- Orange Mike | Talk 13:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Beach drifter removed tons of material from the article—such as views on homosexuality, political views, etc.—asking what it has to do with Card as an author. Card is a journalist as well as an author, and a public speaker, which is why we have so much of this material in the first place (it's all referenced). If he were just a sci-fi author, it probably wouldn't be appropriate for the article. But the fact that he speaks out on this stuff is why it's in the article. I don't want to get in an edit war here, but I think most editors who work on this article would agree with me. The sections removed by Beach drifter should be restored. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 13:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Card has achieved a certain notability as a social commentator as well as for being a writer. I agree that Beach drifter's excisions should be reversed. Ray ( talk) 14:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure I removed more material than I should. I don't really remember doing it or what my reasoning was at the time. Looking over it again however, I still fail to see why these sections are so expansive. It's great that it's all referenced, but it seems that a few referenced statements on each topic would make his opinions clear. As the article reads now, his personal feelings on a few controversial subjects are out shining his accomplishments as a writer, journalists, public speaker, etc. It makes it appear as someone is taking issue with his stances, a POV type of situation. My original deletions were probably just a crappy attempt at getting someone else to whittle those sections down. Beach drifter ( talk) 23:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I was looking at some of the links under "Other" and I think that we:
For example, one link is to an essay by someone who thinks Ender's Game is really an apologetic view on Hitler. I'm sure Card thinks Hitler was as much as a madman as any Rabbi you run across. Another is an essay critical of the character Ender. These have little to do with Card as a whole and more to do with his Ender-verse. And their content isn't discussed in the article at all. If they were important to Card's career or impact, they'd be discussed in the article, but they aren't. They are tangental views and anyone with anything like Card's body of work is likely to get criticized by someone. At least, they should be moved in an Ender article. However, I'd prefer removing them altogether. They're just more garbage in the External links section. Anyone else? — Frecklefσσt | Talk 20:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I couldn't tell from the article. I think it's relevant to mention if he still is a member of the mormon church since that provides some context to his religious views. -- Quasipalm ( talk) 04:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
The introduction is currently four sentences long. While I'm aware that some people seem to regard lede sections as some kind of brevity contest, this is far too short for an article of this size. We should be aiming for at least a couple of proper paragraphs. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
This section is poorly sourced. Many things are asserted, but the two links provided do not provide documentation for the sentiments noted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davmpls ( talk • contribs) 17:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
The words "anti-gay" were added. Is this NPOV? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davmpls ( talk • contribs) 23:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
"Some" call him homophobic? "...a clear message that those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society." If that's not homophobia, the word is meaningless. This is an example of specious attempt at neutrality unbalancing the article in the subject's favor. The man has outed himself as a homophobe. A less weaselish wording would be "Card's statements on homosexuality and civil rights for gay people have drawn charges of homophobia." 72.229.55.176 ( talk) 01:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Where's the evidence that he's afraid of homosexuals? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.73.166 ( talk) 00:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
The problem with the word "homophobia" is that has two uses. Its first use is in clinical psychology where it names a pathological condition characterized by irrational fear of homosexuals or homosexuality. Its second use is as a label to defame those who, for whatever reason, do not acquiesce in the demands of the gay rights movement. The second use is a borrowing, much like the word "gay", which despite centuries of usage to mean someone who is cheerful and happy, now also means someone who is homosexual. In fact, the borrowing has nearly completely subsumed the traditional meaning of "gay", which is probably the fate of the word "homophobia". According to the clinical definition Card is not homophobic; according to the second, he is. Odd situation, isn't it? Mike ( talk) 01:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I want to add the information that Orson Scott Card is a known fan and supporter of the TV-Series Firefly. The only place I think it would fit if I was allowed to rename the 'Family' section into 'Personal life' and add the information there. Any objections or other suggestions? He can be seen in the DVD documentary Done the impossible, telling about his love for the show. Quiet photon ( talk) 11:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not going to edit this, because I'm not some kind of expert on OSC, but I'm pretty sure he's not conservative. I'm pretty sure he's a Democrat and considers himself to be liberal on many issues. The belief that he's conservative probably comes from his hawkish position on foreign policy, but that hardly makes him a conservative. Amulekii ( talk) 21:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help),{{
citation}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help),{{
citation}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help),{{
citation}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
hypocrites
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).