![]() | 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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
The material on Card's views about homosexuality needs to be cut back, per WP:UNDUE. I do appreciate that Card's views have attracted attention and need to be covered, but there is quite simply too much detail on the subject. Looking at the "views on homosexuality" section, my first reaction is that it could be cut back by roughly 50%. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 06:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
They have short reviews which run up to about 300 words (quite a bit longer than the Card one trying to be used for a major "homosexuality=pedophilia" claim which Card strongly denied)) but also have substantial articles as well. The short reviews are intended basically as a precis at best. Cheers Collect ( talk) 13:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
@ Medeis: Can you explain why you believe these self-published sources don't fall foul of "Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so." and "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves...so long as...The article is not based primarily on such sources." (Read "section" for "article" here, of course, given the immense length of the section.) Usually the SELFPUB exception is for things like small biographical details that secondary sources don't pick up - or, here, I retained Card's self-published change of heart as to whether homosexuality should be illegal, so that a false impression of his position isn't given. But your argument appears to be WP:ITSINTERESTING, and that's not policy. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 03:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
In any case, per the wp guideline first mentioned above, "[...A]rticles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." And, what are Hatrack River's re-published OSC columns from the Rhino Times but primary, re Scott Card's own opinions; and, secondary, as pertaining to non-Card topics commented/reported on from Card's POV. See:
"... ... ...
"The Rhino’s last edition was big at 80 pages, packed with ads and stories. Those stories, combining nostalgia and the same poke-at-the-powers-that-be (including the News & Record) for which the Rhino was known gave this final issue an oddly schizophrenic feel.
"[The Rhinoceros Times's editor, John] Hammer waxes gently, eloquently, about the newspaper’s 21 years and what they meant to him.
"'I’d like to stay here in my office typing away on an old iMac until I wear out another keyboard,' he wrote in a farewell column. 'But life changes. Some people naturally embrace change but most of us don’t.'
"Then in a long story about city government, he pokes at the City Council [bl-blah--blah bl-blah].
"From Orson Scott Card there is an exercise in predicting the future, wherein President Obama unleashes gangs of youth onto law-abiding Americans in a scheme to make himself president for life. Card indulges in this way for multiple pages, then affects a 'never mind' nonchalance by saying he was only writing informed fiction.
"... ... ..."
Hence a column by Card whether originally published in print by The Rhinoseros Times or whether thereafter self- re-published by Card himself at his website <shrugs!> is a secondary source about a subject Card is commenting on; although it may be considered a "primary" source to the extent it reveals information, and esp. that which would not be otherwise knowable, about Card himself.-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 20:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)<sighs> Per Wikipedia guidelines: "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Secondary sources are not necessarily independent or third-party sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them. For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research. Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context. A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but if it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences. A book review too can be an opinion, summary or scholarly review."
I've gone ahead and tagged the primary sources that I spotted. Medeis, please replace them, as you said you would do. Note that in my earlier revision of the article which removed the poor sources, I did manage to cite some of this to secondary sources, so you could refer to that version. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 08:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
"This policy also applies to pages on social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook.""[- i. -] the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
[- ii. -] it does not involve claims about third parties;
[- iii. -] it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
[- iv. -] there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
[- v. -] the article is not based primarily on such sources.
Note that although - ii. - and - iii. - would not normally apply owing to the fact that the various opinions by Card in question are published (Note that Card's published opinions themselves are legitimate 2ndary sources when they are not about himself: eg about judicial activism in the service of Conservative Constitutionalism ((Along with Romney, Card sides with those on the side of "restraint"(?), perhaps to the chagrin of or Rand Paul-- or of Ted Cruz?, Mike Lee?, etc.? Also: hence Card's quick retreat with regard SSM in the face of recent federal court decisions, et cetera)) -- or his definition of science fiction as basically anything by someone categorized as a writer within the genre of sci-fi, lol).
Anyway lol - Regarding information, as gleaned from Card's columns/free-lance pieces articles, about Card HIMSELF: Owing to recent edits successful rendering no sections as "primarily based on [...primary] sources" (per - v. -, above), rather than a blanket rejection of any of Card's self-claims, I suggest we treat each instance of the recent tagging case-by-case, in consideration of of which we might reasonably "doubt as to its authenticity" or might be "unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim" (per - iv. - and - i. -).
-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 22:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Card's published opinions themselves are legitimate 2ndary sources when they are not about himself: eg about judicial activism in the service of Conservative Constitutionalism- Yes. At the article for conservative constitutionalism his article about that would be a secondary source. But none of this article is about any of those subjects but rather about his views on those subjects. I'll also point out that tagging primary sources is not a "bold" edit such that WP:BRD would apply. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Blps on commentators of note rightfully cite the primary sources of their columns and to do otherwise would be unencyclopedic; indeed I'm almost led to wonder whether Card's primary sources might be denigrated in perceived importance by WP contributors due institutional wp:BIAS? That is, owing to perception of a near-theocratic tincture to his opinions? in that Card allows that his conceptions of Mormonism constitute the underlying philosophy of philosophies, political and otherwise, as well as his worldview?"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."
Also I must reiterate that Card's various free-lance pieces and opinion and review columns are NOT wp:SELFPUBLISHED--owing to the fact that these prev. publ'd free-lance art.--or his reg. columns prev. published at Rhino Times (namely, 1991–2008 in this so-named, local, " alternative press," reviews-and-opinion rag or else 2008–present under its rubric as an online Wikipedia:NEWSBLOG.
Also note that citation template url fields such as those linking readers to such Card-hosted websites as Hatrack River/Hatrack.com or The Ornery American/Ornery.com are not part of the usual information necessary for a bibliographic citation but rather are simply provided as an extremely useful convenience to readers: Eg, all that is required would be:
--not:"Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press, 1971.",
--with its inclusion of a helpful url to link interested readers to Rawl's book's excerpts hosted online at Books.Google.com."Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press, 1971.",
-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 23:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
This article is so inundated with notation for secondary sources that it affects readability. While Wikipedia stresses the need for secondary sources as a form a verification and validity (too much so, in this biographer's opinion), in the context of this articles, requests for secondary sources of the subject's self-proclaimed beliefs border on absurd. Do we really need Salon to read Card's articles, quote them, and then re-state his voting record? That is not the legitimate function of a secondary source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.106.53.104 ( talk) 16:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
@ Chrononem: Can you add ellipses or suggest places where you feel ellipses would be necessary, rather than removing quotation marks for quotations from other people? We must properly attribute all quotations; it's not acceptable to present someone else's words as one's own. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 15:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Orson Scott Card. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 21:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Article should mention (within treatment of his politics and/or public image) that his subtle blacklisting remains ongoing. Whereas Card used to get invites for readings--that is, till he up and decided publically to not ONLY agree (for his own, religious reasons), coincidentally with much of what, say, Cardinal Bergoglio (now the Pope Francis) has had to say, quasi politically, about certain inherent weaknesses w/in free market capitalism, but, unfortunately for Mr. Card, to happen to agree with the Pope's stance against gay marriage ('tho note that unlike His Holiness, Card no longer advocates against same-sex unions). (References):
The opinion section seems surprisingly scarce other than information about his party association and his views on homosexuality. The Ender´s Game trilogy was rich with thematic information. For example, one could detail views on war based on how his character, Andrew Wiggins, killed many of his enemies, including Stilson, Bonzo Madrid, (almost) the whole race of Buggers and a Hive Queen, in order to make sure that they could´t ever hurt him again, or to end a conflict swiftly and efficiently. Andrew Wiggins could prove exemplary by Orson Scott Card´s design, perhaps detailing some of Cards´ views on war or conflict. The question is if the values expressed in his fiction books are his own, and how much his writing and the actions of his characters reflect his own view. - 66.154.208.26 ( talk) 19:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Reading through this section today, there were a lot of cases of partial quotes, two or three words at a time, with Wikipedia inserting words in the middle, trying to paraphrase him. This was especially true in the description of the 1990 essay.
This is fine in theory, but going to the original source and reading it, I came away with a totally different picture of his viewpoint than I had from the Wikipedia article. To attempt to rectify this, I made a series of edits to replace partial quotes with complete sentences, and added a few additional block quotes from him that clarified his position.
Here are a few of the misconceptions I came away with after reading the article that were rectified when I read the original sources:
Since there was some discussion back in 2015 regarding the use of quotes, I figured I'd come here and explain my reasoning behind adding these in. I recognize that there are potential style issues with over-quoting, as discussed in 2015, but this was the quickest way I could find to make Wikipedia's description of Card's views match his own. I can get behind attempts to clean this up that are in harmony with this goal.
![]() | 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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
The material on Card's views about homosexuality needs to be cut back, per WP:UNDUE. I do appreciate that Card's views have attracted attention and need to be covered, but there is quite simply too much detail on the subject. Looking at the "views on homosexuality" section, my first reaction is that it could be cut back by roughly 50%. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 06:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
They have short reviews which run up to about 300 words (quite a bit longer than the Card one trying to be used for a major "homosexuality=pedophilia" claim which Card strongly denied)) but also have substantial articles as well. The short reviews are intended basically as a precis at best. Cheers Collect ( talk) 13:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
@ Medeis: Can you explain why you believe these self-published sources don't fall foul of "Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so." and "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves...so long as...The article is not based primarily on such sources." (Read "section" for "article" here, of course, given the immense length of the section.) Usually the SELFPUB exception is for things like small biographical details that secondary sources don't pick up - or, here, I retained Card's self-published change of heart as to whether homosexuality should be illegal, so that a false impression of his position isn't given. But your argument appears to be WP:ITSINTERESTING, and that's not policy. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 03:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
In any case, per the wp guideline first mentioned above, "[...A]rticles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." And, what are Hatrack River's re-published OSC columns from the Rhino Times but primary, re Scott Card's own opinions; and, secondary, as pertaining to non-Card topics commented/reported on from Card's POV. See:
"... ... ...
"The Rhino’s last edition was big at 80 pages, packed with ads and stories. Those stories, combining nostalgia and the same poke-at-the-powers-that-be (including the News & Record) for which the Rhino was known gave this final issue an oddly schizophrenic feel.
"[The Rhinoceros Times's editor, John] Hammer waxes gently, eloquently, about the newspaper’s 21 years and what they meant to him.
"'I’d like to stay here in my office typing away on an old iMac until I wear out another keyboard,' he wrote in a farewell column. 'But life changes. Some people naturally embrace change but most of us don’t.'
"Then in a long story about city government, he pokes at the City Council [bl-blah--blah bl-blah].
"From Orson Scott Card there is an exercise in predicting the future, wherein President Obama unleashes gangs of youth onto law-abiding Americans in a scheme to make himself president for life. Card indulges in this way for multiple pages, then affects a 'never mind' nonchalance by saying he was only writing informed fiction.
"... ... ..."
Hence a column by Card whether originally published in print by The Rhinoseros Times or whether thereafter self- re-published by Card himself at his website <shrugs!> is a secondary source about a subject Card is commenting on; although it may be considered a "primary" source to the extent it reveals information, and esp. that which would not be otherwise knowable, about Card himself.-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 20:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)<sighs> Per Wikipedia guidelines: "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Secondary sources are not necessarily independent or third-party sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them. For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research. Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context. A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but if it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences. A book review too can be an opinion, summary or scholarly review."
I've gone ahead and tagged the primary sources that I spotted. Medeis, please replace them, as you said you would do. Note that in my earlier revision of the article which removed the poor sources, I did manage to cite some of this to secondary sources, so you could refer to that version. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 08:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
"This policy also applies to pages on social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook.""[- i. -] the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
[- ii. -] it does not involve claims about third parties;
[- iii. -] it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
[- iv. -] there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
[- v. -] the article is not based primarily on such sources.
Note that although - ii. - and - iii. - would not normally apply owing to the fact that the various opinions by Card in question are published (Note that Card's published opinions themselves are legitimate 2ndary sources when they are not about himself: eg about judicial activism in the service of Conservative Constitutionalism ((Along with Romney, Card sides with those on the side of "restraint"(?), perhaps to the chagrin of or Rand Paul-- or of Ted Cruz?, Mike Lee?, etc.? Also: hence Card's quick retreat with regard SSM in the face of recent federal court decisions, et cetera)) -- or his definition of science fiction as basically anything by someone categorized as a writer within the genre of sci-fi, lol).
Anyway lol - Regarding information, as gleaned from Card's columns/free-lance pieces articles, about Card HIMSELF: Owing to recent edits successful rendering no sections as "primarily based on [...primary] sources" (per - v. -, above), rather than a blanket rejection of any of Card's self-claims, I suggest we treat each instance of the recent tagging case-by-case, in consideration of of which we might reasonably "doubt as to its authenticity" or might be "unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim" (per - iv. - and - i. -).
-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 22:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Card's published opinions themselves are legitimate 2ndary sources when they are not about himself: eg about judicial activism in the service of Conservative Constitutionalism- Yes. At the article for conservative constitutionalism his article about that would be a secondary source. But none of this article is about any of those subjects but rather about his views on those subjects. I'll also point out that tagging primary sources is not a "bold" edit such that WP:BRD would apply. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Blps on commentators of note rightfully cite the primary sources of their columns and to do otherwise would be unencyclopedic; indeed I'm almost led to wonder whether Card's primary sources might be denigrated in perceived importance by WP contributors due institutional wp:BIAS? That is, owing to perception of a near-theocratic tincture to his opinions? in that Card allows that his conceptions of Mormonism constitute the underlying philosophy of philosophies, political and otherwise, as well as his worldview?"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."
Also I must reiterate that Card's various free-lance pieces and opinion and review columns are NOT wp:SELFPUBLISHED--owing to the fact that these prev. publ'd free-lance art.--or his reg. columns prev. published at Rhino Times (namely, 1991–2008 in this so-named, local, " alternative press," reviews-and-opinion rag or else 2008–present under its rubric as an online Wikipedia:NEWSBLOG.
Also note that citation template url fields such as those linking readers to such Card-hosted websites as Hatrack River/Hatrack.com or The Ornery American/Ornery.com are not part of the usual information necessary for a bibliographic citation but rather are simply provided as an extremely useful convenience to readers: Eg, all that is required would be:
--not:"Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press, 1971.",
--with its inclusion of a helpful url to link interested readers to Rawl's book's excerpts hosted online at Books.Google.com."Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press, 1971.",
-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 23:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
This article is so inundated with notation for secondary sources that it affects readability. While Wikipedia stresses the need for secondary sources as a form a verification and validity (too much so, in this biographer's opinion), in the context of this articles, requests for secondary sources of the subject's self-proclaimed beliefs border on absurd. Do we really need Salon to read Card's articles, quote them, and then re-state his voting record? That is not the legitimate function of a secondary source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.106.53.104 ( talk) 16:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
@ Chrononem: Can you add ellipses or suggest places where you feel ellipses would be necessary, rather than removing quotation marks for quotations from other people? We must properly attribute all quotations; it's not acceptable to present someone else's words as one's own. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 15:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Orson Scott Card. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 21:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Article should mention (within treatment of his politics and/or public image) that his subtle blacklisting remains ongoing. Whereas Card used to get invites for readings--that is, till he up and decided publically to not ONLY agree (for his own, religious reasons), coincidentally with much of what, say, Cardinal Bergoglio (now the Pope Francis) has had to say, quasi politically, about certain inherent weaknesses w/in free market capitalism, but, unfortunately for Mr. Card, to happen to agree with the Pope's stance against gay marriage ('tho note that unlike His Holiness, Card no longer advocates against same-sex unions). (References):
The opinion section seems surprisingly scarce other than information about his party association and his views on homosexuality. The Ender´s Game trilogy was rich with thematic information. For example, one could detail views on war based on how his character, Andrew Wiggins, killed many of his enemies, including Stilson, Bonzo Madrid, (almost) the whole race of Buggers and a Hive Queen, in order to make sure that they could´t ever hurt him again, or to end a conflict swiftly and efficiently. Andrew Wiggins could prove exemplary by Orson Scott Card´s design, perhaps detailing some of Cards´ views on war or conflict. The question is if the values expressed in his fiction books are his own, and how much his writing and the actions of his characters reflect his own view. - 66.154.208.26 ( talk) 19:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Reading through this section today, there were a lot of cases of partial quotes, two or three words at a time, with Wikipedia inserting words in the middle, trying to paraphrase him. This was especially true in the description of the 1990 essay.
This is fine in theory, but going to the original source and reading it, I came away with a totally different picture of his viewpoint than I had from the Wikipedia article. To attempt to rectify this, I made a series of edits to replace partial quotes with complete sentences, and added a few additional block quotes from him that clarified his position.
Here are a few of the misconceptions I came away with after reading the article that were rectified when I read the original sources:
Since there was some discussion back in 2015 regarding the use of quotes, I figured I'd come here and explain my reasoning behind adding these in. I recognize that there are potential style issues with over-quoting, as discussed in 2015, but this was the quickest way I could find to make Wikipedia's description of Card's views match his own. I can get behind attempts to clean this up that are in harmony with this goal.