![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 7 |
The existence of an article regarding his views on homosexuality is discriminatory; if he were pro-gay rights, would such a section be written to inform people of his beliefs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.12.48 ( talk) 00:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Why is this section even here? He's a writer, and his books and articles don't address the issue. Who cares if he's on a committee? Everyone's on a committee for something somewhere.
-He is a writer, thus when he speaks, it is more likely to be noticed. If a random person said some of the things Card has said and were noticed the way his where, they would be in their article if they had one. Why would him being a writer alter that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.244.209 ( talk) 18:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
-The wiki is about OSC not just his writings. He is a public figure, with views on a significant topic. When a politician says something about homosexuality, it often makes their wiki page. If you want to make a section about OSC books, that does not contain his views. Go ahead. I note you no one is deleting his views on alternative energy. What does that have to do with his books? Nothing. But as a public figure, his views are often note worthy. Note worthy things about someone often make their wiki page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.244.209 ( talk) 04:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
-So it seems this article is partially locked now. I note with the Homosexual items removed. This despite a majority of civil people thinking it ought to be there. Not to mention his other views, actions and beliefs remaining. The bias of the mods on this article is rather transparent. It makes me sad that this sort of thing can happen on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.101.237.192 ( talk) 10:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
The sentence reads: "Card described homosexuality as an acquired characteristic linked to abuse or molestation in childhood" however the source referenced is not so cut and dried. In the referenced article, Card says "many homosexuals first entered into that world through a disturbing seduction or rape or molestation or abuse, and how many of them yearn to get out of the homosexual community and live normally." The fine difference which makes the introductory sentence an attack is the crucial word many. Card does not claim that homosexuality is an exclusively acquired characteristic but rather simply that for some individuals homosexuality is acquired. The term "acquired characteristic" implies that it is acquired for all individuals rather than simply some. I have changed the wording of the sentence somewhat but acknowledge that its current form is awkward. If future editors modify this section, I encourage them to maintain the fine distinction between an exclusively acquired characteristic (which homosexuality is generally believed to NOT be) and a characteristic which can be acquired (which scientific journals suggest homosexuality can be). The crucial difference between such scientific journals and Card is that research suggests these instances are rare and Card suggests that they are common. Perpetualization ( talk) 06:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
This article has a long history of being used for personal attack of its subject. Given that, when in doubt, one should lean toward the policies discussed in WP:UNDUE. -- Pleasantville ( talk) 13:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Written above: "He's a writer, and his books and articles don't address the issue". This is untrue — OSC's work Hamlet's Father reinterprets Hamlet's problems as being the result of his father's activities as a homosexual and a paedophile. In addition to the other published works mention, this means that his published works do indeed address the issue of homosexuality. Given the volume of his published works on that subject, it would be a major lapse for an encyclopaedic article not to mention his views on this subject. In other words, this article must cover OSC's views on homosexuality in order to be complete. Sbwoodside ( talk) 19:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Here is the text from that link: Normally I don't respond to reviews, especially when the reviewer clearly has an axe to grind. But the dishonest review of Hamlet's Father that appeared in Publisher's Weekly back in February of 2011 has triggered a firestorm of attacks on me. I realize now that I should have answered it then and demanded a retraction, because while the opinions of reviewers are their own, they have no right to make false statements about the contents of a book.
The review ends with this sentence: "The writing and pacing have the feel of a draft for a longer and more introspective work that might have fleshed out Hamlet's indecision and brooding; instead, the focus is primarily on linking homosexuality with the life-destroying horrors of pedophilia, a focus most fans of possibly bisexual Shakespeare are unlikely to appreciate."
Since my introduction to the book states that I was not remotely interested in Hamlet's "indecision and brooding" in Shakespeare's version of the story, I wonder how carefully the reviewer read the book. But the lie is this, that "the focus is primarily on linking homosexuality with ... pedophilia." The focus isn't primarily on this because there is no link whatsoever between homosexuality and pedophilia in this book. Hamlet's father, in the book, is a pedophile, period. I don't show him being even slightly attracted to adults of either sex. It is the reviewer, not me, who has asserted this link, which I would not and did not make.
Because I took a public position in 2008 opposing any attempt by government to redefine marriage, especially by anti-democratic and unconstitutional means, I have been targeted as a "homophobe" by the Inquisition of Political Correctness. If such a charge were really true, they would have had no trouble finding evidence of it in my life and work. But because the opposite is true -- I think no ill of and wish no harm to homosexuals, individually or as a group -- they have to manufacture evidence by simply lying about what my fiction contains.
The truth is that back in the 1970s and 1980s, when it was definitely not fashionable to write sympathetic gay characters in fiction aimed at the mainstream audience, I created several sympathetic homosexual characters. I did not exploit them for titillation; instead I showed them threading their lives through a world that was far from friendly to them. At the time, I was criticized by some for being "pro-gay," while I also received appreciative comments from homosexual readers. Yet both responses were beside the point. I was not writing about homosexuality, I was writing about human beings.
My goal then and today remains the same: To create believable characters and help readers understand them as people. Ordinarily I would have included gay characters in their normal proportions among the characters in my stories. However, since I have become a target of vilification by the hate groups of the Left, I am increasingly reluctant to have any gay characters in my fiction, because I know that no matter how I depict them, I will be accused of homophobia. The result is that my work is distorted by not having gay characters where I would normally have had them -- for which I will also, no doubt, be accused of homophobia.
But Hamlet's Father, since it contained no homosexual characters, did not seem to me to fall into that category. I underestimated the willingness of the haters to manufacture evidence to convict their supposed enemies.
To show you what I actually had in mind in writing Hamlet's Father, here is the introduction I wrote for its publication in book form. I'm as proud of the story as ever, and I hope readers will experience the story as it was intended to be read.
Foreword to Hamlet's Father
I have loved Shakespeare's plays since my days as a theatre undergraduate, when I learned to get my head into his characters and my mouth around the blank verse. I have taught his plays to literature students, directed actors in performing his plays, and even fiddled with some of his scripts so they'd be fresh and funny to modern audiences despite the way the language has changed since he wrote them. (See my adaptations of Romeo & Juliet and The Taming of the Shrew at www.hatrack.com.)
I don't like all the plays equally. Coriolanus simply doesn't speak to me. In fact, none of the Roman plays do. But the play that bothers me the most -- because I don't much care for it and think I should -- is Hamlet.
Of Shakespeare's great tragedies, I love Lear and Macbeth; Othello at least I understand. But Hamlet? I have little interest in a dithering hero; nor am I much inspired by revenge plots. Yet I keep hearing that this is the greatest of them all.
So I analyzed the story to see what it would take to make me care about it. "Hamlet's Father" is what I came up with. I'm fully aware of the fact that I have just messed with the play that many consider the greatest ever written in any language. But Shakespeare stole his plots from other people; and nothing I do is going to erase a line of his great work or diminish his reputation in any way. So why not?
If you think it's blasphemous to fiddle with Shakespeare's work, then for heaven's sake don't read this story. I leave his version in shreds on the floor. But my body count is just as high, as long as you don't expect me to account for Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. I figure Tom Stoppard took care of them for all time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.240.44.68 ( talk) 20:55, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
For a BLP article, the references here show a dearth of published biographical books. I've found and acquired two:
Both of these are considered "young adult" and the second one is more directed toward his faith, but the article is currently relying completely on websites and online articles so I think it's acceptable for use of these books as sources (which are the only published biographical books on OSC I'm aware of at present), at least for his early life and things related to his faith and personal life. I'll work on expanding the article somewhat using these as sources unless there are any objections. If anyone knows of any other published biographies on OSC, please feel free to post them here. - Ferahgo the Assassin ( talk) 16:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
178.76.162.16: Referring to OSC as a "homophobe" in the lead sentence is completely inappropriate. This is a BLP article and must conform to the rules regarding WP:BLP. There have been several discussions on the talk page over the years about how much weight the article should give to OSC's views on homosexuality [1] and the consensus has generally been that it should not be overstated, since it hasn't been covered very much by reliable sources in proportion to everything else he's well-known for. Whether or not you personally regard him as a homophobe is irrelevant; inserting "homophobe" into the lead goes against NPOV, it is undue, and violates BLP. - Ferahgo the Assassin ( talk) 04:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
There's two separate issues here, significance and tone. First issue, are OSC's anti-gay activities significant enough to belong in the lede? The current list is "author, critic, public speaker, essayist, columnist, and political activist". Clearly, OSC is an author first and foremost, taking up the bulk of the article. All of the other entries in that list are detailed in about a paragraph each. The space currently occupied by his anti-gay activities is at least equal to the others. Logic thus dictates that if "critic, public speaker, essayist, columnist, and political activist" are significant enough for the lead, then "homophobe" is also significant enough to be in the lead. Based on significance, either remove all the items except for "author", or allow "homophobe" to be added.
Second issue, is the tone of "homophobe" appropriate for a lede? Like "racist", "homophobe" is an accusatory word. I wonder if any BLP leads include the word "racist". Based on the conservative BLP policies, I think that a less accusatory synonym would be more appropriate. Perhaps "anti-gay activist". Sbwoodside ( talk) 03:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
It is significant that Card is on the board of directors of the National Organization for Marriage, a body opposed to the legalization of same-sex marriage. That could be worked into the last sentence of the lede within the context of his religious beliefs. If he plays an official role in other lobbying groups, that could also be mentioned in this summary. This 2008 article [3] in School Library Journal discusses Card's political activism in the context of his religious beliefs and that seems to be the approriate way to phrase this. One lengthy commentary on issues of mormonism/same-sex relations in his fiction is given in a 2 page analysis here (pages 102-104). [4] Mathsci ( talk) 03:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
While it is inappropriate for the article should say anything like "Orson Scott Card is a homophobe", it would be appropriate to state something like "his views on homosexuality have led to widespread accusations of homophobia". This is factually correct, it is not a violation of NPOV, and there are a ton of sources that can be added to support it. 88.104.31.135 ( talk) 23:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
At this point, the subsection on homosexuality is much longer than any of his other "personal views". I don't think this is an accurate, weighted representation of his views. But I think it'd be more worth my time to expand his other views (especially on religion, which I think is pretty clearly his most influential and important "personal view" in the context of his writing) than argue for shortening the homosexuality section. - Ferahgo the Assassin ( talk) 22:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
It appears Card actually follows the teachings of his faith. It might be noteworthy if he opposed them, but right now we have a lot of stuff written in the Captain Obvious manner here, and which is of no actual value to a BLP. It is on the order of writing that a staunch Roman Catholic believes in the Virgin Birth - we could, I suppose, add it to all staunch Catholics, but it would be of no value whatsoever. Cheers.
Collect (
talk)
22:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm wondering if a fairly serious comment Card made in 2008 should be included -- but I think it's been taken down recently from its original sources, even though it's been referenced all over the net: "Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn." That's a pretty dramatic thing to say. Would it be appropriate to add to this article, and if so, how? (While Card did want to keep criminal penalties for gays on the books years ago, he has since reversed his position, but I do not believe he has recanted this more recent statement.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.200.19.148 ( talk) 18:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
See NY Daily News of 7th May 2012 as a source of interest. However, considering that the image used is the same one that this article uses from Commons, it just might be a bit circular to be a "quality" reference. -- Fæ ( talk) 16:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
There is currently a
merge discussion about
Template:Orson_Scott_Card. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going
here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. --
Тимофей
ЛееСуда.
17:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
This is in regards to the IP editor's edit summary of it was not "some in the LGBT community" it was one person. Comic project is now on hold. I will be the first to admit that there are no other citable sources that I could find of someone in the LGBT community saying this. That doesn't negate, however, that there are people in article comments, both LGBT and not, making the point that this is reverse discrimination. While I'm not one of those commenters, I'm gay, and I agree with the sentiment. Firing someone for their beliefs is discrimination. Period. If those beliefs begin to affect his work, it's a different story.
So, I'll put it to other editors: we have one person in the LGBT community cited in a reliable source as saying that firing OSC would be workplace discrimination. We have evidence of others saying it, but not in citable sources. What's the appropriate action here?
(As a side note, I've reverted the other changes the IP editor made since changing "he no longer advocates this" to "he claims he no longer advocates this" is introducing bias. For the final change, while there's industry speculation that the project will be allowed to die off to avoid having to fire OSC, it's exactly that: speculation.) – RobinHood70 talk 16:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Nothing constructive here. If someone wants to discuss what's actually in the article, start a new thread. Evanh2008 ( talk| contribs) 04:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Why is Card's long history of homophobia not referenced in his main page. There's a section on his views on homosexuality, but there's nothing referencing his homophobia in his words and his works. "Orson Scott Card's long history of homophobia". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.255.181.79 ( talk • contribs)
"Homophobia" brands the holders of a political point of view as "sufferers" of a pseudo mental illness. Its success in doing so marks it as the most effective newly coined word in history. Radio Sharon ( talk) 00:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
This discussion of homophobia in article is way too long. It is giving so much weight for expressing one opinion, and discarding really beautiful writing. Opinion that marriage is union between man and woman is his, and mine, and should be tolerated. As well we need to tolerate the opposite opinion, and accept that. For me it sometimes feels that homosexuals and atheists are most intolerant people today. Pekka Lehtikoski. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.65.88.221 ( talk) 03:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC) |
There's a change being discussed over at Orson Scott Card bibliography. Hop on over and chime in if you feel so inclined. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 02:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
the article states that he is the great great grandson of Brigham Young, does this mean then that he is also related to Steve Young, former San Francisco 49er QB (greatx3 grandson of Brigham Young)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.80.36.13 ( talk • contribs) 20:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Orson Scott Card *is* an outspoken homophobe, this *isn't* even a controversial point, and it *is* a notable and verifiable part of who he is. Those of you who keep deleting this should provide a legitimate argument as to why this doesn't belong in the opening line beyond "well I don't really like it, it seems kinda controversial and mean and ALSO BLP*"
I am re-inserting my edit, and I would prefer some actual discussion here rather than just edit warring. Thanks! Ashwinr ( talk) 08:49, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
It's not unattributed: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/orson-scott-card-homophobic http://www.salon.com/2013/05/07/sci_fi_icon_orson_scott_card_hates_fan_fiction_the_homosexual_agenda_partner/ http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/15/us/superman-controversy
And it's not inflammatory - he is openly homophobic. "Homophobe" is descriptive, not inflammatory. Are you personally offended by the term for some reason? Why is it inflammatory? There's only two people who seem to think so - that's hardly a consensus, and it's rather patronizing of you to - baselessly - claim to speak for a consensus, and moreover suggest that my edit deserves categorical censorship beyond yours. Ashwinr ( talk) 16:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
As this RfC includes a WP:BLP violation per se, anyone closing this should remove the discussion immediately. Collect ( talk) 18:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Contrary to claims by other editors, I don't see any sort of discussion, let alone a consensus, relating to the exclusion of Card's political views from the lede. (There's a discussion that's nearly two years old which had to do with mentioning his opposition to marriage, but not to do with the subject at hand, which is mentioning only his opposition to marriage.) The suggestion that it is only his opposition to marriage which is controversial runs, in fact, directly counter to everything on the subject in the article; while it's not like supporters of LGBT rights like his association with NOM, the article indicates that other comments about homosexuality (whether since repudiated - such as his advocacy of criminalization - or not - linking homosexuality to child abuse) have also been controversial. The sources indicate that his opposition to gays and gay rights, not just to marriage, is at issue - let's reflect the sources by using more general language. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 01:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
He has a long history of making controversial statements about homosexuality, though I have no idea how to find much of what I read in the late 90s because I killed the brain cell that remembered where I read them. I know that Salon is one of many that has rounded up some of his truly "choice" statements and beliefs. As I recall, after 2006 or so he really latched onto same sex marriage, specifically. But he's commented on sodomy laws, adoption, etc. This stuff should be easy enough to find. I think he still sits on the board the National Organization for Marriage (NOM, which, lol). Have to watch out for Synth problems, but there's plenty of direct quotes kicking around out there, I'm certain. Millahnna ( talk) 02:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
FYI, maybe we'll hammer out better wording but for now I've changed it to statements (rather than opinions since no one is trying to divine what is in his head) about homosexuality and LGBT rights (because as we said, marriage isn't the sole issue, but also earlier statements on criminalization and more recent statements on pedophilia). – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 20:49, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
The text in the lede was written carefully, which is why "including" was used and not "particularly". I think much of the content in the main body of the article is speculation by commentators (e.g. the section on Hamlet). What is in the lede at present does not involve speculation. It states very clearly that Card's views on homosexuality have not been well received and provides one example of why that is. Using the lede to catalogue prominently every possible aspect—a sort of naming and shaming—would be WP:UNDUE and a violation of BLP. Mathsci ( talk) 06:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
But when section about Card's view of homosexuality is two times longer than section about his work in science fiction, it seems kinda messed up for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.228.187.10 ( talk) 07:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
On a different track, I was reading the paragraph about Hamlet, and it strikes me as being trivial to the point of being a non-event. Card writes a book, a reviewer says he linked homosexuality to pedophilia, Card says he didn't, end of story. Nothing really happened. It seems to me that Card himself should be the best source on what he meant to write (see WP:SELFSOURCE). With that in mind, would there be objections to simply dropping the paragraph? (Another Shakespeare play comes to mind...Much Ado about Nothing...) ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 16:38, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 20:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Those who now use this essay ["The Hypocrites of Homosexuality," Feb. 1990 issue of Sunstone magazine] to attack me [Card] 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
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 (talk) 15:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
An editor recently changed "same-sex sexual relations" to "homosexuality" as the activity to which OSCard objects. However, such a characterization is one to which, ironically, Card ALSO objects:
Because I took a public position in 2008 opposing any attempt by government to redefine marriage, especially by anti-democratic and unconstitutional means, I have been targeted as a "homophobe" by the Inquisition of Political Correctness. If such a charge were really true, they would have had no trouble finding evidence of it in my life and work. But because the opposite is true -- I think no ill of and wish no harm to homosexuals, individually or as a group -- they have to manufacture evidence by simply lying about what my fiction contains. [...Etc. etc. etc.]
Should Wikipedia conflate homosexual sex and homosexual orientation simply because opinion makers critical of Card in the media do, as well? Or would WP do well to hew to a more nuanced (read: NPOV) standard? Perhaps something of the flavor @ WP's blp of pope Francis?
Bergoglio affirms the Church's teaching: that homosexual practice is intrinsically immoral, but that every homosexual person should be treated with respect and love (because temptation is not in and of itself sinful).[276] Bergoglio opposes same-sex marriage. When Argentina was considering legalizing it in 2010, Bergoglio opposed the legislation,[277][278] calling it a "real and dire anthropological throwback".[279] In July 2010, while the law was under consideration, he wrote a letter to Argentina's cloistered nuns in which he said:[277][280][281]
In the coming weeks, the Argentine people will face a situation whose outcome can seriously harm the family...At stake is the identity and survival of the family: father, mother and children. At stake are the lives of many children who will be discriminated against in advance, and deprived of their human development given by a father and a mother and willed by God. At stake is the total rejection of God's law engraved in our hearts.
Let's not be naive: This is not a simple political fight; it is a destructive proposal to God's plan. This is not a mere legislative proposal (that's just its form), but a move by the father of lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God... Let's look to St. Joseph, Mary, and the Child to ask fervently that they defend the Argentine family in this moment... May they support, defend, and accompany us in this war of God.
After L'Osservatore Romano reported this, several priests expressed their support for the law and one was defrocked.[282] Observers believe that the church's opposition and Bergoglio's language worked in favor of the law's passage and that in response Catholic officials adopted a more conciliatory tone in later debates on social issues such as parental surrogacy.[283][284]
Rubin, Bergoglio's biographer, said that while taking a strong stand against same-sex marriage, Bergoglio raised the possibility in 2010 with his bishops in Argentina that they support the idea of civil unions as a compromise position.[285] According to one news report, "a majority of the bishops voted to overrule him".[285] Miguel Woites, the director of the Catholic News Agency of Argentina, denied that Bergoglio ever made such a proposal,[286][287] but additional sources, including two Argentine journalists and two senior officials of the Argentine bishops conference, supported Rubin's account.[288]
According to two gay rights activists, Marcelo Márquez and Andrés Albertsen, in private conversations with them Bergoglio expressed support for the spiritual needs of "homosexual people" and willingness to support "measured actions" on their behalf.[285][289]
-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 02:45, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
--got me to look up a corollary from Scott's equally socially conservative Mormonism (um "conservative' at least...nowadays; see Mormon polygamy):The Catechism of the Catholic Church offers these clear words: "Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved."
And Card's statements seem to quite consistently hew to this POV: anti-unchaste sex (incl. homosexuality as well as premarital hetero sex), not so much anti S.S. orientation, per se.-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 15:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)... When two people of the same sex join in using their bodies for erotic purposes, this conduct is considered homosexual and sinful by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, comparable to sexual relations between any unmarried persons. Masturbation is not condoned but is not considered homosexual. ... [etc etc]
So, in Card's particular case, Card happens to be Mormon and also against s.s.marriage. ... Whereas Card's uber conservative co-religionist Glenn Beck [...or, I suppose, as Beck might describe himself: the Libertarian-leaning if sometimes neo-Con independent Glenn Beck?) has always been quite moderate w/rgd gay rights. (Go figure: Beck is also vehemently anti-undocumented immigrant whereas Card's essentially so-called "pro-'amnesty.'")
In any case - obv., if Ross Douthat ever were to pen science fiction and it got optioned etc etc , the work, would be energetically boycotted by many LGTB activists and their sympathizers as well (see the following-linked Esquire piece, for example--> link); yet, Ross's co-religionist, the best-selling novelist (heh heh, a little joke there: See " Those Who Trespass") Bill O'Reilly is apparently more circumspect in verbage with regard to LGTB rights, accdg to New York Magazine.....-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 16:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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) 'Ender's Game' director Gavin Hood on Orson Scott Card's anti-gay marriage rants: He wrote a book about compassion and yet he himself is struggling with that in his real life, NY Daily News, 2013-08-02
The above quote is not critical of Card. Rather, it succinctly states his views. - Should we include? Pls comment. ;~) -- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 15:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
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!):
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...).[... ...] 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.
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)
![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 7 |
The existence of an article regarding his views on homosexuality is discriminatory; if he were pro-gay rights, would such a section be written to inform people of his beliefs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.12.48 ( talk) 00:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Why is this section even here? He's a writer, and his books and articles don't address the issue. Who cares if he's on a committee? Everyone's on a committee for something somewhere.
-He is a writer, thus when he speaks, it is more likely to be noticed. If a random person said some of the things Card has said and were noticed the way his where, they would be in their article if they had one. Why would him being a writer alter that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.244.209 ( talk) 18:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
-The wiki is about OSC not just his writings. He is a public figure, with views on a significant topic. When a politician says something about homosexuality, it often makes their wiki page. If you want to make a section about OSC books, that does not contain his views. Go ahead. I note you no one is deleting his views on alternative energy. What does that have to do with his books? Nothing. But as a public figure, his views are often note worthy. Note worthy things about someone often make their wiki page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.244.209 ( talk) 04:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
-So it seems this article is partially locked now. I note with the Homosexual items removed. This despite a majority of civil people thinking it ought to be there. Not to mention his other views, actions and beliefs remaining. The bias of the mods on this article is rather transparent. It makes me sad that this sort of thing can happen on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.101.237.192 ( talk) 10:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
The sentence reads: "Card described homosexuality as an acquired characteristic linked to abuse or molestation in childhood" however the source referenced is not so cut and dried. In the referenced article, Card says "many homosexuals first entered into that world through a disturbing seduction or rape or molestation or abuse, and how many of them yearn to get out of the homosexual community and live normally." The fine difference which makes the introductory sentence an attack is the crucial word many. Card does not claim that homosexuality is an exclusively acquired characteristic but rather simply that for some individuals homosexuality is acquired. The term "acquired characteristic" implies that it is acquired for all individuals rather than simply some. I have changed the wording of the sentence somewhat but acknowledge that its current form is awkward. If future editors modify this section, I encourage them to maintain the fine distinction between an exclusively acquired characteristic (which homosexuality is generally believed to NOT be) and a characteristic which can be acquired (which scientific journals suggest homosexuality can be). The crucial difference between such scientific journals and Card is that research suggests these instances are rare and Card suggests that they are common. Perpetualization ( talk) 06:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
This article has a long history of being used for personal attack of its subject. Given that, when in doubt, one should lean toward the policies discussed in WP:UNDUE. -- Pleasantville ( talk) 13:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Written above: "He's a writer, and his books and articles don't address the issue". This is untrue — OSC's work Hamlet's Father reinterprets Hamlet's problems as being the result of his father's activities as a homosexual and a paedophile. In addition to the other published works mention, this means that his published works do indeed address the issue of homosexuality. Given the volume of his published works on that subject, it would be a major lapse for an encyclopaedic article not to mention his views on this subject. In other words, this article must cover OSC's views on homosexuality in order to be complete. Sbwoodside ( talk) 19:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Here is the text from that link: Normally I don't respond to reviews, especially when the reviewer clearly has an axe to grind. But the dishonest review of Hamlet's Father that appeared in Publisher's Weekly back in February of 2011 has triggered a firestorm of attacks on me. I realize now that I should have answered it then and demanded a retraction, because while the opinions of reviewers are their own, they have no right to make false statements about the contents of a book.
The review ends with this sentence: "The writing and pacing have the feel of a draft for a longer and more introspective work that might have fleshed out Hamlet's indecision and brooding; instead, the focus is primarily on linking homosexuality with the life-destroying horrors of pedophilia, a focus most fans of possibly bisexual Shakespeare are unlikely to appreciate."
Since my introduction to the book states that I was not remotely interested in Hamlet's "indecision and brooding" in Shakespeare's version of the story, I wonder how carefully the reviewer read the book. But the lie is this, that "the focus is primarily on linking homosexuality with ... pedophilia." The focus isn't primarily on this because there is no link whatsoever between homosexuality and pedophilia in this book. Hamlet's father, in the book, is a pedophile, period. I don't show him being even slightly attracted to adults of either sex. It is the reviewer, not me, who has asserted this link, which I would not and did not make.
Because I took a public position in 2008 opposing any attempt by government to redefine marriage, especially by anti-democratic and unconstitutional means, I have been targeted as a "homophobe" by the Inquisition of Political Correctness. If such a charge were really true, they would have had no trouble finding evidence of it in my life and work. But because the opposite is true -- I think no ill of and wish no harm to homosexuals, individually or as a group -- they have to manufacture evidence by simply lying about what my fiction contains.
The truth is that back in the 1970s and 1980s, when it was definitely not fashionable to write sympathetic gay characters in fiction aimed at the mainstream audience, I created several sympathetic homosexual characters. I did not exploit them for titillation; instead I showed them threading their lives through a world that was far from friendly to them. At the time, I was criticized by some for being "pro-gay," while I also received appreciative comments from homosexual readers. Yet both responses were beside the point. I was not writing about homosexuality, I was writing about human beings.
My goal then and today remains the same: To create believable characters and help readers understand them as people. Ordinarily I would have included gay characters in their normal proportions among the characters in my stories. However, since I have become a target of vilification by the hate groups of the Left, I am increasingly reluctant to have any gay characters in my fiction, because I know that no matter how I depict them, I will be accused of homophobia. The result is that my work is distorted by not having gay characters where I would normally have had them -- for which I will also, no doubt, be accused of homophobia.
But Hamlet's Father, since it contained no homosexual characters, did not seem to me to fall into that category. I underestimated the willingness of the haters to manufacture evidence to convict their supposed enemies.
To show you what I actually had in mind in writing Hamlet's Father, here is the introduction I wrote for its publication in book form. I'm as proud of the story as ever, and I hope readers will experience the story as it was intended to be read.
Foreword to Hamlet's Father
I have loved Shakespeare's plays since my days as a theatre undergraduate, when I learned to get my head into his characters and my mouth around the blank verse. I have taught his plays to literature students, directed actors in performing his plays, and even fiddled with some of his scripts so they'd be fresh and funny to modern audiences despite the way the language has changed since he wrote them. (See my adaptations of Romeo & Juliet and The Taming of the Shrew at www.hatrack.com.)
I don't like all the plays equally. Coriolanus simply doesn't speak to me. In fact, none of the Roman plays do. But the play that bothers me the most -- because I don't much care for it and think I should -- is Hamlet.
Of Shakespeare's great tragedies, I love Lear and Macbeth; Othello at least I understand. But Hamlet? I have little interest in a dithering hero; nor am I much inspired by revenge plots. Yet I keep hearing that this is the greatest of them all.
So I analyzed the story to see what it would take to make me care about it. "Hamlet's Father" is what I came up with. I'm fully aware of the fact that I have just messed with the play that many consider the greatest ever written in any language. But Shakespeare stole his plots from other people; and nothing I do is going to erase a line of his great work or diminish his reputation in any way. So why not?
If you think it's blasphemous to fiddle with Shakespeare's work, then for heaven's sake don't read this story. I leave his version in shreds on the floor. But my body count is just as high, as long as you don't expect me to account for Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. I figure Tom Stoppard took care of them for all time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.240.44.68 ( talk) 20:55, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
For a BLP article, the references here show a dearth of published biographical books. I've found and acquired two:
Both of these are considered "young adult" and the second one is more directed toward his faith, but the article is currently relying completely on websites and online articles so I think it's acceptable for use of these books as sources (which are the only published biographical books on OSC I'm aware of at present), at least for his early life and things related to his faith and personal life. I'll work on expanding the article somewhat using these as sources unless there are any objections. If anyone knows of any other published biographies on OSC, please feel free to post them here. - Ferahgo the Assassin ( talk) 16:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
178.76.162.16: Referring to OSC as a "homophobe" in the lead sentence is completely inappropriate. This is a BLP article and must conform to the rules regarding WP:BLP. There have been several discussions on the talk page over the years about how much weight the article should give to OSC's views on homosexuality [1] and the consensus has generally been that it should not be overstated, since it hasn't been covered very much by reliable sources in proportion to everything else he's well-known for. Whether or not you personally regard him as a homophobe is irrelevant; inserting "homophobe" into the lead goes against NPOV, it is undue, and violates BLP. - Ferahgo the Assassin ( talk) 04:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
There's two separate issues here, significance and tone. First issue, are OSC's anti-gay activities significant enough to belong in the lede? The current list is "author, critic, public speaker, essayist, columnist, and political activist". Clearly, OSC is an author first and foremost, taking up the bulk of the article. All of the other entries in that list are detailed in about a paragraph each. The space currently occupied by his anti-gay activities is at least equal to the others. Logic thus dictates that if "critic, public speaker, essayist, columnist, and political activist" are significant enough for the lead, then "homophobe" is also significant enough to be in the lead. Based on significance, either remove all the items except for "author", or allow "homophobe" to be added.
Second issue, is the tone of "homophobe" appropriate for a lede? Like "racist", "homophobe" is an accusatory word. I wonder if any BLP leads include the word "racist". Based on the conservative BLP policies, I think that a less accusatory synonym would be more appropriate. Perhaps "anti-gay activist". Sbwoodside ( talk) 03:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
It is significant that Card is on the board of directors of the National Organization for Marriage, a body opposed to the legalization of same-sex marriage. That could be worked into the last sentence of the lede within the context of his religious beliefs. If he plays an official role in other lobbying groups, that could also be mentioned in this summary. This 2008 article [3] in School Library Journal discusses Card's political activism in the context of his religious beliefs and that seems to be the approriate way to phrase this. One lengthy commentary on issues of mormonism/same-sex relations in his fiction is given in a 2 page analysis here (pages 102-104). [4] Mathsci ( talk) 03:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
While it is inappropriate for the article should say anything like "Orson Scott Card is a homophobe", it would be appropriate to state something like "his views on homosexuality have led to widespread accusations of homophobia". This is factually correct, it is not a violation of NPOV, and there are a ton of sources that can be added to support it. 88.104.31.135 ( talk) 23:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
At this point, the subsection on homosexuality is much longer than any of his other "personal views". I don't think this is an accurate, weighted representation of his views. But I think it'd be more worth my time to expand his other views (especially on religion, which I think is pretty clearly his most influential and important "personal view" in the context of his writing) than argue for shortening the homosexuality section. - Ferahgo the Assassin ( talk) 22:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
It appears Card actually follows the teachings of his faith. It might be noteworthy if he opposed them, but right now we have a lot of stuff written in the Captain Obvious manner here, and which is of no actual value to a BLP. It is on the order of writing that a staunch Roman Catholic believes in the Virgin Birth - we could, I suppose, add it to all staunch Catholics, but it would be of no value whatsoever. Cheers.
Collect (
talk)
22:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm wondering if a fairly serious comment Card made in 2008 should be included -- but I think it's been taken down recently from its original sources, even though it's been referenced all over the net: "Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn." That's a pretty dramatic thing to say. Would it be appropriate to add to this article, and if so, how? (While Card did want to keep criminal penalties for gays on the books years ago, he has since reversed his position, but I do not believe he has recanted this more recent statement.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.200.19.148 ( talk) 18:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
See NY Daily News of 7th May 2012 as a source of interest. However, considering that the image used is the same one that this article uses from Commons, it just might be a bit circular to be a "quality" reference. -- Fæ ( talk) 16:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
There is currently a
merge discussion about
Template:Orson_Scott_Card. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going
here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. --
Тимофей
ЛееСуда.
17:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
This is in regards to the IP editor's edit summary of it was not "some in the LGBT community" it was one person. Comic project is now on hold. I will be the first to admit that there are no other citable sources that I could find of someone in the LGBT community saying this. That doesn't negate, however, that there are people in article comments, both LGBT and not, making the point that this is reverse discrimination. While I'm not one of those commenters, I'm gay, and I agree with the sentiment. Firing someone for their beliefs is discrimination. Period. If those beliefs begin to affect his work, it's a different story.
So, I'll put it to other editors: we have one person in the LGBT community cited in a reliable source as saying that firing OSC would be workplace discrimination. We have evidence of others saying it, but not in citable sources. What's the appropriate action here?
(As a side note, I've reverted the other changes the IP editor made since changing "he no longer advocates this" to "he claims he no longer advocates this" is introducing bias. For the final change, while there's industry speculation that the project will be allowed to die off to avoid having to fire OSC, it's exactly that: speculation.) – RobinHood70 talk 16:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Nothing constructive here. If someone wants to discuss what's actually in the article, start a new thread. Evanh2008 ( talk| contribs) 04:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Why is Card's long history of homophobia not referenced in his main page. There's a section on his views on homosexuality, but there's nothing referencing his homophobia in his words and his works. "Orson Scott Card's long history of homophobia". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.255.181.79 ( talk • contribs)
"Homophobia" brands the holders of a political point of view as "sufferers" of a pseudo mental illness. Its success in doing so marks it as the most effective newly coined word in history. Radio Sharon ( talk) 00:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
This discussion of homophobia in article is way too long. It is giving so much weight for expressing one opinion, and discarding really beautiful writing. Opinion that marriage is union between man and woman is his, and mine, and should be tolerated. As well we need to tolerate the opposite opinion, and accept that. For me it sometimes feels that homosexuals and atheists are most intolerant people today. Pekka Lehtikoski. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.65.88.221 ( talk) 03:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC) |
There's a change being discussed over at Orson Scott Card bibliography. Hop on over and chime in if you feel so inclined. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 02:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
the article states that he is the great great grandson of Brigham Young, does this mean then that he is also related to Steve Young, former San Francisco 49er QB (greatx3 grandson of Brigham Young)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.80.36.13 ( talk • contribs) 20:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Orson Scott Card *is* an outspoken homophobe, this *isn't* even a controversial point, and it *is* a notable and verifiable part of who he is. Those of you who keep deleting this should provide a legitimate argument as to why this doesn't belong in the opening line beyond "well I don't really like it, it seems kinda controversial and mean and ALSO BLP*"
I am re-inserting my edit, and I would prefer some actual discussion here rather than just edit warring. Thanks! Ashwinr ( talk) 08:49, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
It's not unattributed: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/orson-scott-card-homophobic http://www.salon.com/2013/05/07/sci_fi_icon_orson_scott_card_hates_fan_fiction_the_homosexual_agenda_partner/ http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/15/us/superman-controversy
And it's not inflammatory - he is openly homophobic. "Homophobe" is descriptive, not inflammatory. Are you personally offended by the term for some reason? Why is it inflammatory? There's only two people who seem to think so - that's hardly a consensus, and it's rather patronizing of you to - baselessly - claim to speak for a consensus, and moreover suggest that my edit deserves categorical censorship beyond yours. Ashwinr ( talk) 16:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
As this RfC includes a WP:BLP violation per se, anyone closing this should remove the discussion immediately. Collect ( talk) 18:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Contrary to claims by other editors, I don't see any sort of discussion, let alone a consensus, relating to the exclusion of Card's political views from the lede. (There's a discussion that's nearly two years old which had to do with mentioning his opposition to marriage, but not to do with the subject at hand, which is mentioning only his opposition to marriage.) The suggestion that it is only his opposition to marriage which is controversial runs, in fact, directly counter to everything on the subject in the article; while it's not like supporters of LGBT rights like his association with NOM, the article indicates that other comments about homosexuality (whether since repudiated - such as his advocacy of criminalization - or not - linking homosexuality to child abuse) have also been controversial. The sources indicate that his opposition to gays and gay rights, not just to marriage, is at issue - let's reflect the sources by using more general language. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 01:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
He has a long history of making controversial statements about homosexuality, though I have no idea how to find much of what I read in the late 90s because I killed the brain cell that remembered where I read them. I know that Salon is one of many that has rounded up some of his truly "choice" statements and beliefs. As I recall, after 2006 or so he really latched onto same sex marriage, specifically. But he's commented on sodomy laws, adoption, etc. This stuff should be easy enough to find. I think he still sits on the board the National Organization for Marriage (NOM, which, lol). Have to watch out for Synth problems, but there's plenty of direct quotes kicking around out there, I'm certain. Millahnna ( talk) 02:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
FYI, maybe we'll hammer out better wording but for now I've changed it to statements (rather than opinions since no one is trying to divine what is in his head) about homosexuality and LGBT rights (because as we said, marriage isn't the sole issue, but also earlier statements on criminalization and more recent statements on pedophilia). – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 20:49, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
The text in the lede was written carefully, which is why "including" was used and not "particularly". I think much of the content in the main body of the article is speculation by commentators (e.g. the section on Hamlet). What is in the lede at present does not involve speculation. It states very clearly that Card's views on homosexuality have not been well received and provides one example of why that is. Using the lede to catalogue prominently every possible aspect—a sort of naming and shaming—would be WP:UNDUE and a violation of BLP. Mathsci ( talk) 06:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
But when section about Card's view of homosexuality is two times longer than section about his work in science fiction, it seems kinda messed up for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.228.187.10 ( talk) 07:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
On a different track, I was reading the paragraph about Hamlet, and it strikes me as being trivial to the point of being a non-event. Card writes a book, a reviewer says he linked homosexuality to pedophilia, Card says he didn't, end of story. Nothing really happened. It seems to me that Card himself should be the best source on what he meant to write (see WP:SELFSOURCE). With that in mind, would there be objections to simply dropping the paragraph? (Another Shakespeare play comes to mind...Much Ado about Nothing...) ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 16:38, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 20:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Those who now use this essay ["The Hypocrites of Homosexuality," Feb. 1990 issue of Sunstone magazine] to attack me [Card] 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
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 (talk) 15:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
An editor recently changed "same-sex sexual relations" to "homosexuality" as the activity to which OSCard objects. However, such a characterization is one to which, ironically, Card ALSO objects:
Because I took a public position in 2008 opposing any attempt by government to redefine marriage, especially by anti-democratic and unconstitutional means, I have been targeted as a "homophobe" by the Inquisition of Political Correctness. If such a charge were really true, they would have had no trouble finding evidence of it in my life and work. But because the opposite is true -- I think no ill of and wish no harm to homosexuals, individually or as a group -- they have to manufacture evidence by simply lying about what my fiction contains. [...Etc. etc. etc.]
Should Wikipedia conflate homosexual sex and homosexual orientation simply because opinion makers critical of Card in the media do, as well? Or would WP do well to hew to a more nuanced (read: NPOV) standard? Perhaps something of the flavor @ WP's blp of pope Francis?
Bergoglio affirms the Church's teaching: that homosexual practice is intrinsically immoral, but that every homosexual person should be treated with respect and love (because temptation is not in and of itself sinful).[276] Bergoglio opposes same-sex marriage. When Argentina was considering legalizing it in 2010, Bergoglio opposed the legislation,[277][278] calling it a "real and dire anthropological throwback".[279] In July 2010, while the law was under consideration, he wrote a letter to Argentina's cloistered nuns in which he said:[277][280][281]
In the coming weeks, the Argentine people will face a situation whose outcome can seriously harm the family...At stake is the identity and survival of the family: father, mother and children. At stake are the lives of many children who will be discriminated against in advance, and deprived of their human development given by a father and a mother and willed by God. At stake is the total rejection of God's law engraved in our hearts.
Let's not be naive: This is not a simple political fight; it is a destructive proposal to God's plan. This is not a mere legislative proposal (that's just its form), but a move by the father of lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God... Let's look to St. Joseph, Mary, and the Child to ask fervently that they defend the Argentine family in this moment... May they support, defend, and accompany us in this war of God.
After L'Osservatore Romano reported this, several priests expressed their support for the law and one was defrocked.[282] Observers believe that the church's opposition and Bergoglio's language worked in favor of the law's passage and that in response Catholic officials adopted a more conciliatory tone in later debates on social issues such as parental surrogacy.[283][284]
Rubin, Bergoglio's biographer, said that while taking a strong stand against same-sex marriage, Bergoglio raised the possibility in 2010 with his bishops in Argentina that they support the idea of civil unions as a compromise position.[285] According to one news report, "a majority of the bishops voted to overrule him".[285] Miguel Woites, the director of the Catholic News Agency of Argentina, denied that Bergoglio ever made such a proposal,[286][287] but additional sources, including two Argentine journalists and two senior officials of the Argentine bishops conference, supported Rubin's account.[288]
According to two gay rights activists, Marcelo Márquez and Andrés Albertsen, in private conversations with them Bergoglio expressed support for the spiritual needs of "homosexual people" and willingness to support "measured actions" on their behalf.[285][289]
-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 02:45, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
--got me to look up a corollary from Scott's equally socially conservative Mormonism (um "conservative' at least...nowadays; see Mormon polygamy):The Catechism of the Catholic Church offers these clear words: "Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved."
And Card's statements seem to quite consistently hew to this POV: anti-unchaste sex (incl. homosexuality as well as premarital hetero sex), not so much anti S.S. orientation, per se.-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 15:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)... When two people of the same sex join in using their bodies for erotic purposes, this conduct is considered homosexual and sinful by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, comparable to sexual relations between any unmarried persons. Masturbation is not condoned but is not considered homosexual. ... [etc etc]
So, in Card's particular case, Card happens to be Mormon and also against s.s.marriage. ... Whereas Card's uber conservative co-religionist Glenn Beck [...or, I suppose, as Beck might describe himself: the Libertarian-leaning if sometimes neo-Con independent Glenn Beck?) has always been quite moderate w/rgd gay rights. (Go figure: Beck is also vehemently anti-undocumented immigrant whereas Card's essentially so-called "pro-'amnesty.'")
In any case - obv., if Ross Douthat ever were to pen science fiction and it got optioned etc etc , the work, would be energetically boycotted by many LGTB activists and their sympathizers as well (see the following-linked Esquire piece, for example--> link); yet, Ross's co-religionist, the best-selling novelist (heh heh, a little joke there: See " Those Who Trespass") Bill O'Reilly is apparently more circumspect in verbage with regard to LGTB rights, accdg to New York Magazine.....-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 16:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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) 'Ender's Game' director Gavin Hood on Orson Scott Card's anti-gay marriage rants: He wrote a book about compassion and yet he himself is struggling with that in his real life, NY Daily News, 2013-08-02
The above quote is not critical of Card. Rather, it succinctly states his views. - Should we include? Pls comment. ;~) -- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 15:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
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!):
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...).[... ...] 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.
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)