Talk:Orson Scott Card/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

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)

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)

I don't think this section is ever going to be completed as the two side's are never going agree on "Fair and Balanced". Witness "Orson Scott Card is a bigoted asshole/you're an intolerant liberal". Put this huge cesspool of a discussion that will never end on another page.

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)

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)

I moved the Salon piece down into view on sexuality, but I don't think it really belongs in the article. I propose killing it altogether. It's not a very good source, it's more of an opinion piece than anything else, and it just doesn't fit very well. --Micah Hainline 17:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.255.139.101 (talk • contribs)

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)

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:

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)

Literary Criticism Source for OSC Images/Themes of Gay Men...

This article isn't on the web, so it'll be hard for everyone here to read it an verify the source, but there is an original research article (by an academic, not a fan) in the 2002 New York Review of Science Fiction which thoroughly describes the images of male bodies in OSC's fiction and the violence that happens to gay characters. This should be cited here. The article is Kate Bonin, “Gay Sex and Death in the Science Fiction of Orson Scott Card”, 172, 15, 4 (December 2002), pp.17-21. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lkondolian (talk • contribs) 02:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

I really don't understand why this section is in here anyway? Why not a section on how he feels about commies, or hairdressers? seems like someone has some kind of agenda at wok putting this here, i nominate the section for DELETION.--71.97.131.16 19:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Homophilia???

Um, has anyone raised or discussed the issue that, for an author that is avowedly against homosexual relations, there is quite a bit of gay sex in his books? After being criticized that the main characters engaged in gay sex in Songmaster, Card responded:

What the novel offers is a treatment of characters who share, between them, a forbidden act that took place because of hunger on one side, compassion on the other, and genuine love and friendship on both parts. I was not trying to show that homosexuality was "beautiful" or "natural" -- in fact, sex of any kind is likely to be "beautiful" only to the participants, and it is hard to make a case for the naturalness of such an obviously counter-evolutionary trend as same-sex mating. Those issues were irrelevant. The friendship between Ansset and Josef was the beautiful and natural thing, even if it eventually led them on a mutually self-destructive path. (quote pulled from Songmaster entry)

Additionally, in the Ender's game series, the main character Ender experiences a "crush" on an older boy while in military school, and later in the series is stuck in a sexless heterosexual marriage. It seems like Card's writing sure explores a lot of gay content, and particularly, older/younger male relationships. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.251.101.34 (talk) 21:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

What insinuation are you trying to make here? Orson Scott Card has written something on the level of forty books. How do two gay characters, one sexless marriage, and a "man-crush" (which you apparently made up) amount to "Homophilia" or "a lot of gay content" or (are you kidding?) "a lot of older/younger male relationships"? Especially when you compare it to "Enchantment" or "Alvin Journeyman" or any of the REST of his books, which are filled with wonderful, fulfilling, exciting heterosexual romances and relationships? Are you twelve years old, such that a few scanty references to gayness make you giggle, and override the entire experience of reading Orson Scott Card's work?

I'm horrified that people like you contribute to Wikipedia. It makes me want to follow you around all day, checking your edits to make sure you're not filling every article you touch with hate and ignorance.

What insinuation are YOU trying to make by suggesting that he has made an insinuation??? And read more carefully, he said "quite a bit", not "a lot". I found it quite interesting to read the quote, and gain a little insight into Card's view on the matter. Please also point out exactly what "hate and ignorance" was contained in the previous comment.4.249.21.108 13:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

No, he said "a lot." its right there. it says "a lot." hagermanbot said tehre was "quite a bit of gay sex" and "a lot of gay content."

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)

North Carolina writer?

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

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

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)

Yeah he is right  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loperty (talk • contribs) 23:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

Article Image

I think there should be a better picture. —Preceding unsigned comment 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)

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).

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)

"Adapted for modern understanding by Orson Scott Card"? Wouldn't he have to possess a modern understanding himself in order to do that? DanB†DanD 22:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Well there's different definitions of modern. By most measures of development/education contemporary Barbados, North Carolina, and Utah are considered to be in the "modern world." (I listed places that have laws on sodomy or had them until Lawrence v. Texas.) The modern world usually includes 21st century societies even if they do not conform to European or New England standards of social modernization.--T. Anthony 08:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Create a Themes section?

Has anyone noticed how much of this article is actually original research? Ignoring the fact that the substantive Early life sections gets by with only five sources, the extensive Personal views section has 10 references that are exclusively attributed to Card himself! WP Biography guidelines certainly permit the subject's autobiographical writings as sources, but to rely on them solely is not good practice. I think it would be much more useful and interesting to include third-party sources in the mix. In fact, wouldn't it be more valuable to convert this section to a Ideas, themes, and influences section instead? Then Card's personal views can be more effectively tied to the story themes identified by other parties.
— Jim Dunning talk : 13:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Kids' names?

This line: "He and his wife Kristine are the parents of five children, each named for famous authors (Geoffrey Chaucer, Emily Brontë and Emily Dickinson, Charles Dickens, Margaret Mitchell, and Louisa May Alcott)." makes it sound like those are the full names of Card's children, and that there are two Emilys. What's the truth? Is his son Geoffrey or Geoffrey Chaucer (etc.)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agatehawk (talk • contribs)

The names are of the authors. From his website:

“

Their first child, Michael Geoffrey, was born in 1978, and as other children were born -- Emily Janice, Charles Benjamin, Zina Margaret, and Erin Louisa -- they were all given at least one name in honor of a writer that Scott and Kristine admired: Geoffrey Chaucer, Emily Bronte and Emily Dickinson, Charles Dickens, Margaret Mitchell, and Louisa Mae Alcott. (Their third child, Charles Benjamin, was afflicted with cerebral palsy and died soon after his seventeenth birthday. Their fifth child, Erin Louisa, died the day she was born.)

”

I'll revise the wording in the article to make it clearer. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 13:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

"Smallville" example is kind of random, trivial

Is there no other example of Card's statements on heterosexual morality than a review of a WB show? It seems a trivial example to use as the lead-in for his entire position. Dybryd 19:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I've replaced it. Dybryd 20:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

For those interested

I just created an article (stub) for A Storyteller in Zion. Visit it and rip it apart... — Frecklefσσt | Talk 12:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Saintspeak merge

I don't see any reason for Saintspeak to be merged with this article - it's an independent article (albeit a stub without references right now). Anyone feeling differently, please do comment. Otherwise I'll pull that tag in a few days. Squalk25 23:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it; the "paired" tag was taken off some time ago, so there seems no point in having one here. (If there's an issue, one assumes that it's that Saintspeak may not (or may, I dunno) merit a separate article, not that this article is sadly incomplete without that material.) Alai 23:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

LDS Writer or not - please do not revert category without reaching consensus here first

A small revert war seems to be taking place on whether Card was an "LDS writer" or not. It is common for religions to claim writers, politicians, and actors (among others). I don't see what the problem is about allowing him to be declared an author who wrote who also happens to be a member of LDS. This happens to nearly every other personality. Judge Rehnquist, for example, is being claimed by Lutherans. I mean, who knew? :) Student7 15:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

This has played back and forth through inclusions and elisions of the Category:Latter Day Saint writers. I restored this category because, for those familiar with the facts of his writings, he definitively conforms to the actual definition given for the category, i.e. "notable for writing on the topic of Latter Day Saints" and as opposed to merely being LDS.

This category was removed once under the justification "removing category per CFD August 31, 2007. author does not write on the topic of LDS", and later removed again under the justification "remove per category definition: the majority of his writings have nothing to do with LDS" (emphasis added).

As for the latter, the definition given on the category page is not "the author must have a majority of his works having to do with LDS", it is "notable for writing on the topic of Latter Day Saints". An erroneous standard was applied, one stricter than the given definition.

As for the former, as noted earlier in the edit comments and to expand on that, Card is eminently notable for his writings related explicitly to LDS topics. For his explicit LDS works about LDS characters, see the novels Saints, Lost Boys, and The Folk of the Fringe; see also the books A Storyteller in Zion and Saintspeak; the script commissioned from him by the LDS Church for The Hill Cumorah Pageant; the scripts for The Living Scriptures (see also); the old LDS-themed newsletter he edited, Vigor; the LDS-themed website he organized and runs, Nauvoo.com; his former work as an editor and short fiction writer of the official LDS magazine The Ensign and his current regular column at the unofficial LDS magazine Meridian; the frequent mention of LDS topics in his widely noted ongoing newspaper columns and blogs; etc.

Furthermore, one of his most prominent fantasy novel series, the Alvin Maker series, is openly acknowledged and widely recognized as a fantasy re-imagining of the Joseph Smith story; another of his more prominent science fiction series, the Homecoming Saga, is openly acknowledged and widely recognized as a science fiction re-imagining of The Book of Mormon; see also his four, soon to be five, Old Testament novels, including Stone Tables and the Women of Genesis series, that conform to LDS interpretations of the Old Testament. Even in the Ender's Game series, Ender's dad is explicitly a member of the LDS Church and gives him an LDS blessing, and even the Catholic nun Sister Carlotta is written as expressing to Bean ideals contradictory to Catholicism but in line with LDS teachings, in parallel to many implicit promotion of distinctly LDS moral ideals throughout most if not all of Card's writing.

None of these facts are secrets; Card's writings on LDS topics and themes are widely noted. Card therefore certainly meets the category's definition of being "notable for writing on the topic of Latter Day Saints". - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 20:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

You're reading more into my edit summary than I intended, which is my fault because it was badly phrased. I was just simply unaware of his LDS writings and didn't at all mean to suggest that thea cat requirement was that the majority had to be LDS. In other words, I mistakenly used the word "majority", and I'm glad you started this talk to inform me of his LDS writings, because in light of that I think he can be included in the category. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 01:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I would think that a religious writer might have a different category than that usually claimed for a person who happens to be a member of a religion and who also happens to have a particular occupation. It seems to me that folks are placing too much emphasis on his pro-LDS writings and other people are either annoyed with this or disagree with it. My original question wasn't answered - why can't someone who is a member of LDS and writes, not be considered for a given category with a religious affiliation regardless of whether anyone likes those writings or even agrees with them? It seems utterly harmless to me and not a question that requires a lot of discussion either. Student7 01:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Because being a merely being a Latter Day Saint who is a writer—unless the person is writing on an LDS topic—is a non-notable intersection of religion and other status, and if the category is being used that way, it's subject to deletion as a probable overcategorization because Latter Day Saint writers are treated no differently than non-LDS ones. Arguing that other categories do the same type of overcategorization too is not a convincing argument, see WP:WAX; nor is the argument that doing so is harmless, see WP:HARMLESS. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 07:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, maybe most categories of people are overcategorization in Wikipedia. I hope that fact doesn't change them. For example, "notable people from <state>/<city>." Sometimes people are great because they got their education in <state>/<city>. Most likely they would have been notable anyway and living (or merely residing) in a state or city is coincidental to their later (or sometime past!) success. If you wish to criticize all biographical categorization, feel free. I think you will meet with considerable disagreement.

So again, it boils down to: can Card be categorized based on his religion like every other person in Wikipedia or must he be uncategorized because someone doesn't like (or maybe likes, I don't know, maybe they consider it stereotyping) his writing? Student7 01:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with what an editor likes or dislikes. Read the policy I linked to. A "religion + anything else" categorization is only appropriate if the intersection of the two is notable for some reason. You are essentially making a WP:WAX argument, which, as I said above, is simply not convincing. The fact that there are many categories being misapplied in WP is NOT a good reason to misapply another one. But, because Card writes on matters relating to the Latter Day Saint movement, this discussion is pretty much moot with respect to this article since he meets the category qualifications. He is a writer and he writes about LDS topics, thus he fits in the category. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 01:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)