This page 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.

Intro

This seems a little long, can we cut it down to one paragraph, and put the details in the other sections?

Early life, family, and career

Professor?

On this latest addition:

In 2005, Card accepted a position as professor at Southern Virginia University in Buena Vista, Virginia.

Is Card really throwing in the towel and becoming a professor? Eww! Why in the world would he want to do that? Do we have a source for this? — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:33, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, nevermind. I found the info on his website. That's too bad... we'll probably never see another novel out of Card again... — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:37, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

A thoughtful editor sent me a link to an article explaining his decision to become a professor. It turns out he is a professor only 50% of the time. The other 50% of the time he spends writing fiction, the same as he's been doing for years. It has a lot of interesting facts, glimpses into his personal life and such. The link is below, but be forwarned: it is written for an LDS audience and he uses some "Mormonisms" without explaining them (his target audience already knows what the terms mean). If you're not LDS, you probably won't understand some of it:

Why I Am Teaching at SVU... and Why SVU is Important by Orson Scott Card

Hey, perhaps this link should be added to the extern links section. What does everyone else think? It is too Mormon-centric? — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:58, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think so. You should add it, I believe. :) Cookiecaper 18:25, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Picture

Is there a better picture than one with his eyes closed that we can use? Epachamo 20:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

This was covered above here. I contacted one of his assisstants and they said they'd love to have a better picture of him on Wikipedia and gave me permission to use one from his site. Unfortunately, once they learned of the GFDL that it would have to be released under, they retracted the permission. Feel free if you want to take another stab at it, if you like. You can contact him via his web site. — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Bad Picture

His picture should be updated because his eyes are closed.

Yes, it should. But unfortunately, since this is Wikipedia, we can't use copyrighted photos. We have to rely on users to take their own pictures and release them under the GFDL or to the public domain. The picture we have looks like a snapshot taken at one of his workshops or at a book signing. Though it's not perfect, it is better than nothing... :-S — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:48, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Someone needs to mail him. Explain to him the issue with copyrighted photos, ask him to authorize the use of one his photos or something. If I was a famous person and had a picture on Wikipedia with my eyes closed, I'd get on it ASAP. Hbdragon88 00:56, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I emailed his site and got an email from his assistant with permission to use a photo from his site (with due credit). I'll add it shortly. — Frecklefoot | Talk 00:16, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Hold the adulation! While trying to upload the photo, I saw that copyrighted photos—even with permission—are not allowed! So we'll have to wait and see on this one... — Frecklefoot | Talk 00:23, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

heh, would it be inappropriate to upload a picture of him with myself and a friend of mine after a talk he gave? 70.171.46.118 06:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I would say that it depends on whether or not you can cut yourself out of the picture and still have a decent picture of OSC. If so, I would upload it and change the picture on the main page. Thanks! -Scm83x 06:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

And hey, if you can just plop in the Wikipedia globe logo over your own face, that might work just as well. You never know, man. Grenye | Talk 01:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank GOD someone changed the picture! It did not do him justice; made him look somehow less significant of a person. --Marsbound2024 04:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Personal views

Uncle Orson Reviews Everything

The current text implies he started the column (or it started being carried in the GSO paper?) after 9/11/2001. That's incorrect -- I read Uncle Orson as early as 1997, and I think it existed on the AOL version of Hatrack a year or more before that. --Richard Berg 06:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Does a Personal Views section belong?

Edit Summary: Keep Consensus says that OSC's opinions are notable and interesting. --Docmgmt 17:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I vote for removing the entire section on grounds of violating WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. I mean, why is this section even here? a)It really doesn't seem to be very encyclopaedic. I mean, how many other people's entries get a Personal Views section?!?! b) it really seems like a lot of implicit bias in which personal views to cover... I mean, what about his views on the Mets? On Opera? On the Internet? I'm sure he's covered those topics on his columns, but it wouldn't make sense to list ALL his Personal Views... c) I looked in the history section, and basically noticed that on this date, someone added section headers to an essay-like article, and one of the section headers was "Controversial Views" Which, once again has a NPOV type conflict. Somewhere along the way, it became "Personal Views" but it still doesn't mean it belongs in wikipedia. d) A lot of the sub-sections seem to be Original Research. People have been going around, making claims and doing Original Research to support them, when really, Wikipedia should just be referencing other people's research. Overall, the whole section becomes a stomping ground for personal "Point of View" and for generating Original Research. --Docmgmt 22:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

A lot of the stuff is sourced, so I'd say that those things can stay. Anything that is blatantly POV should, of course, be removed. Many other authors don't have a "personal views" section, but Card is very prolific and spouts his views in an article he writes. This being the case, I think the section is appropriate. But, once again, anything that is original research or POV should be removed. — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Please forgive me if it seems like I'm jumping in too soon to campaign for my viewpoint. I just put up the link to this discussion, and so all my reasons are very fresh in my mind, and I was pleased to see a response! Anyways, I agree that OSC does hold a lot of opinions that can be verified through quotes. It's just that gathering up all these quotes to advance a position essentially constitutes Original Research. (See WP:NOR) And, the choice of topics to include in Personal Views seems to have an implicit Point Of View. (See WP:NPOV ) --Docmgmt 15:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, his Personal Views are of general interest, are presented factually, and are actually quite frequently sourced. (In fact, if sourcing is a concern, it would seem more useful to link to the various articles and other sources for those comments than to eliminate them altogether.) As a pundit and an author famous for being an outspoken contrarian, Card has deliberately inserted his views into the public consciousness; I can't think of any reason why they shouldn't be described -- especially when you consider that most people who Wiki Card nowadays are probably doing so precisely to find out more about those views.

Mr Card has published his political views, which are general information and thus belong here as much as anything else he has written. Pelegius 17:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You know what? I didn't realize that his views are of such interest to so many. While I've read many of his opinion essays, I just figured that they weren't "notable" and it was his published fiction that made him notable. While I still feel that the whole "Personal Views" section isn't very "encyclopedic" if this is what people want to know about, then perhaps it should remain. I still think there's an implicit editorial POV bias on what topics are posted. Perhaps we should call a spade a spade, and rename the section to be "Controversies." I did a bit of digging through other wiki bios to see how they handle similar situations. Both Ann Coulter and Jimmy Wales both have sections called "Controversies" I haven't looked up any politicians (Somehow, I suspect that they don't let themselves get pinned down that way), and the other authors I looked up didn't have any equivalent to "Personal Views" nor to "Controversies." But just because the bios of other notable people don't reveal public stands on controversial issues is no reason not to have such a section for OSC. So, bottom line to my comment, maybe "Personal Views" should remain, but should be renamed as "Controversies" in keeping with the style used in other wiki bios. --Docmgmt 15:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

What? This makes no sense. Its part of telling what he does in his career. Of telling who he is. You mean to tell me that on a politicians section here you don’t put some of their view point? You’re making the mistake of pigeon holing OSC to Sci-fi writer when he does so much more.

Well, I have definitely realized since my initial posting that enough people find OSC's opinions to be notable. It is my mistake for thinking that what made him notable was his fiction writing. Mea culpa Anyways, I went and looked up several politician bios. Bill Clinton George W. Bush Rick Santorum Jim Sensenbrenner And it looks like the most common style (see the bios I looked up in my earlier comments) is to have a section called "Controversies" (Santorum's bio is the only exception...) --Docmgmt 17:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally, knowing OSC's views on things have added a new dimension to his works. i.e., I find that reading his books are more fulfilling with somewhat of a background into his bias. I appreciate the content on this page and don't feel like OSC would disapprove. Epachamo 21:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Although 'fullfilling' isn't quite the term I'd use....I agree that his personal views, especially on homosexuality, are definitly relevant to his works. Songmaster and the Homecoming series both contain plot elements or attitudes that make more sense in light of his negative regard towards homosexuality. Shadow Puppets' idealization of parenthood is similarly more understandable given the LDS Church's teachings on that subject. (too lazy to sign in, 18:01 CST, July 13, 2006)

Politics again...

The politics section keeps getting "toned down", for no reason that's at all clear to me. If anyone has a source for OSC repudiating his previous views (lock up gay people -- but only a few to keep 'em in line; scoff openly at the idea of acation against global warming -- who know, it could be a good thing), and advocating the narrower position where he's only opposed to gay marriage, and to a given climate change treaty, then please source it. Alai 04:50, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1.) He hasn't said we should lock up gay people; rather he says the laws against homosexuality should remain on the books. Source it, but if it's the same World Watch article that always gets cited for this, quote the wording that says he wants to lock them up.

2.) He has advocated serious research into alternative energy sources and advocates the reduction of fossil fuel use. Just because he doesn't buy into a particular justification for those policies doesn't mean he is against policies that will have an effect.

Above unsigned comment was by User:209.101.140.144

I hardly need to "source" talk page comments: that phrasing was not being proposed as a draft insertion into the article. But if a person supports even selective enforcement of laws with penalty of imprisonment, can you please explain how this is not advocating locking up (at least some) people for homosexual behaviour? On GW: he's explicitly said that he does not advocate these things for "environmentalist" reasons, but for geopolitical ones. If one were to sum this up by saying "he is for policies X and Y that will offset GW" one would mislead greatly. Furthermore, the two motivations will not in general lead to precisely the same policies (or advocacy thereof).

At any rate, at least these issues haven't simply disappeared from the article, as they were wont to do in the past. Indeed, as he's being quoted at length in his own words, it obviates the need to "sum up" his views briefly, as was being attempted previously. Perhaps too briefly. Alai 03:45, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe those who appear to be obsessed with this guy need a pair of fresh eyes. My wife has been reading the Ender's Game series and I came to this page simply to find out what the 3rd book was so I could get it for her. I was shocked to find that the page for a famous author had more information about his political views what he is actually famous for - his books! Other than those who disagree with him, his political views are an unknown for most people. Why make the focus of this article on that? James 07:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that's because he's also a newspaper columnist with two separate weekly columns. Since his job is as a political pundit, his political views are relevant. Most other famous authors don't also get two columns to air their political views weekly.

Politics

themes + politics

I think there must be an addition to the main page describing themes in his work/where Card is coming from. The following themes/influences in Card's fiction are too glaring to ignore and still do a thorough and honest job of describing him and his work:

LDS (many of his works include lds characters or are influenced by lds beleifs, and card himself is lds e.g., the ghost story and the homecoming series, the Alvin Maker series)

Bildungsroman (others mentioned this: this is a literary term that describes stories that include how the character grows up and develops to the crux of the story, so this includes young characters e.g., Ender,Enchantment, Bean, Alvin Maker, the worthing saga)

homosexuality (many gay characters or adult characters in loveless marriages which they engage in only to have kids: Songmaster, Ender, Zdorab.

e.g.,

Even though his body had had no particular joy from Shedemei’s (and certainly hers had finally become exhausted from the effort to please his), yet there was joy in it on another level. Because the gift had been given. Sheer friction and stimulation of nerves had won in the end, sparking the reflex that deposited a million hopeful half-humans-to-be into the matrix that would keep them alive for the day or two of their race toward the other half, the all-mother, the Infinite Egg. What did they care whether Zdorab had lusted after Shedemei or merely acted out of duty while desperately trying to fantasize another lover of a reproductively irrelevant sex? Their life was lived on another plane…Who is to say that mine is not the better fatherhood, because I acted out of pure love, and not of some inborn instinct that captured me. Indeed, I acted against my instinct. There’s something in that. A hero of copulation, a real cocksman, if the others only knew (The Ships of Earth 225)

Also several male characters are portrayed as being incredibly beautiful, e.g.

" Inside the smithy Alvin lay curled on the ground, facing toward the forge, away from her. He was breathing heavily, raggedly. Asleep? No. He was naked; it took a moment to realize that his clothing must have burned off him in the forge…His skin was shockingly pale and smooth. Earlier today he had been callused, with here and there a scar from some spark or searing burn, the normal accidents of life beside a fire. Now, though, his skin was as unmarked as a baby’s, and she could not help herself; she stepped into the smithy, knelt beside him, and gently brushed her hand along his back, from his shoulder down to the narrow place above the hip. His skin was so soft it made her own hands feel coarse to her, as if she marred him just by touching him (Prentice Alvin, 1989: 306)"

And we might include something about Card's views on homosexuality here, too.

Edge literatures (Card's own analysis, from the afterword of CotM:

"Perhaps that is why the Stranger and the Other are so important in all my writings (though never at first by plan), even as my stories also affirm the importance of the Member and the Familiar…Am I not, with my own inner contradictions between Inside and Outside, Member and Stranger, a model of the people who live in this age? "

So I suggest a combined "Themes/Influences" section that would mention those major literary themes and why he might keep returning to them.

I don't know why that one line in this post keeps showing up in a grey box with dashes aroud it and I can't fix it because I'm not a computer guy.

Wait, where on earth do you get the idea that Ender is gay? It's true that he didn't marry until very late in life. It's definitely true that his marriage was a bit unusual, but I see no evidence that he is gay or ever was. (Oh, and despite its oddity, it's completely unfair to call his marriage "loveless".) Zaklog 16:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Postulating about why he keeps returning to them is beyond the scope of an encyclopedia. That starts becoming original research, so has no place here. Linking his books together by drawing on common themesis acceptable though. I did such when editing the wyrms article. SDG 15:33, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

On the dashed (in more ways than one) box: MediaWiki does that if you leave leading space at the beginning of a line. I have no idea why, just part of the markup convention. Alai 04:53, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Author states that "Card is equally active as a political writer and speaker", but clearly that has far from equal prominence here. In particular, would anyone object to for starters, some examination of his self-characterisation as a Democrat (seemingly in essence solely on Civil Rights grounds, which surely even most GOPers would not accept to be distinguishing on policy grounds), his stance on gay rights, and global warming? Alai 04:03 6 Dec 2004

No, Card is not as well known as a political writer and speaker (I, in fact, had never heard of him acting in these roles until I read this article). Though it can be mentioned, he is not well-known for it.

It would be interesting to see a discussion of why and how he is a Democrat, especially since he is LDS. Members of the LDS Church are known for being very conservative and, thus, are usually Republicans. — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:55, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

He says he's a democrat. Being LDS certainly doesn't automatically make him a republican. A case example is Senate minority leader Harry Reid. Card also claims to be a moderate and his political writing suggest to me that that is the case. Perhaps simple changing the sentence to take out the "equally". --SDG 18:39, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

He says he's a Democrat, but is Card necessarily the most impartial or illuminating source on Card? I don't doubt it's true in some technical sense, such as his voter registration, the question is whether it's in any sense a useful summary of his politics. If we say 'self-identifying' or some such formula, that's covered. Alai 03:28, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

LOL, I never considered somebody other than Card might be more of an authority on Card. Perhaps you are right though. I sent an e-mail via his website, hopefully I will get an answer. His personal assistant has answered others questions for me in the past. This has really gotten me interested in why he considers himself a democrat. --SDG 06:58, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that since he is LDS, he should be or is automatically Republican. But, statiscally, most are Republican. That's all. :-)

Removing the word "equally" would be a good move, but it'd also be interesting to read about his stance on various political topics. — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:57, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Well that would take a bit of work. :) From what I've read (which is a lot) he is anti-Orin Hatch. :) He is conservative when it comes to issues of Homosexuality, Abortion, and the War on Terror. I think he is more liberal when it comes to social and corporate reform though. I tend to agree with a lot of his views and I'm a moderate republican, so I tend to view him more as a moderate than a democrat. Its pretty clear on which issues he falls to the right of, but less clear on which he falls to the left. I'll try sending him an e-mail and see if he replies. In the mean time I'll edit the "equally" sentence. --SDG 01:10, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for that last, it certainly improves the internal consistency. I propose we not wait for a reply from Card's staff -- my own inbox is still agog for a clarification of his denominational fast-feet in his "Passion of the Christ" article. This is, after all, an encylopaedia article, not an approved biography. I don't mean to slight Card's motivations for describing himself thusly; I just don't know what they are. I'd consider myself, for example, both the most knowledgable and most biased source on me...

I'm not familiar with his opposition to Orrin Hatch; the only reference I've seen is a War Watch in which he praises Hatch for compromising with Democrats, and taking heat for it in Utah. (Same article characterises Zell Miller as a "centrist" and "loyal" "Democrat, period", if this helps us calibrate his use of the affiliation.)

Here's a couple of statements he's made on the matter: "I'm a Democrat voting for Bush, even though on economic issues, from taxes to government regulation, I'm not happy with the Republican positions." (http://slate.msn.com/id/2107890/) His more customary argument seems to be along the following lines: http://www.hatrack.com/osc/reviews/everything/2003-04-07.shtml (Had some trouble finding this one, due to it hiding... in a review column, on his fiction website. Bonus segment on his 'Global Warming isn't a mathematical certainty, therefore we should do nothing' take on energy/enviromental policy.) Alai 04:25, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Any homosexual man who can persuade a woman to take him as her husband can avail himself of all the rights of husbandhood under the law. [...] So it is a flat lie to say that homosexuals are deprived of any civil right pertaining to marriage. To get those civil rights, all homosexuals have to do is find someone of the opposite sex willing to join them in marriage." (writing in the Rhinoceros Times)"

Wish I hadn't bought any of his books now, bigot.

Oh, excellent. Name-calling. That's productive. Card is definitely not known for understating his political opinions, but I wouldn't be so quick to attack his character without actually getting to know the guy.

Actually, I'm wondering if that quote about gay marriage really belongs on the front page of an article about a person who is not best-known for his political diatribes. Might it be needlessly inflammatory? Does it need more context?

His diatribes get pretty heavy push on his web-sites (which the article references, and which interlink each other, and indeed spill over in places), so if he's not well-known for them, it's not through the want of trying. I hadn't heard he was going to be writing "Ultimate Iron Man" until it was added to this web page, but when I did a quick google: top hit was a web-board discussion which quickly turned into a flame-fest as to how he'd be handling the gay character therein, etc. (Could have been worse, though, someone might have quoted the essay where he argues in favour of homosexuality being criminalised.) As this article necessarily only has one page, I'm not sure where else to put it. 'Context', perhaps; I suggested some time ago a longer discussion of his politics. If you can think of a context that makes the above quote not sound inflammatory, suggest away... Alai 13:58, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hey, same guy from above. How do I get a username, by the way? I'm new to this whole Wiki thing :) Anyway, I'm kind of surprised to hear you refer to an article in which he advocates the criminalization of homosexuality ... I thought I'd read virtually all of his stuff, and I never got THAT impression. Regardless, yes, he does have some inflammatory views. So do most writers. I'm just pointing out that there is a separate page for quotes, and though I'm new to this and may not get how all of it works, it might be more appropriate to stick his inflammatory statements in there. I dunno, it's just, reading the "wish I hadn't bought any of his books now" reaction above makes me suspect that the selection of that particular quote was politically motivated to stir people up against Card ("hey, did you HEAR the awful thing he SAID the other day?" "No, DO TELL!"), rather than being aimed at documenting the man's life and work, which I thought was the purpose of this encyclopedia.

You know, long before he wrote the above quote, people used to pass around a quote from The Ships of Earth in which Zdorab (the gay character) describes a theory that Shedemei used to teach as a biology professor, explaining homosexuality as a safeguard against the propogation of genetic abnormalities. Never mind that the book treated this theory as false, and Shedemei rescinded it after getting to know Zdorab. Never mind that the overall purpose of that scene was to show Shedemei overcoming her prejudice against homosexuals. The out-of-context quote (which was sometimes distributed at his signings by protestors) was enough to rile people up against him.

And you wonder why he has an uncomfortable relationship with the gay rights movement? He didn't have to be anti-gay-rights to begin with. All he had to be was a Mormon writing about the subject of homosexuality, and he was labeled an enemy and treated as such. Now, I suspect that he's just acting out the role that was handed to him.

So that's the kind of context I'm talking about. A single quote doesn't define a person, and this particular one, on its own, paints him to be a raving homophobe, when his situation is a lot more complex.

Hi, same guy. :) I've left you (well, your IP) a generic welcome message, hope that's of some use. (But basically, you should have a "log in" option at the top of your browser window.) Yes, we should describe his life and work, But part of his 'work' is clearly to be a political columnist. If anything, there's too little in this article on that, not too much, in my judgement. It's not like this was something he said in an off-the-cuff rant at an sf con, this was a lengthy article on that particular topic. I've seen numerous Card quotes protesting/laughing off accusations of "homophobia", and characterising himself as a moderate on the issue, but that quote is not exactly atypical of his public stance on such subjects. If anything, 'gay people ought not to be allowed to get married' is one of his moderate positions, in terms of political norms. Alai 20:12, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, maybe what we need is some history of his stated political positions, how they have changed over time and how they relate to his personal experience. Note, for example, that his obsession with the need for human beings to reproduce started to pop up in the Shadow series right after he lost two of his own children (one to a premature birth, and the other to a longstanding disability probably stemming from prenatal trauma) and he and his wife, as a result, were no longer able to have kids. Naturally, connections like that are more speculative than anything, but some kind of analysis along those lines might be more enlightening than "check out what this jerk said about gay people" :) To what degree are we allowed to include that sort of analysis? Is there a way to write an article that involves speculation and mark it as such?

Hrm. I'd be uncomfortable with that (on several levels, in fact). It's certainly very problematic given Wikipedia:No original research. Of course, you're free to write such an essay in another forum, and then demonstrate you're a notable enough critic to be be quoted on the matter here... Alai

21:18, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"his obsession with the need for human beings to reproduce started to pop up in the Shadow series right after he lost two of his own children" No, I don't think that's at all accurate. I could point to at least one part of the Homecoming series where he makes very similar statements. I don't know the exact dates, but those were written significantly earlier. Frankly, this sounds to me like a simple statement of orthodox LDS beliefs. I admit I haven't made a thorough study, but it seems like having lots of kids is an idea Mormons strongly encourage. (Yes, I know they don't like the term "Mormons" but it's a lot easier than repeatedly saying "members of the Church of LDS".) Zaklog 16:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, Same Guy is now named "Rafe" :) And I figured that was an impossibility, but I had to ask. If there's anything I think Wikipedia is meant to stand for, it's intellectual rigor and honesty. While I like my opinions, note that I'm keeping them here, rather than in the article.

Anyway, so now Alison has added Card to a category of "publically homophobic people". Such a category exists? Wikipedia actually classifies people using derogatory terms coined by their opposition? I mean, come on, seriously, people, let's keep the debates and the name-calling to the BBSes and use this place for facts and research.

Or is this "category" thing simply an attempt at vandalism? I still haven't quite picked up the way the inner workings of this place go yet. —Rafe

Welcome, Rafe, sure you'll fit right in here. The subtler way to do that is to find someone 'quotable', whose opinion just happens to co-incide with one's own. :)

Perhaps 'heavy POV' would be the polite (or euphemistic) term for it. She's just created the category herself, added a bunch of people to it, having earlier added her user page to 'Category:LGBT rights activists'. OK, so very heavy POV. Incoming edit war with a side of flames, I don't doubt. Oh dear. Alai 00:29, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You know, with the number of crazed activists populating and controlling Ye Olde Internet, I'm actually surprised that Wikipedia ends up as straightforward, moderate, and professional as it does. I mean, you'd think it would constantly swing back and forth as different partisan cranks got different kinds of bugs up their butts. But so far, just about everything I've found here has been legit ... weird. — Rafe

Perhaps you just haven't found the 'right' page yet -- I can think of a few remarkably like that. But yes, it's amazing there's as much good quality material here as there is. Alai 01:15, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Politics Redux

All right, I've been watching this page for a while now. So far, people have added two recent inflammatory quotes, added Card to a category of "public homophobes", and insulted him personally in the discussion thread above. I am getting the impression that much of this is motivated, not by scholarly interest, but by political agendas. Card is not yet notable on a large scale for his politics, but this encyclopedia is being used, among other means, to "get the word out" about Card's opinions, and encourage people not to buy his books. His official website gets hit once every couple of weeks by a new person saying, "I used to buy Card's books, but then someone told me he was a bigot, so I stopped, and so should YOU!" or something along those lines. These recent additions to the article are just part of the campaign. I personally think that Wikipedia should not be used as a political tool, or as a means of attacking a public figure, however subtly. — Rafe

Of course it shouldn't. I saw you moved the quotes. I'm wondering why they're in the article at all. Don't we have a Wikiquote article for Card? Can't we just move the—mostly unrelated—quotes there? Card is known for his fiction writing, not for his political views, even if he does some writing about them. Move them to wikiquote and be done with it, I say. — Frecklefoot | Talk 22:10, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would defend the "public homophobe" tag as a model of NPOV, but why are quotes from his publically available essays, from his own website, that this very article already links to, "inflammatory" content about him? (As opposed to inflammatory statements by him, which were you to argue, I wouldn't necessarily dispute.) Isn't he in effect paying his own money to increase awareness of these very political views? (How successfully, I can't reliably judge.) I don't think it's necessarily having a political agenda, to attempt to describe Card's "political agenda" (if such a description is indeed accurate and neutral -- incidentally, I don't think the unqualified description "Democrat" rises to that level). I'll grant you that if he weren't a novelist, there wouldn't be a WP article on him as a conservative blogger and newspaper columnist, but I don't think it's reasonable to expect an article would ignore the use he makes of his notability from fiction. Alai 02:23, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't think Card is a homophobe (someone who is afraid of homosexuals), he just doesn't like their political agenda. I think the article should include information about his politic views, since he himself does so much with it. But I don't think the article should be overly tilted on the political stuff, because Card is known mostly for his fiction writing. As for the quotes, those should go in Wikiquote because they're political, a minor sideline for Card. Just MHO... — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:17, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

I'd move them myself, but I'm a n00b, and I'm not sure how :) Someone else want to give it a shot? I think moving them to Wikiquote is probably the best balance between leaving them in for the sake of maintaining a complete record of the man's impression on the world, while keeping the inflammatory political stuff independent from his primary field of work. Rafe 02:44, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the issue's "is he a homophobe?" (though you're using it in homophobia sense #2, as of course Card himself has, whereas I'm sure most users of the term would have more in mind the first sense). The question is really, what weight to give to his political views in general in the article? Personally I'd say it's "under-tilted" at present, not overly so, though I'm not personally attached to the quotes per se. (I'm not sure what the rule of thumb on WP vs WQ is... None of the quotes, fictional or political, are integrated with the text of the article, should they all be moved thusly?) I don't think it's sustainable to argue the two should be 'independent'; firstly, he doesn't exactly keep them very separate himself, and secondly, there's only going to be one article on him. Alai 12:40, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I find the quotes in the article oddly placed. However I have noticed the Isaac Asimov article also has a list of quotes on the page, so perhaps its a wikipedia custom. The quotes which represent Card's actual views have more meaning to me than the quotes of Card's charachters. I think the Charachter quotes should go to the article of the book from which the quote came from since that's where they are in context. Any of Card's own quotes should stay on the Orson Scott Card Article however I would prefer it if it were in a relevant section of the article instead of lumping them all together. SDG 18:52, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Looking through more SF Author articles, I am hardpressed to find any articles besides Cards and Asimov to have a quote section. Its possible they are, but Having perused the list for names I know I couldn't find any other examples. Also The Asimov quotes are all quotes by Asimov, not his charachters. I think this strengthens my postion that quotes by Card's charachters belong elsewhere. SDG 19:38, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Gay Rights

He's opposed to gay marriage in particular, not gay rights in general. --Rafe's edit summary.

He's advocated that homosexual acts "remain" criminalised, described it as arising from paedophilia, and has essentially labelled anyone subscribing to any notion of gay rights as a hypocrite. (Or at least, all gay advocates of such, on the apparent grounds of attempting to rationalise and justify their "sin"; where this leaves heterosexual believers in gay rights I'm less clear on, but I'd be surprised if it were substantially any more charitable.)

At any rate, this is all by way of saying, reverting this edit. Alai 06:37, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the quote about regarding homosexuality as a "pathological condition" and replaced it with saying he's against gay marriage. The citation for the quote was an article by a different author which appeared on Card's site (but the author's name appears at the bottom of the page while Card's appears at the top under the banner, so I can understand the confusion)--Joe Whitney

You are quite right and I am embarrassed that I didn't notice the other author. The fact that it is published on his website is significant, but I should not have attributed it to Card. Thanks for seeing that. Cheers, -Willmcw 20:29, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Alai, Card's stance on homosexuality has evolved since he wrote the Hypocrites essay. That was written over a decade ago, and he hasn't publically advocated the "leave the crimes on the books" position since.

His use of the word "hypocrites" was not aimed at homosexuals in general, but specifically at gay advocates within the Mormon faith. It isn't an unreasonable descriptor for a person who publically espouses a belief, but freely violates one of its more fundamental tenets.

Just for the record :) --Rafe

Thanks for the comments, Rafe. I'd like to think they had, too, but I'm not at all convinced the facts in evidence support it. He's not repudiated his "former" position, he continues to host it on his website, and while subsequent diatribes may have not repeated the precise same formula, the pattern of inflammatory rhetoric (that it's been argued are too much so to be quoted in this article...) certainly has been. I also think that your characterisation of the scope of Card's essay is rather narrow: he certainly doesn't explicitly limit it in the way you suggest he intends, and the scatter-gun nature of the advocacy extends far beyond the internal workings of the LDS Church. As even if that is his intent, I'd suggest the net effect of the article is a broad-based attack on any argument for gay rights, either religious or secular -- sweeping statements that a whole group of people's "highest allegiance" was to "access to sex" are hardly confined to the latter. Alai 23:15, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I apologize for making the "same sex marriage" change before reading the discussion. I have changed it back. However, do think "same sex marriage" would be be a more accurate description of what he opposes. I actually think his best thougts on the issue are in his essay The Marriage Of True Minds. While his essays have unarguably been clear that he feels homosexuality is significantly different from traditional heterosexuality as to not equate the two, that does not suggest he would be opposed to their receiving, say, health care benifits because of a partner's employment.

The hypocrites essay was targeted specifically at the Mormon audience. Traditonal families and traditional marriage are so core to the church that to change that would be radically changing what the church was. You have to understand--the ultimate "goal" of a Mormon, the Mormon definition of heaven, is to live with God forever as a family, continuing to have children and be together forever. The tradional, nuclear family, is therefore such a core element of Mormonism that, as Card states in his essay, it's impossible to reconcile it with homosexuality. Hence the term, "hypocrites."

I think the key quote is this: "The only people I have contempt for are those who try to remain inside Mormonism while denying the validity of guidance from the prophets, and I oppose them, not because they live as homosexuals, but because of the hypocrisy of claiming to be Mormon while denying the only reason for the Mormon community to exist. If they prevailed, it would destroy our community. Homosexuals themselves pose no such threat, provided that those who are Mormon admit that a homosexual act is a sin as long as the prophet declares it to be so, while those who do not accept the prophet's authority refrain from pretending to be Mormon."

I was about to comment here along the same lines... Card does not oppose rights for any american, including gay americans... it's just that he opposes the political agenda of the 'gay' movement. He opposes same-sex marraige in particular. I've seen in this discussion comments about sodomy laws... I don't think you can find a cite where Card argues that sodomy laws should be enforced against gays. He does argue that the Sodomy laws have other useful benefits, however. I agree that the article should be changed to say "Same-sex Marraige" instead of "Gay rights." --Measure 18:50, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

I can (and already have, see earlier in this talk page) find a quote where he argues that laws against (unspecified) homosexual behaviour should "remain on the books" (I don't don't if he was being intentionally being vague here, as opposed to simply coy), and essentially argued that they should be enforced selectively. Indeed the tone of the whole article is in the same vein, and I don't think the "Mormon audience" argument in any ways speaks to either fact (even if it was indeed his motivation for writing it). Now, if anyone'd prefer "has written in favour of the (continued) criminalisation of gay acts" rather than "is opposed to gay rights", then fair enough (though it's over-particularising for my personal tastes). I certainly don't buy the line of argument previously floated that "he wrote it, hosts it on his web site, but doesn't believe it any more having silently repudiated himself in recent years", unless someone has a source for this. Alai 18:07, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Are you saying that if someone supports one use of a law, that they must necessarily support all other uses of it? In Card's essay, He clearly distances himself from any use of Sodomy laws that would put gays in jail based on their private practices. He merely argues that the laws still had important uses that shouldn't be thrown out. I've read the article over again just to make sure of this. What quote from the article disagrees with my interpretation? --Measure 18:39, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

"This applies also to the polity, the citizens at large. Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.

"The goal of the polity is not to put homosexuals in jail. The goal is to discourage people from engaging in homosexual practices in the first place, and, when they nevertheless proceed in their homosexual behavior, to encourage them to do so discreetly, so as not to shake the confidence of the community in the polity's ability to provide rules for safe, stable, dependable marriage and family relationships."

'Discouraging' people from a practice by means of legislation and the criminal justice system is very far from upholding rights in such an area, even if one advocates less rigorous enforcement of same than various other even-less-in-favour-of-gay-rights people. If he wished to advocate non-prosecution of private sexual acts (or perhaps more logically, non-illegality of same), I think he's capable of doing so a good deal more clearly than this. Alai 00:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Alai, are you still opposed to this change? Anyone else?

Strongly. Or certainly against the particular change implying the "gay marriage" thing is his only beef in this area. Alai 18:07, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

His only other problems in this area apply specifically to Mormonism and the Mormon church's relationship to gays. There are no doubt other articles that cover this area. When it comes to homosexuality, Card's views are actually more liberal than most mormons. So why make it an issue on Card's page? --Measure 18:39, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

As to the first point, I don't see how that interpretation is sustainable. His article asserts that regarding the "polity, the citizens at large", people who (to some unspecified agree) trangress his ideas of correct sexual conduct "cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society". That's quite clearly beyond 'not keen on gay marriage and on homosexuality being accepted within Mormonism', and if it's not directly saying "no equal rights", I don't know what is. I can't comment if your assertion on his relative-liberalism on this issue is correct, but the point is, that's not the context the article puts it in at present; rather it's juxtaposed with his claim (at least no longer simply an editorial assertion) that he's a Democrat, and in the broader frame of an article on him as an sf writer, on neither of which scales are his views "liberal". A better question in my view is, why is it appropriate to refrain from fully describing his self-declared views, on which he's attracted significant public controversy? Alai 00:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Here are my points about why Card does not deserve the title of "homophobe" or "anti gay rights."

1. The article in question was written 15 years ago according to the copyright at the bottom of the page, and society as a whole has made a lot of progress towards accepting gays in that time. There is no evidence that Card has not also become even more accepting than he was at the time. Sure he has put the article on a website, but that hardly means he now believes everything he believed 15 years ago.

2. This article has many positive statements about gays, outnumbering any negative statements. All negative statements about gays in the article seem to directly involve LDS membership. Card correctly points out that gays are not accepted in the LDS church, and argues that it is the church's right to have that policy.

3. This article was written for an LDS publication, Sunstone magazine. It was not originally intended for a wider audience, though Card has included it on one of his websites (not even his main site). It was intended to reach a mormon audience, promoting tolerance of the gay lifestyle, while clearly pointing out that the church was justified in prohibiting the lifestyle.

4. Card has included homosexual characters in his novels and potrayed them in heroic ways, not making them villans, and not making his novels a political tool to fight against gay rights. --Measure 03:26, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Why does 'deserve the title of "homophobe"' suddenly enter into the discussion? I don't see how any of these points are material as regards the accuracy, or material relevance, of the "opposition to gay rights" descriptor that's been excised; he's still said what he's said, it still means what it means, he still hosts both articles, and he's not modified or retracted either position, at least that I've been made aware of. But more importantly, I really don't see how they go to justify the article current's current text, which represents Card's (in reality pretty controverial) stance and reputation with a pretty moderate and mainstream one -- that one might, for example, get elected Governor of California espousing. (I recently had a conversation with someone in which she explained that they didn't know "what he was famous for", just that several of her gay friends were liable to fulminate about him, if that puts this articles presumed priorities in context.) At any rate, if there's no useful suggestion on suitable alternative wordings, I'll have another go myself at summarising his previous pronouncements. (At any rate it can't be much more tortured-sounding than the caveats that have been added about his stance on global warming.) Alai 23:35, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

So you're arguing that because some gays are mad at OSC that makes him anti-gay rights? I'm sorry about the homophobe thing, my indtroduction to wikipedia was seeing that word used in this article. I thought someone still wanted it there.

Ok, look, I think to take the position that Card is anti-gay rights, you have added words to OSC's articles. Card has never taken the stance that gays should be 'thown in jail'. He has indeed said that what consulting adults do in the privacy of thier own homes should not be punishable. Yet you continue to repeat that he has taken the former postion. If he had taken that position, I would agree with you, but he has not, so I don't.--Measure 22:05, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

I still think you're missing the four points I raised, as well. Just because Card puts an article on his mormon-themed website doesn't mean he still agrees with it. But maybe I'm the crazy one. Nobody else is coming to my defense, so I'll change it back to anti-gay rights for now. --Measure 22:23, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Unless he states otherwise, then it is fair to assume that he agrees with the articles that he has published on his website. Why would he publish them if he disagrees with them? -Willmcw 00:28, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

There are many reasons, but in this case, the website in quesion is a historical archive of a real-life publication from 15 years ago. If Card's views have changed, it still wouldn't be right for him to censor his own essay. All I'm saying is that is is presuming bad faith to assume that Card's views have not advanced in the last 15 years. Measure 21:04, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Card made an assertion of his beliefs. You seem to be suggesting that since he has made no further affirmation of that position, that we musn't state that this is his given view. This makes no sense - it isn't logical. If Card had made a statement 15 years ago supporting gay marriage, for example, but said nothing more recently, would you argue that a paragraph about his politics should not mention this, since he might have subsequently changed his mind, might now be against gay marriage, and simply has not mentioned that he is? That he might have somehow become against gay rights? It seems like you are taking a position on gay rights, characterizing his previous statement as "bad," and attempting to "give him the benefit of the doubt" since he hasn't repeated the statement since. You likely wouldn't do that in the reverse direction.

He styles himself as a political commentator, and has made political statements. If we are to give a summary of his stated political beliefs, all we can do is go by his own words - we can't make the assumption that he may have changed his mind unless he later states that he has. He has made public statements in an advocatory position - if his views have changed it's up to him to restate them publicly. Otherwise, why do we limit it to this one issue? Is it then incorrect or unfair to quote ANY persons statements about ANY issue when by some arbitrary expiration date they have been judged "stale?" How long do we give someone to restate a view before we assume it has changed? What's the official statute of limitations on an opinion?

One wonders why, if his opinion has substantially changed since the "Hypocrites" essay, he hasn't written another essay to update his viewpoint. Until and unless he repudiates his earlier work or publishes something that shows a change in his opinion, I believe it is safe to assume that his opinion, even if it is several years old, is still valid. Kilraven 03:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Measure, I think it's assumed that when Card says that gay people are sinners and shouldn't live the way they do, he wants to fight against their rights. Indeed he'd be the hypocrite, if he were to state that gay people should resist being gay, and then go on to support gay rights that bring gay people into greater acceptance. Also, I'm going to delete the "which is innaccurate" line at the end of other, since it's not NPOV and isn't supported. 207.200.116.9 05:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Then you're assuming odd things. Going by statements he made is better, but whether one thinks something is a sin or not doesn't necessarily overpower the view of rights. There are many things people believe are sins, but don't think should effect rights. Most Americans consider adultery a sin. I think few to no one believes that adulterers should be denied the right to life, liberty, property, or even the right to marry the person they're committing adultery with. (After divorcing their current spouse of course)--T. Anthony 12:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed the following, as it is redundant: "These quotes are often used out of context to portray Card's harsh critique of the behavior of LDS homosexuals as a critique of homosexuals in general." There is an earlier passage that says pretty much the same thing: "The following quotes are taken from an essay he wrote in Sunstone, a journal read by other members of the LDS church. It refers to Latter-day Saints who engage in a homosexual lifestyle, despite the church's policy that such acts are sinful and to be avoided." Personally, I dispute the notion that Card's comments are to refer only to gays with the LDS community, as the comment "Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books" can only be a comment about gays in general; if his intent was that it apply only to LDS members, it would have to be phrased differently. Kilraven

The section on gay rights seems so out of place when compared with the other sections on political views. It is three times longer and smacks of people who disagree with him wanting as many damning quotes in as possible. It seems like making it with more of a NPOV would be bringing it in line with the other sections like "Morality" and "Environment & science" which are much shorter and link to long quotes rather than quoting them in full.

Other

Other is kind of a dumb heading

Why not just have a heading for each subject that is now under other -myclob

Card themes

I've read the first 3 of the Ender's series, the first two of the Alvin series, and The Abyss, which I should ignore since it's a novelization of someone else's screenplay. Anyway, I'm detecting the following themes and I'd appreciate it if someone more versed in his work than I could comment. Maybe this is worth adding to the article, maybe not:

genocide &/or xenocide
assumption that another being's race is less valuable than one's own race, followed by recognized guilt and constant work towards redemption
children put in difficult situations
strife within a family; two siblings taking opposing paths
healing of oneself through concentration

Thanks, Koyaanis Qatsi

I think all of the themes you recognize are valid. One more (kind of an extension of your last observation) is Card's tendancy to have Child-Messiah figures in many of his stories. A good example of this is Ender in the Ender's Game series. —Frecklefoot 13:54, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)

Card seems to actually have a much broader tendency to examine all of his pivotal characters during their early childhood, and portray them as being somehow extraordinary, intelligent, or mature at that age. I think it is actually quite rare for him to begin a story with the main character as an adult. Examples of main characters first examined as young children:

Ender Wiggin (Ender series)
Bean Delphiki (Shadow series)
John Paul Wiggin (First Meetings)
Alvin Maker (Alvin series)
Patience (Wyrms)
Diko (Pastwatch)
Jason Worthing (Worthing Saga)
Beauty (Hart's Hope)
Itzak (Enchantment)
Ansset [and Mikal, through flashbacks] (Songmaster)
Sarah, Rebekah, Rachel, and Leah (Women of Genesis series)
Stevie (Lost Boys)
Sugar (Unaccompanied Sonata)
Quentin Fears (Treasure Box)
Mack Street (Magic Street)

Examples of main characters first examined as young adults:

Lanik Mueller (Treason)
Nafai (Homecoming series)
Deaver and Monson (Folk of the Fringe)

Have I covered his entire body of work yet?

In homebody is breaks from this tradition somewhat. None of the characters start as children and the childhoods are only barly touched on. However, alot of the flashbacks, etc do talk about young-adulthood.(mid 20s) ---J.S (t|c) 17:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

If we're covering themes, parenthood (and good parents vs poor parents) should also be included. On one hand, we have parents who are not as emotionally present in their children's life and may have had children for the wrong reason (Ender's parents had him, in part as a rebellion; Novihna had children with Libo in part to punish herself, and also because of religious hypocracy - adultery's okay, but never contraceptives; Petra wants Bean's children, not because at age 18 she is ready to become a parent, but because she is desperate to have some physical reminder of him when he dies; Bean wants children because he's come to believe that the purpose of man's life is to make babies with woman, but will almost certainly not be present in their lives because of his genetic condition; the Homecoming series also features a couple of children who, contrary to both societal and their own opinion that they are too young for marriage and sex, wind up doing both out by author fiat, as well as a woman who basically wants children so the other women won't look down on her. Valentine also argues she's been a poor parent, although that may be self-deprication.) By contrast, we've got Ender, who seems to have become a good parent to his stepchildren, and his adoptive son Lauro who is also presented as a Good Parent. The Ender's Shadow series most definitly took a turn towards themes of parenthood in Shadow Puppets; the Homecoming series also spends a fair amount of time focusing on it. random person who is too lazy to log in, 17:36 CST, July 13, 2006

Disambiguating novels

What's the current means of disambiguating novels? (novel)? (book)? Currently _Saints_ and _Xenocide_ both need disambiguation. Koyaanis Qatsi

(novel) and if two novels have the same name then (YEAR novel). --mav

Thanks, mav, but with 12886 results on amazon.com just in books, I don't know how I'm supposed to find if any other book is titled simply Saints. Any ideas? Koyaanis Qatsi 05:35 Feb 17, 2003 (UTC)

I vote we apply the principle of economy and leave it as "Saints (novel)" until someone actually wants to write an article about a different novel called Saints.

--Paul A 06:00 Feb 17, 2003 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. And I didn't mean that previous thing to mav to sound snide, though it sounds that way to me now, reading it. Sorry, mav. :-/ Koyaanis Qatsi

Shadow novels

Is there any hidden reason to put "Shadow of Ender series" as a separate list, and far away from its other storyline, the "ender series"? I believe they're the same, and at least should follow each other if someone insist the separation. --grin 17:18, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The Ender series was written first and deals with the war against the Buggers and then the moral and ethical implications of dealing with two other alien races encountered. Bean's series starts with a novel roughly paralleling the first Ender novel, but from Bean's point of view. The rest of the Shadow novels deal with the highly politicized situation on Earth when Bean and the others return, and covers a lot of military strategy in the ensuing power play. Ender misses all of that struggle going from planet to planet before answering a call on the planet where the piggies are.

The four Ender books are marketed on the paperback as an "Ender quartet" and the Shadow books are marketed as part of the "Shadow series." So Card at least thinks of them as separate series, or allows his publisher to market them as such. But yes, they probably should be listed closer together. Koyaanis Qatsi 08:06, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Ender's Game movie and Alvin's World computer game

I notice there is no mention of the Ender's Game Movie on the front page. Also there is a computer game called Alvin's World in production. I was thinking about adding them both, but wonder if there is a good reason not to. From what I understand Card has a lot to do with both of them.SDG

I'd say go ahead and add it. Koyaanis Qatsi 22:05, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Quotes

The long set of quotes shoud go into Wikiquotes, with only a couple remaining here. -Willmcw 22:31, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. As it stands, the quotes make up a big bulk of the article. — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:37, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

As I said above, I think the quotes taken from his charachters are not actually quotes by Card. They are more appropriate on the page for the book from whence they were taken. Card's own quotes arguably do have a place here, but they are definitely slanted to his politics. Because the politics is just a small piece of the article and not what Card is famous for, they could definitly be thinned down. SDG 18:11, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Okay, enough with the pedophilia....

Really. While Card's political opinions might tick a few people off, the whole "pedophile" bit that keeps getting added to the text here is astoundingly immature.

Unsupported (and strongly critical) material deleted

I deleted three paragraphs on Mr. Card's opinions that are not supported by cites - and that are substantially at odds with the evidence. They were also strongly critical, and smacked of exaggeration for the sake of vilifying Mr. Card. - Reaverdrop 23:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Selected bibliography

Pre-Ender's Game works

The Ender saga

The Shadow series

4.4 The Tales of Alvin Maker

The Homecoming Saga

The "Women of Genesis" series

Plays

4.9 Non-fiction works

Books on writing

Columns

Is this the same as "Other" Or would the columns fit better under personal views?

Other projects

External links

Link

Adding a link as suggested by Delldot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:151.205.180.171 151.205.180.171 18:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm hoping self-DEmotion isn't against the rules ...

I just deleted a comment about Geoffrey Card asking people not to publicize his relationship to his father while at BYU. I did this because I AM Geoffrey Card, and I found it to be seriously misleading. I have asked people, on occasion, not to make a big deal out of my "famous" connection, just because I like to be judged for my own merits, and in some circles, being the kid of a famous author grants me a sort of undeserved celebrity that makes me a little distrustful of people's motives :)

But in the context of this article, which among other things, addresses a lot of the political controversy surrounding Card, this comment makes it sound as though I were trying to distance myself from him, or as though we had had some kind of falling out. Which couldn't be FURTHER from the case. He and I just spent the holidays together, we still collaborate on occasion, and while I remain a bit touchy in my social life about wanting to be known within my own social circles as an individual, I think that such feelings are private, and are not appropriate material for an encyclopedia article.

I realize that Wikipedia has a policy against using the site for self-promotion, which is one reason I haven't done silly things like spinning off a stub about myself :) But I'm hoping that REMOVING an inaccurate comment about myself without replacing it with anything new counts as the opposite of self-promotion (self DE-motion?) and will be allowed to stand.

I'm also kind of curious who added that original comment, and what their source was. Not because I'm mad or anything ... I just haven't seen many of my old college friends in a while, and I'm assuming it was one of them :)

That's fine. You're right that it probably isn't a good idea to make an article about yourself, but there's nothing wrong with editing it or this page as long as you try to remain somewhat neutral. Some people will tell you this isn't so but these people are wrong; keep your head and you'll be fine. Likewise, there is nothing wrong with correcting inaccuracies, wherever they appear.

If you want to be looked at as a serious Wikipedia editor, you should register an account and sign your contributions to talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). I'm sure you'd be good to have around, and you might want to consider joining the Mormonism WikiProject at WP:LDS. Feel free to stop by my talk page anytime you need anything. Best of luck, and thanks for your correction. Cookiecaper 01:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

To be honest...

Card sort of sounds like a traditional fascist, and hear me out on this. Not Nazi-genocidal fascist but Mussolini-Franco-Suharto fascist: distrustful of free markets and individual freedom, rationalism and secularism (his views on evolution and ID), anti-homosexual (or their agenda, if you prefer), but he masks it under the cover of "anti-racism", so maybe he's more of a Fidel Castro or Stalin-type in some regards: proclamations of equality for all but de facto unwilling to tolerate radically diverging opinion. I'm not saying these things to be an ass but just to try to pinpoint his ideological leanings. Fascism is a bad word in today's political discourse but IMO it's just a different variant of totalitarianism and collectivism. I'm NOT anti-Card, I like his books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.98.50 (talk • contribs)

Homosexuality was illegal in Britain during WWII so I don't think views on homosexuality relate that closely to Fascism. This might be controversial to say, but I think Fascists had "enemies" they were more concerned about than homosexuals. In the US in WWII prayers were still said in public schools, so non-secularist doesn't relate either. (For that matter Mussolini wrote a book about a Cardinal's mistress and originally Fascism had a strong anti-clerical streak) A Fascist generally favors economic corporatism, statolatry, and a disdain for democracy. I've never seen any evidence Card is like that. A more accurate, if potentially misleading, statement would be to say he's backward.--T. Anthony 07:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Orwell opined as long ago as 1946 that "The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable’", as it had already been distorted and co-opted by so many partisans as to lose all precision in meaning. [1] I don't think your specific criticisms of Card gain any persuasiveness by trying to lump them under such a dead label. - Reaverdrop 08:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd agree with his description, but it's nice to hear someone use that term to mean something other than "cruel". It was once a distinct political philosophy. As far as I understand it, I didn't agree with it, but it wasn't the bugbear that a lot of people use it for today. This discussion, while interesting, unfortunately has nothing to do with OSC. Zaklog 16:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Another work... SS

Atlantis By Orson Scott Card http://www.hatrack.com/osc/stories/atlantis.shtml

His views on movies

I read most of his reviews on movies (e.g. [2] [3][4] [5]). However, it seems that (from my POV) he doesn't know what is a good or bad movie. Instead, he embarrasses himself sometimes. He uses his standards (family, morality, etc.) to lash against critically successful good movies like Pulp Fiction, American Beauty, Citizen Kane, Pleasantville, all Woody Allen movies after the movie Love and Death, etc.; while he adores lame commericial hits like Hitch (after 3^rd time), Charlie's Angels and its sequel, Mission: Impossible II, You've Got Mail (although it has good moments like MI2), etc. Speaking of lame, he adored ones that moderately performed at the box office and/or were more critically praised like Uptown Girls, The Runaway Jury (which wasn't bad, but...), The Upside of Anger, etc.

Also, he thought that either King Kong or The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe should be nominated for Oscar's Best Picture of 2005. Moreover, he thought that Chicago deserved to win Best Picture of 2002.

But the things I like about his views were on The Matrix series (although sometimes he said things merely right on sequels, NOT wrong), The Lord of the Rings film trilogy, Star Wars series (although his examples were pure bull sometimes, and I liked ROTJ), etc. Also, he pointed out most movies listed on "Movies that made a lot of money that were horrible" list.

However, I more likely agree on users from "Hatrack Forum" [6] than I ever had before. But I'll say that he has his fans (loyal or not) no matter what circumstances, especially by his books. 69.227.173.21 11:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Um, okay. Did you actually have anything to say in regards to the article? This isn't an OSC discussion board. — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why that original user said that. However, he should've said that the part of an article must include his views on movies. — Gh87 07:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

To Do List

Help me organize the discusion.
Remove vandle stuff as it comes up.
Add new information when it comes up.
Organize links into different catigories.
Can we remove the part about "political identification" and move his beliefs that don't fit in with the democratic platform to their owm heading like "gun cuntrol" and "business regulation". No one agrees with every belief of their party, and political identificatin is only used by those who whant to hate you, while knowing nothing about the specific things you actually believe.
"media bias" and "business regulation" but there is not enough stuff yet.

Fair use image removed

Sorry guys, but "with permission" doesn't fly when a free license image already exists. See WP:FAIR:

No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information. If unfree material can be transformed into free material, it should be done instead of using a "fair use" defense

The picutre needs to be licensed under a free one like GFDL or CC or something...it can't just be for non-commerical uses. Given that Card acutally said something about it on the forums, I'm sure it would be no big deal to try to get it under a freer license. Hbdragon88 08:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

California writer

Why was the "People from California" changed to "California writer"? He is from California, but doesn't live there now and hasn't for years and years. I wouldn't call him a "California writer" simply because he was born there. Anyone else? — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

New Works

Im adding Treason to the other works and I am moving Empire from other to the shadow series sense it is no longer up coming...

and as side note I think other post ender works is a pretty lame heading it infers the ender saga is the only book of importance...

SelfStudyBuddy

It is his defining work... feel free to change it if you like. Perhaps a purely chronological list would be better? ---J.S (t|c) 03:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean Empire is no longer forthcoming? His website[7] says it is coming out in Novemeber 2006. According to my timestamp, it is only August. — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused about what you are doing Self Study Buddy. Empire is not part of the Shadow series, and it is still forthcoming. I don't think we need Pre-Enders Game/ Post Enders game works. Instead I'd prefer to see all of the sagas grouped together, than below show his other works. SDG 23:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I've read the first chapters of Empire that Card has published on his site, and it is not an Ender novel (and is still hasn't been released, so it is still upcoming). And while the Ender series is probably his most popular, I don't think we should group his works as pre-Ender and post-Ender. That would only be appropriate if the Ender series was pivotal in his career somehow, like it completely changed the way he wrote. While Ender probably made him more recognized, the first novel and series didn't change his writing style or themes. — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you are correct that empire is still forth coming (nov. 28 06) and I was miss informed on the shadow series bit... I must say I feel very foolish now. SelfStudyBuddy

Clean up

after review of article and discussion I believe they should be both be put under a clean up tag. which I will now do if anyone has any strong objections please state them