Talk:Orson Scott Card

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-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.

Archive 1

Contents 1 Article assessment 2 Opinions and Politics are OT 3 List of books 4 Salon.com as a source 5 focus of article 6 Philosophy 7 Orson Scott Card's fans and OSC's homophobia 7.1 Removal of information per WP:BLP 8 Marvel.com

[edit] Article assessment

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)

[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)