Talk:Orson Scott Card

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page. Please feel free to add your name the project participation list and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.
Cleanup Taskforce article This article is being improved by the Cleanup Taskforce to conform with a higher standard of article quality. It is likely to change frequently until completed. Please see its Cleanup Taskforce page for more details.
Cleanup Taskforce page → Edit | Purge

[edit] Orson Scott Card

The two main problems with this article are that the lead section is far too long, and that so few references have been added. I have attempted to address the second concern, but the first gets a bit messy for me: I'm not sure where to move the information and I haven't decided on a lead section that looks quite right, so I'll ask you to help out with this.

There are a few instances of weasel words, such as "...have generated a certain amount of controversy in the community of science fiction fandom." how much controversy are we talking about? Are we talking about one or two science fiction readers complaining? "...has confused many as to how a writer who sometimes portray gays positively in his fiction can be so virulently opposed to the gay-rights movement in his nonfiction writing" confused how many, and who specifically?

The Early life and Family sections are one paragraph each, perhaps they could be merged somehow? I can't think of an appropriate name for the new section, however. --Lethargy 02:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Update: it may be better to just remove the science fiction fandom controversy. We may never find reliable sources to back that up, and science fiction fandom is a small enough place that we may be talking about one or two posts to a forum. --Lethargy 16:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


Added to User:Heidijane/Desk RJFJR 16:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Contents

Archive 1

[edit] Article assessment

According to OSC at http://www.hatrack.com/osc/reviews/everything/2007-02-18.shtml , the article has several factual errors.

I don't want to comment on the accuracy of Card's description of his interaction with Wikipedia. Perhaps someone should contact him and ask him what errors he feels are in the article. I'm also interested to know when he was trying to edit the article, as I'd like to review the page history; it's hard to dig this information out of hundreds of edits. Avt tor 18:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


---

Just thought I'd give some feedback on how to improve the article, the first thing I notice is that the current lead section is far too long, see Wikipedia:Lead section:

“ The lead section should provide a clear and concise introduction to an article's topic, establish context, and define the terms. It should contain several paragraphs, depending on the length of the article, and should provide an overview of the main points the article will make, summarizing the primary reasons the subject matter is interesting or notable, and including a mention of its notable controversies, if there are any. The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, should be written in a clear and accessible style, should be carefully sourced like the rest of the text, and should encourage the reader to read more. ”

Also see Wikipedia:Lead section#Length:

“ The appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article. As a general guideline, the lead should be no longer than three to four paragraphs. ”

Bold added by me. --Lethargy 20:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The next thing I see is that there are a lot of needed citations (see Wikipedia:Footnotes). I'll add them as I can, but this will need to be a group effort. --Lethargy 20:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Add the {{fact}} tag where you needed it...  :) ---J.S (t|c) 06:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opinions and Politics are OT

I think we should just remove all of his personal opinions and politics from the article as this should remain an article about him and his work. Many of the opinions in this section seem POV and I think the section should just be removed as it doesn't belong.Grand Slam 7 00:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

They contribute to the completeness of the article. Who says it just has to be about him and his fiction? Would an article on Christopher Reeve be complete if it just talked about his acting work? Card has published several non-fiction peices with his personal views; it is logical that his views be covered in this article. NPOV-ing them is something we always have to work on. — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
No science fiction message board is worthy of the name if it doesn't have an "Orson Scott Card is a bigoted asshole/you're an intolerant liberal" thread at least once a month. While the section could certainly use some trimming and rewriting, Card is one of the most outspoken individuals in the genre and his views are essential to any understanding of him, as well as his place in the genre. Stilgar135 03:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree that this section should be included, but it needs to be rewritten for both neutrality and verifiability. I submitted this for the Cleanup Taskforce, but the person it was assigned to hasn't contributed since August. --Lethargy 03:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of books

I came to this site hoping for a list of books, and I was a little disappointed. It has a lot of biography and explanation, but little talk of his writings, which is probably what most people come here for. See Terry Brooks for a good example of what I'm talking about. Do I have any takers? -Patstuart 05:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

And as if to prove my point, I could find out nothing about the Homecoming series (which I've truly come to love) except that it has controversy through a homosexual man. I'm considered editing the page to include a list of novels. -Patstuart 05:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
By all means, be bold and add a bibliography. However, if you're actually saying that we should cut out big biographical chunks to "make room" for a bibliography, I vehemnently disagree. His beliefs are incredibly important to his place in the science fiction community as few other writers' are and are essential to the page. Stilgar135 13:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
By no means; I only meant we should have a bibliography. -Patstuart 19:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
What about List of works by Orson Scott Card? — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I started to work on the list myself, and then I found this, so I just provided a link to that page under a {{main}} tag. -Patstuart 06:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to move the list to the top, under a {{see also}} tag so it's more obvious. If anyone has a problem, go ahead and revert it. -Patstuart 01:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a bit redundent to the see-also section, but I guess thats ok. ---J.S (t|c) 17:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Salon.com as a source

''A member of [[The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]] (commonly clled the LDS or Mormon Church), some of his novels have stories explicitly drawn from scripture or church history. His religious and political beliefs have drawn the ire of science fiction fans, making him a provocative figure within the genre.<ref>[http://archive.salon.com/books/feature/2000/02/03/card/index.html My favorite author, my worst interview]. Donna Minkowitz, ''salon.com''</ref>

That source (A salon.com interview) doesnt backup the assertion that "religious and political beliefs have drawn the ire of science fiction fans"... It's an opinion peace of one author. And it's Salon.com... common. That's a highly bias website... we need to be exceptionally careful when we use it as a source like this. Unless we can reword the paragraph or find a better source I'll be removing the paragraph in a day or two. Thanks, ---J.S (t|c) 06:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the Solon and personal website source. I think it's clear that he dislikes homosexuality but we need to state it in an unbiased way... AND if we can't find acceptable secondary or primary sources then we can't include it. The Solon interview would be OK as a PIMARY source but not as a secondary source... the personal website simply isn't acceptable as a source since it's a personal website.
In a while I'm going to go thought the entire homosexuality section and remove everything that isn't supported with a source. ---J.S (t|c)

[edit] focus of article

Do we really need huge sections on a science fiction writer's specific political and religious views, while focusing relatively little on his literary work and biographic information? --NEMT 21:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

He is faily outspoken... *shrug* but your right. ---J.S (t|c) 20:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
The proper solution, then, is to increase the amount of information on his literary work and biographic information. Stilgar135 23:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Philosophy

Would it be possible to have a section of the page dedicated to his philosophy. His books arent just science fiction they have a certain evaluation of humans and humanity and it quickly becomes philosophy in the later series of his books (homecoming series included). Of course this will all be oppinionated but as long as it's realistic to OSC's books i think it would be more interesting then talking about his "morality" and "political oppinions". Anyone motivated? —The preceding comment is by 82.255.139.101 (talk • contribs) : Please sign your posts!

I whole heartedly concur. Being a reader of his, his religion and philosophy are considerably more important than indivudal aspects of it, (i.e., homosexuality, politics). While some are overtly religious (e.g., Homecoming), others just have religious themes (e.g., Worthing Saga and its emphasis showing problems with unchecked sexuality and abortion). Just looking at these two issues is an improper focus. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 01:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Wouldn't this entail original research, which is beyond the scope of wikipedia? Though I certainly find it interesting how his anti-choice and homophobic opinions are reflected in his fiction: wouldn't this be a separate page? Yonmei 18:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's any more OR than what's already on the page. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 18:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orson Scott Card's fans and OSC's homophobia

I noted that Lethargy had changed "many fans" to "some fans" and requested a cite.

This is difficult, and I'd appreciate advice how to resolve it. It's possible to find out that many/some fans of Orson Scott Card's do not agree with/dislike his homophobic beliefs googling - yet I appreciate that we can hardly link to a googlesearch in a wiki article! We could of course link to the multiple references to Orson Scott Card's homophobia by fans of his work, but I'm concerned that this would overload the reference section.

There exist at least three interviews/essays written by self-identified fans of his work, all three of which are cited from the article, which clearly state both that they are fans of his fiction but disagree with the homophobic views expressed in some of his non-fiction essays. How many more references do we need to be able to say that many/some of his fans do disagree with his homophobic beliefs? Yonmei 21:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The relevant policies are at Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. If we could cite two reliable sources for these views, we could use the word "some", although naming specific people would probably be better; "many" should be avoided like the plague. --Lethargy 21:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree with Lethargy. I have no desire to make an enemy of you, Yonmei, but some of your editions have made heavy use of weasel words (e.g., "a religious view against homosexuality is unfounded", which was reverted). -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 21:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I agreed with the reverts, once I'd had time to think it over, so no worries. The original version, with its presumption that the only reason fans of Orson Scott Card thought he was homophobic was that they just didn't understand his views, really had to be changed to remove that presumption, but my first attempt wasn't a good one.Yonmei 21:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, three sources have been cited from self-identified fans. What more do we need to be able to say "some"? Yonmei 21:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

1) Add those citations to the specific statement in question.
2) Make sure that those citations properly support the "irrational and bigoted" statement.
3) Ensure that those sources are reliable.
I haven't checked all of the sources myself, but I'll let you decide if they are reliable sources for now. I'm very lazy. --Lethargy 22:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
1) and 2) are no problem. 3) is a difficulty. Most fans writing about their fannish interests self-publish. Therefore, if we interpret the reliability rules strictly, although I can easily find multiple instances of fans of Orson Scott Card saying they think Orson Scott Card is homophobic, we can't actually even say "some fans" since all but one of the sources I have found are... self-published. That seems slightly absurd to me. What do you think? Yonmei 23:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I see your point, but I disagree with it being absurd. IMO if something isn't in a reliable source, it probably isn't worth mentioning here. Otherwise it probably would have been published in a reliable source. If we only have one reliable source, we should rephrase it to "[Person's name] argues that Card's views are homophobic...", which sounds better IMO. "some fans" could be interpreted as a bunch of teenagers posting on a forum. Naming a specific person establishes that this isn't coming from random fans. --Lethargy 23:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, here's the problem.
In a fairly quick trawl through Google, I came up with the following self-published sources, all fans of Orson Scott Card's work, all critical of his homophobia:
Librarian in Black
Joi Ito
Boing Boing net
Alas a Blog
Apostropher
Whatever
Voices of Unreason
Pharyngula
DPS info
Popular Culture Gaming
Nuwen News
Plus a couple of sample discussion threads:
Ezboard discussion thread
Chronicles Network discussion thread
Yet because only one source isn't self-published, no matter how much evidence there is out there that some fans of OSCs are critical of OSC's homophobia, we can't actually say so?
(This is the non-self-published source: Salon.com
That really does seem absurd. It's not so much that the sources can't be considered "reliable": it's that there are so many of them, and plainly not just "a bunch of teenagers posting on a forum".
Yonmei 00:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I won't pretend to be an authority on weasel words, but here is my opinion: we could use the word "some", but in general it should be avoided. There are good reasons for this at Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. Even if there is strong support for criticism coming from more than one source (which is probably true a majority of the time), we should take only the most reliable of those sources and state their arguments, so the readers immediately see that this is a reliable person who is stating this, rather than an unknown person with a blog or posters to a forum, which, if allowed as sources, we could use to support almost any argument imaginable. Additionally, if we use the words "some" or "many", we have to phrase the statement so that it is supported by every citation provided, whereas naming a specific source allows us to be more specific with a persons complaints (I hope that makes sense). Perhaps we should get some people with a solid understanding of the issue to comment here, but for now I will not stop the use of "some" in this particular instance. --Lethargy 00:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
My 2 Cents...

If we can't link to a notable/reliable source that says they have this view... then the view is fringe and we are under obligation to cover it. If we need to link to a dozen no-name blogs to prove the point then we are engaging in OR. ---J.S (t|c) 16:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I was actually quite startled that there aren't more published sources referencing Orson Scott Card's homophobia: it's so well-known in science-fiction fandom that I was genuinely started to find the only published resource is the interview on Salon.com. I'll continue to look - there's an essay been published about Orson Scott Card's attitude to homosexual men, but I'm not aware of an online link. I am aware that Orson Scott Card doesn't like having his homophobic beliefs identified as homophobic, and there are several second-hand reports (I've never had any direct encounters with him) of his trying to discourage people printing things about him that he doesn't like.
What I am trying to do here is to source what is a well-known issue with a well-known writer - his public homophobia - to sources that are valid for wikipedia. I think that's a valid objective.Yonmei 17:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Until there is a better source then an editorial on salon.com then we can't include it. The test on wikipedia is verifiability not truth. And there is no reason to believe he has the mental disorder of "homophobia." Your tossing around this phrase way to library. (a phobia is a deep-seeded physiological disorder... disliking homosexuals activity is either bigotry or the result of a particular religious interpretation) ---J.S (t|c) 17:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
And there is no reason to believe he has the mental disorder of "homophobia." Er, I think you are confused as to the meaning of homophobia. It can mean an "irrational fear of LGBT people", though psychiatrists tend to prefer "homonegativity" for a mental disorder, but it also means "aversion to" or "discrimination against". Orson Scott Card has made clear that he holds prejudiced beliefs about, and advocates discriminating against LGBT people - that's verifiable from his non-fiction writing. It is asserted in the article that he holds the homophobic belief that lesbian, gay, or bisexual people would be happier in a mixed-sex relationship than a same-sex relationship.
All of this is verifiable: the only question is whether it can be verified to Wikipedia standards that his homophobic beliefs are an issue for fans of his work, and this is what I am having a difficulty with, though the various links I provided make it clear, I hope, that his homophobic beliefs are an issue for some fans of his work.
But again, I repeat: this is not a question of identifying Orson Scott Card as having a "mental disorder": I never suggested that, and I'm surprised you would.
Yonmei 18:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
It's definitely not a fringe view, and it should be included somewhere; that being said, let's state it in a NPOV fashion and avoid weasel words; I'm all for that. BTW, Yonmei, if I could humbly offer some advise: continuing to call it homophobia, and using other terms like "anti-choice", might be OK on the discussion page, but it makes it look like you have an agenda in asserting these comments. This is not criticism, just a helpful hint. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 17:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm all for avoiding "weasel words", hence my attempt to find other non-selfpublished sources! It's taking a while, but I'll get there: I think a reference library visit may be in order this weekend (I know, what a prospect: page references instead of online links!)
Yonmei 18:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of information per WP:BLP

Per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, which are particularly strict guidelines, I chopped out a lot of the information from the homosexuality section which was either unreferenced, poorly referenced, awkwardly worded, or weasel worded. This can be added back later but please discuss it here first. --Lethargy 18:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me if the material I just added is similar to what was cut - I hadn't read this discussion at that time, had just run across "Hypocrites of Homosexuality" in another context and saw it wasn't referenced here.
DanB†DanD 05:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marvel.com

The primary purpose of the Marvel.com link is to sell his comics. That doesnt really add much value for the article. Wikipedia doesn't want to be a link-gallery. ---J.S (t|c) 16:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I hadn't realised it was a sales site. Yonmei 17:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] North Carolina writer?

I noticed that someone just added Card to "North Carolina writers" category. What does this mean? Does it mean:

  1. This writer writes about North Carolina
  2. This writers writings are influenced by North Carolina
  3. This writer is from North Carolina (but doesn't necessarily still live there)
  4. This writer lives in North Carolina

Card fails all but the last bullet. Card should be removed from the category, IMHO, until the category is clarified. This goes for all other "<Location> writers" categories. — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

If you don't like the definition of the cat, then the cat's talk page or CFD are the best places to deal with it.
As for how the cat relates to card... I think number 3 is the best qualifier. If card was born/raised in NC then I think it would be reasonable to include him in the cat. However, if he just live there right now... then it doesn't seem like a good cat for him. I'll raise this issue on the writers by location talk. Remove him if you want... but we need to find out whats going on with the cat for a long-term solution. ---J.S (T/C) 19:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Card lives there now, but didn't grow up there. I'll bring the ambiguity of the category up on the cat talk page. — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

IMO, location for categories refers to where the author did their writing, not birth or growing up. Avt tor 21:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

But he did write about North Carolina in several different books. (e.g. "Lost Boys", "Homebody", "Ender's Game", and a couple of the Shadow books.) Sounds like a North Carolina writer to me.

[edit] Video game

Didn't he also write a science-fiction video game recently? Brutannica 20:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe the game you are thinking of is called Advent Rising which he wrote the story for. Actually, he has done work on several Video Games, including a few by LucasArts where he did scripting work. It would probably be a good idea to at least mention it in the article. Does anyone here know his gaming credits? 66.52.222.79 03:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, he did some of the Dialogue for the video game "The Dig", and he wrote the insults for "Monkey Island 2:The Secret of Monkey Island". Hope that helps.--JYHASH 22:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Or perhaps you are thinking of Empire, which is part of a franchise that includes the book, a video game, and a comic book. Gotterfunken 03:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The eternal pendulum on Card and homosexuality

As seems to be its wont, this article has swung from vituperation of Card's views, back to minimisation. I find especially problematic the phrase "As a member of the LDS Church". This reads like editorialisation that his stance on homosexuality is normative or minimalist for a Saint, which I think is dubious -- and at any rate OR and POV. Certainly, most Church members don't have newspaper columns and high-profile political websites in which they go out of their way to campaign on these issues. I'm also less than convinced about deletion of mention of "fannish" criticism of Card: its volume is hardly in doubt, and isn't Cory Doctorow on BoingBoing a sufficiently notable instance of such? Alai 04:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article Image

I think there should be a better picture. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.196.213.82 (talk • contribs).

So does everyone else, but it is the best we have. Tried to get one via his website, failed. He wanted a better one here too, but doesn't own the copyright to the photos on his site. The image we have now is much better than what we used to have. — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, I personally like the current one because it's natural, in a more candid setting, instead of in a studio protrait. The thing is, it sounds like hd does own the copyright - he did specifically "grant permission" for it to be used on WP. But Wikipedia:Fair use prohibits an unfree or "permission only" image when a free one exists (there was one before). Hbdragon88 05:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Political Writings Section

it doesn't have any citations... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Perpetualization (talk • contribs) 16:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Director

Should there be a mention of his directing plays? 63.165.157.99 06:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

IMO, if the plays themselves are notable (not the texts, the performances, i.e. does the theater company have a Wikipedia entry), then directing would certainly be worthy of mention. Avt tor 21:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, he directed Shakespeare's "The Taming of the Shrew" that was "Adapted for Modern understanding by Orson Scott Card" (got that from the play's program)at SVU. It was acted outed by mostly students. 63.165.156.185 22:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
So that would be a "no", then. Avt tor 05:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../o/r/s/Talk%7EOrson_Scott_Card_c9f8.html"