Talk:Orson Scott Card

Merger proposal

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. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 17:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

One vs. Some

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)

It's incorrect to put "some" when in fact only one person was quoted as saying it. Comments from the public in relation to the article are not evidence of anything as they cannot be verified (anybody can leave a comment on a website and say that they're gay when they're not). The details of the DC Comics controversy do seem to get played down in this article sometimes, and I've noticed the removal of valid sources with regards to the online petition. Since it seems to have caused quite a storm for both Card and DC Comics, the matter should be included in the article fully without any weasel wording or bias for or against Card. It's relevant to put that the petition gained over 17,000 supporters, though its also relevant to state DC Comics position on the matter. Additonally, it's also relevant to include the fact that Card's Superman story was put on hold, and that it has now officially been replaced by another writer's story in the first issue of the comic. Particled (talk) 15:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree that one is not the same as some. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 00:11, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The Petition was removed because WP is not a place to promote advocacy. It is fine to report (as has been done by reliable sources) that there is a petition. It is not fine to link to the petition, which only serves to attack a living person. Arzel (talk) 01:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Card's Long History of Homophobia

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) What section did you read? It goes on and on about his views on homosexuality. It also talks about his references to it in his stories. Maybe you didn't like it because it's neutral point-of-view? — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 21:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC) "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) Depends on your measure. If you want to measure by sheer profitability, surely "death taxes" as a pejorative for the inheritance taxes beloved by such conservative icons as Thomas Jefferson has been the most profitable neologism in human history. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:20, 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)

Change to bibliography

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)

Famous Relatives?

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)?

Not just about marriage

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)

To clarify, are you arguing that we should include "homophobe" in the lede? Millernumber1 (talk) 01:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Certainly not. We should either use more general language ("opposition to LGBT rights" rather than "opposition to same-sex marriage") or enumerate more of the issues ("claim of an association between homosexuality and child abuse" in addition to "opposition to same-sex marriage"). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:59, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I can sort of see your argument, but what rights, other than marriage, does Card oppose? Millernumber1 (talk) 02:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmm...his 1990 comments supporting criminalization of homosexuality are still very much in the public mind, but we'd want to avoid implying that he hasn't repudiated them. (The past-tense used in the lede, "have drawn," might allow that to work...the reader would simply read the section as a whole to learn both the details of that position and the fact that he doesn't hold it anymore.) The comments and works claiming a connection between homosexuality and child molestation are more recent. Maybe, thinking it over again, we could broaden the statement to "whose anti-gay opinions and political positions..." so that we're not stating incorrectly that it's just about actions. what do you think? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:45, 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)

I'm...really leery of Roscelese's proposed solution. I think that the "opinions, including" section both indicates what types of opinions, but doesn't overstate. The homosexuality section in the article is already very long - longer than any other section - including what he's most famous for, his novel writing. Yes, it's very much in the public eye right now, but the controversy is caused by about four essays he's written, among hundred of other essays and dozens of novels in the same time period. I think putting that much emphasis on his statements and actions concerning one issue is really walking the tightrope of NPOV - it certainly seems right now that the form of the article is radically unbalanced (and has been for quite a while).

Regarding Millahnna's comments - as I said (and as even the Salon article you link shows), his comments are pretty much limited to about four articles - hardly "latching onto" the subject.

If there's something he's said since the repudiated 1990 article where he specifically opposes LGBT rights, I think that would be worth discussing putting in the lede - but I'm not aware of any. Millernumber1 (talk) 03:02, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

As I said (but perhaps wasn't clear) the nature of the numerous controversies may mean that "anti-gay" rather than "opposing LGBT rights" is a better phrasing, since he's repeatedly tried to link homosexuality and child molestation in recent years without (as far as I am aware) trying to restrict any rights based on this position - including in his fiction writing, not just essays - and separately, has taken action against marriage laws. We can find a broader phrasing that encompasses both. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The expression "opposing LGBT rights" should be avoided. Since "LGBT" includes transsexual issues, using it would imply that Card opposes transsexual rights. In fact the article says nothing about what views, if any, Card has on transsexual or transgender issues. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I think "anti-gay," while certainly not as inflammatory as "homophobe," still teeters on the edge of NPOV. Given the article's already precarious balance issues, are there any alternatives to "anti-gay?" (Additionally, given OSC's warm relationships with some open homosexuals such as Janis Ian, I don't know that "anti-gay" is quite true. Yes, these friendships do not negate his published opinions, but they do indicate that he doesn't practice hate in his personal life.) Millernumber1 (talk) 13:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

"His negative comments about gay people and homosexuality" sounds both too wordy and too mild as a reflection of the article contents. (Also there's still the issue of how the opinions come up in his fiction too.) Throwing the idea out there anyway in case you can riff on it... Maybe "anti-gay writings and political activism"? After all, the comments were written in essays, right? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

What about "whose opinions, including negative comments about homosexuality"? I still think that "opposition to same-sex marriage" is pretty representative, but as an alternative that is more general, I think this might be fair? Millernumber1 (talk) 16:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I have nothing constructive to say here

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)

If you believe that the section should be shortened, then by all means explain which parts should be removed and why. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that the article could be a lot more summary and a lot less quotation at length. Not removing anything, but keeping in the same style as the politics or science paragraphs in the same section. Millernumber1 (talk) 13:17, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I read the article for the first time yesterday and had the same impression as the IP, namely that the article on Card, who is most notable for being an author, spent more time talking about his views on gay marriage than it did his writing career. I believe the name of this problem is WP:COATRACk, i.e. "hanging" the politically-charged hot topic of the day on articles that have a "hook". Undoubtedly Card is a "hook" given his opinions and position on the National Organization for Marriage, but the fact still stands that he is most notable for being an author. I plan on looking over the section when I get more time and hopefully trimming it a little. Summarizing quotes is a good plan, I think. ~Adjwilley (talk) 13:59, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree that summarizing quotes is a good idea - and vis-à-vis the comparative length of the part on his sci-fi work, we could always use more about that! Surely the sources must be available. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

"and outspoken homophobe" in the opening line does *not* violate BLP

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*"

• Cite some actual language from the BLP please.

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)

Please ask at WP:BLPN. It seems to be an unambiguous BLP violation: it is inflammatory and unattributed, written in the voice of wikipedia. Your editing will probably be restricted if you continue (slow) edit warring to insert this kind of non-neutral content. Within the main body of the article, there is the possibility of adding attributed properly sourced and carefully composed statements. That has already been done to some extent. The last neutral sentence in the lede states Card's position clearly enough without engaging in inflammatory rhetoric and was the result of long discussions on this page. Mathsci (talk) 09:03, 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)

In addition to being a BLP problem, calling someone a "homophobe" also violates WP:LABEL which states "Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." I think we can probably agree that "homophobe" is a value-laden label, and that most sources do not label Card as such. ~Adjwilley (talk) 13:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I actually don't agree that homophobe is a value-laden label, at least not any moreso than "activist" or "liberal" - which come up in biography pages all the times. Most sources do indeed label him as such - he speaks out as a homophobe. The man *is* a homophobe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashwinr (talk • contribs) 16:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Mathsci and Ashwinr. Calling someone a "homophobe" violates WP:NPOV, WP:LABEL, and is inflammatory. I actually goes against WP:LABEL as it say they "are best avoided". It goes againstWP:NPOV as the ;page addresses his views on Homosexuality in a much more WP:NPOV way later on. By adding "homophobe" it inserts Ashwinr's, and others, personal POV.

To include it on this page is an BLP violation of the worst kind and It should not be included, as --ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 16:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)