Talk:Orson Scott Card/Archive 6

Views about homosexuality
The material on Card's views about homosexuality needs to be cut back, per WP:UNDUE. I do appreciate that Card's views have attracted attention and need to be covered, but there is quite simply too much detail on the subject. Looking at the "views on homosexuality" section, my first reaction is that it could be cut back by roughly 50%. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * See the section above - I've tried, believe me... –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 06:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Trimmed while covering the actual issues and events apparently involved, but removing the excess details not salient to the biographical purpose of this article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is the best summary, as you've removed a number of discrete issues sourced to reliable secondary sources. I have a version in the page history that might be a good starting point, although we could still reduce it. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 18:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * And which highly important nuances are missing? The goal is to be a biography, and listing every petition against a person is scarcely biographical - the edit left, in my opinion, the most salient issues, and gives them proper weight in the BLP.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think every individual petition is important, but eg. Publishers Weekly's review of his novella isn't irrelevant to his biography as a writer just because they noted that he included his fringe views on homosexuality in it. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And we would then have to include the views that the "fringe views" as you assert exist were not important to his BLP, which means we could add another ten thousand words without actually helping Wikipedia readers - which is the actual goal. Do you actually find the ions found in a PW mini-review to be "fact" in any way? Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you're arguing here. Do you not agree that the major publication in Card's industry has anything relevant to say about his work? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You seem to think an unsigned mini-review of a book is a big major statement by the major publication. It isn't.  It is a short piece in the form of a mini-review.  Period.  Assigning it earth-shaking weight would violate WP:BLP in a very clear manner.  PW prints scads of such mini-reviews.  All of which are written as a quick precis for booksellers wondering how many to pre-order.  PW also does substantial reviews of some books - but the case at hand is all of a single paragraph.  Collect (talk) 20:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Please, it's not a BLP violation, don't be ridiculous. Industry publications are entitled to publish negative reviews of the works of professionals in their industry. Do you have any real arguments? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not even a "review" - it is a single paragraph, and yes ASSIGNING UNDUE WEIGHT TO A CONTENTIOUS CLAIM from a single opinion source is absolutely a violation of WP:BLP where the claim reflects on the living person.   Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * All of PW's reviews are single paragraphs. A secondary source has even noted the review. Nothing in the review reflects on Card as a person any more than any other negative review might, and the claim that BLP prevents editors from pointing out that someone's work has been criticized is, again, ludicrous. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

They have short reviews which run up to about 300 words (quite a bit longer than the Card one trying to be used for a major "homosexuality=pedophilia" claim which Card strongly denied)) but also have substantial articles as well. The short reviews are intended basically as a precis at best.   Cheers Collect (talk) 13:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Gross inflation of the Politics section
Can you explain why you believe these self-published sources don't fall foul of "Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so." and "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves...so long as...The article is not based primarily on such sources." (Read "section" for "article" here, of course, given the immense length of the section.) Usually the SELFPUB exception is for things like small biographical details that secondary sources don't pick up - or, here, I retained Card's self-published change of heart as to whether homosexuality should be illegal, so that a false impression of his position isn't given. But your argument appears to be WP:ITSINTERESTING, and that's not policy. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * You are the one deleting the information as of no interest, per your own edit summaries. You can certainly provide the sources that say Card has no cultural or political influence.  Please don't ping me again, as I already watch this page. μηδείς (talk) 04:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Whether it's interesting to me is unimportant; the issue is that it's not evidently of interest to reliable sources, and they're the ones whose judgment matters. Can you find reliable sources that give this much attention to Card's writing about his political views? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * If there's some claim you think needs further sourcing, tag it. The author's own work is sufficient to show his own views, especially when they are not-self serving in the light of criticism.  And one certainly can't have it two ways, arguing that his movie was boycotted based on his politics, and that his politics are of no interest — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talk • contribs)


 * I'm not arguing that they're personally uninteresting to me, I'm arguing that they're not adequately sourced. We did already have a few proper sources for his homophobic views, so I retained those - but where are the secondary sources to support all these other ramblings? What would be the point of tagging - would you actually go out and look for real sources, or is it just a way to keep it in the article? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes,, I would. I have literally actually done so before, usually at ITN. I suggest a one-at-a-time approach. There's the question of weight and sourcing.  Some material may indeed just be better deleted, and some may really not need additional sourcing.  So if you want to do this, I request you place one or two tags a day, since a flurry of tags will make discussion impossible and confuse serious with trivial disputes. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, you've already seen me indicate which sources are unsuitable. How about you start with replacing, if possible, the citations to Ornery and Hatrack, and removing them if you cannot replace them? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 15:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * According to {{WP:RS]] a writer's own material/website is sufficient to establish his own opinion or facts not likely to be in question. Your gainsaying this doesn't mean we need to provide other sources for what his politics are.  If OSC were claiming to be the Overlord of the Galaxy we'd probably want a source independent of his own writing.  But unless he's in the habit of publishing hoaxes about his own politcs, we can use his works as a source for his stands, which have indeed caused notable controversy, see the sources section below.  What you are really arguing is weight.  That would require either suggesting a specific issue is unimportant or belongs elsewhere.  Again, I suggest you tag one or two things at a time, and we can see what happens. μηδείς (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not questioning whether or not he really wrote it, I'm questioning whether the secondary sourcing that justifies its inclusion in WP is present. I don't think "he was boycotted over his anti-gay views, so we have carte blanche to include anything whatsoever about his politics at any length" is a good argument; the secondary sources are covering what they think is significant and we should be following their lead. I'll tag some stuff, but as I said, tagging is not a means of keeping stuff in the article indefinitely; if sources cannot be found, it'll have to go eventually. The article is protected through 1/20, so why don't you start looking for replacements for the stuff I mentioned? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * cmts - Speaking of wp:Primary sources (that, and, I supppose, wp:Weight), per OSC's Hatrack River website he had suffered a stroke in 2011 (which may acct for some of the diff between his tone in his award winning fic and of some of his political commentary from near to that era?) In all serciously, tho, maybe a reference to the subject's health might be approp. in the "Personal" section of the blp, per wp:Weight. In any case, per the wp guideline first mentioned above, "[...A]rticles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." And, what are Hatrack River's re-published OSC columns from the Rhino Times but primary, re Scott Card's own opinions; and, secondary, as pertaining to non-Card topics commented/reported on from Card's POV. See:
 * Orson Scott Card at So. Virginia U. -- About Orson Scott Card: "... Life in the South --[...I]n Greensboro[...]in recent years Card's columns for the Rhinoceros Times (reprinted online at Hatrack.com and Ornery.org) have brought him more involvement in the community at large."
 * 19May2013 Winst.Salem Jrnl: "Goodbye, Rhino. RIP":{{blockquote|text="... ... ... "The Rhino’s last edition was big at 80 pages, packed with ads and stories. Those stories, combining nostalgia and the same poke-at-the-powers-that-be (including the News & Record) for which the Rhino was known gave this final issue an oddly schizophrenic feel.  "[The Rhinoceros Times's editor, John] Hammer waxes gently, eloquently, about the newspaper’s 21 years and what they meant to him.  "'I’d like to stay here in my office typing away on an old iMac until I wear out another keyboard,' he wrote in a farewell column. 'But life changes. Some people naturally embrace change but most of us don’t.'  "Then in a long story about city government, he pokes at the City Council [bl-blah--blah bl-blah].  "From Orson Scott Card there is an exercise in predicting the future, wherein President Obama unleashes gangs of youth onto law-abiding Americans in a scheme to make himself president for life. Card indulges in this way for multiple pages, then affects a 'never mind' nonchalance by saying he was only writing informed fiction.  "... ... ..."}}
 * 19Sep2008 Charlotte Observer: "Rhino Times paper ends, stays online": "[The Times] will live on as an Internet-only venture at www.rhinotimes.com, editor Mark Pellin said Thursday."
 * --Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * A reprint of a column by Card is not a secondary source. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * more wp:TLDR (or, Don't confuse you with the facts? ){{blockquote|text= Per Wikipedia guidelines: "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Secondary sources are not necessarily independent or third-party sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them. For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research. Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context. A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but if it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences. A book review too can be an opinion, summary or scholarly review." }} Hence a column by Card whether originally published in print by The Rhinoseros Times or whether thereafter self- re-published by Card himself at his website  is a secondary source about a subject Card is commenting on; although it may be considered a "primary" source to the extent it reveals information, and esp. that which would not be otherwise knowable, about Card himself.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I think per WEIGHT something SHOULD be included about Card's political commentary in addition to stuff pertaining to his columns about SSM. There are lots of citations to such commentary by Card (eg (link): "... in an seething Op-Ed for Greensboro's The Rhinoceros Times. Published May 3, Card's column -- titled "What Right Is Really At Stake?" -- suggests that same-sex marriage is actually about "giving the left the power to force anti-religious values on our children" rather than extending basic civil rights measures to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) couples.") but much less about other of card's positions. His championing of Lieberman comes to mind as something that garnered a lot of media attention. There must be other issues as well. In any case, accdg to my reading of wp:QUOTEFARM, some supplementary use of a published author's primary sources in order to encyclopedically inform about the nature of an author's work is occasionally reasonable and acceptable. Just my two cents.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 21:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's controversial to say that, especially in a BLP, an entire paragraph which cites only primary sources is inappropriate. It's a pretty classic example of WP:UNDUE. That you (as in "one") feel something is important or that the subject feels something is important is not reason to include it unless we can also cite secondary sources showing it's being presented with due weight. If reliable sources talk about yin but not yang, it's not our place to say "well if we talk about yin, we have to bring up yang". Primary sources are good for verifying basic information and can serve to back up what secondary sources say, but if we don't have secondary sources talking about something -- something as contentious as politics, no less -- it shouldn't be in the article. So I've taken the admittedly blunt approach of removing those paragraphs which rely entirely on primary sources as a step that I believe can be taken with the uncontroversial backing of policy. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 02:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Your comment might apply in general, I am not interested in Bob Villa's politics. But when the subject is the target of widespread campaigns to have his work boycotted on politic grounds, his politics becomes quite relevant.  There's no question that a person is a reliable source for his own political views, unless, perhaps, he's a proven hoaxer.  Card is not. μηδείς (talk) 03:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * We're not talking about whether or not he is a reliable source for his own beliefs. We're talking about due weight. We present things in proportion to their presence in reliable secondary sources. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 03:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and tagged the primary sources that I spotted. Medeis, please replace them, as you said you would do. Note that in my earlier revision of the article which removed the poor sources, I did manage to cite some of this to secondary sources, so you could refer to that version. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Cmt - To quote in full ABOUTSELF: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: {{blockquote|text= "[- i. -] the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; [- ii. -] it does not involve claims about third parties; [- iii. -] it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; [- iv. -] there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; [- v. -] the article is not based primarily on such sources.}}"This policy also applies to pages on social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook." _______ Note that although - ii. - and - iii. - would not normally apply owing to the fact that the various opinions by Card in question are published ( Note that Card's published opinions themselves are legitimate 2ndary sources when they are not about himself: eg about judicial activism in the service of Conservative Constitutionalism ((Along with Romney, Card sides with those on the side of "restraint"(?), perhaps to the chagrin of or Rand Paul-- or of Ted Cruz?, Mike Lee?, etc.? Also: hence Card's quick retreat with regard SSM in the face of recent federal court decisions, et cetera)) -- or his definition of science fiction as basically anything by someone categorized as a writer within the genre of sci-fi, lol).  Anyway lol - Regarding information, as gleaned from Card's columns/free-lance pieces articles, about Card HIMSELF: Owing to recent edits successful rendering no sections as "primarily based on [...primary] sources" (per - v. - , above), rather than a blanket rejection of any of Card's self-claims, I suggest we treat each instance of the recent tagging case-by-case, in consideration of of which we might reasonably "doubt as to its authenticity" or might be "unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim" (per - iv. - and - i. - ).  --Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 22:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Per wp:BRD I've rmvd the tags but let's decide on Talk which would be appropriate for the article. (I'll also go ahead and try to find those applicable and boldly reinstate them and also obviously would bow to any determinations in their regard arising from the community.)--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 22:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Please stop pretending you don't know why the tags were added. Rhododentrites and I have both pointed out that it's about WEIGHT, not verifiability, and Medeis has said that s/he will find real sources for the tagged statements. You must stop allowing your personal fascination with Card to override your concern for policy. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * {{tq|Card's published opinions themselves are legitimate 2ndary sources when they are not about himself: eg about judicial activism in the service of Conservative Constitutionalism}} - Yes. At the article for conservative constitutionalism his article about that would be a secondary source. But none of this article is about any of those subjects but rather about his views on those subjects. I'll also point out that tagging primary sources is not a "bold" edit such that WP:BRD would apply. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 03:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not wp:V--but: WEIGHT, yes! And appropriate primary sources ought be retained--and esp. those which duly already have been backed up by independently published 2ndary sources. See wp:PRIMARY:{{blockquote|text= "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." }}Blps on commentators of note rightfully cite the primary sources of their columns and to do otherwise would be unencyclopedic; indeed I'm almost led to wonder whether Card's primary sources might be denigrated in perceived importance by WP contributors due institutional wp:BIAS? That is, owing to perception of a near-theocratic tincture to his opinions? in that Card allows that his conceptions of Mormonism constitute the underlying philosophy of philosophies, political and otherwise, as well as his worldview?  Also I must reiterate that Card's various free-lance pieces and opinion and review columns are NOT wp:SELFPUBLISHED--owing to the fact that these prev. publ'd free-lance art.--or his reg. columns prev. published at Rhino Times (namely, 1991–2008 in this so-named, local, "alternative press," reviews-and-opinion rag or else 2008–present under its rubric as an online NEWSBLOG.  Also note that citation template url fields such as those linking readers to such Card-hosted websites as Hatrack River/Hatrack.com or The Ornery American/Ornery.com are not part of the usual information necessary for a bibliographic citation but rather are simply provided as an extremely useful convenience to readers: Eg, all that is required would be:{{blockquote|text="Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press, 1971.",}}--not:{{blockquote|text="Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press, 1971.",}}--with its inclusion of a helpful url to link interested readers to Rawl's book's excerpts hosted online at Books.Google.com.  --Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 23:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * ? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Multiple Calls for Secondary Sources
This article is so inundated with notation for secondary sources that it affects readability. While Wikipedia stresses the need for secondary sources as a form a verification and validity (too much so, in this biographer's opinion), in the context of this articles, requests for secondary sources of the subject's self-proclaimed beliefs border on absurd. Do we really need Salon to read Card's articles, quote them, and then re-state his voting record? That is not the legitimate function of a secondary source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.106.53.104 (talk) 16:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

"Scare quotes"
Can you add ellipses or suggest places where you feel ellipses would be necessary, rather than removing quotation marks for quotations from other people? We must properly attribute all quotations; it's not acceptable to present someone else's words as one's own. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * the preferable alternative is to remove the superfluous quotes. They only serve to distance Wikipedia from Card's more controvercial opinions, unnecessarily so, since in all cases Card is already attributed as the source. The effect is very unencyclopedic and reads more like an opinion piece. If you have any questions please review WP:SCAREQUOTES in the Manual of Style. Note that a single word does not constitute an actual quote. Chrononem   &#9742;  15:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, then can you reword, rather than removing quotation marks for quotations from other people? We must properly attribute all quotations; it's not acceptable to present someone else's words as one's own. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No need, all occurences already attributed the sentiment to the subject. For example, this sentence...:
 * "In a 2008 essay opposing same-sex marriage, Card stated that he regarded any government that would attempt to recognize same-sex marriage as a mortal enemy that he would act to destroy."
 * ...identifies the statement as Card's, no quotation markes necessary. It makes no attempt to deliver an actual quote but simply paraphrases Card. Chrononem   &#9742;  16:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * In some instances, quotations are preferred to text. For example:
 * When dealing with a controversial subject. As per the WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV policy, biased statements of opinion can only be presented with attribution. Quotations are the simplest form of attribution. Editors of controversial subject should quote the actual spoken or written words to refer to the most controversial ideas. Controversial ideas must never appear to be "from Wikipedia".
 * When using a unique phrase or term created by a given author. For example Oscar Wilde's witticism "The unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable".
 * When we use someone else's words that reflect their opinion or unique wording, they should be included in quotes.- MrX 17:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * . As stated earlier, attribution was already given. The continued insistence on placing quotes over a single word is an example of decidedly unencyclopedic editorialization. Please correct your edit. Chrononem   &#9742;  19:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Noticed it in my watchlist and at a glance, it looks over-quoted to me. Based on the examples, I tend to agree with Chrononem and don't quite see the sense in single word quotes when it's clear they're already attributed to Card.  It ends up giving an appearance of scare quotes by including undue or unnecessary emphasis.  Morphh   (talk) 19:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * It's more nuanced than that. The quotes are to show the specific choice of words used by the subject so that readers can distinguish between paraphrasing and exact quotes. You're welcome to try to build consensus for your preferred edit, but both Roscelese and I have quite a bit of experience editing the encyclopedia, and it seems that you are a new user and probably not familiar with our style guidelines.- MrX 19:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Morphh has seemingly been registered since 2006, predating your own registration by three years. I have been active on other, minor wiki's. I am familliar with the style guide. Chrononem   &#9742;  19:49, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I could agree with removing the quotes in the paragraph that begins "In an August 2013 essay he described..." and possibly the word "moot" in the paragraph that begins "In July 2013, one week after the ...". The rest of the quotes are necessary in my opinion.- MrX 20:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well that would be a start. I will continue to advocate that most of the other quotation marks be removed, especially the ones that encompass only one or two words, but I appreciate the gesture of cooperation. Chrononem   &#9742;  20:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems clear to me that, while things like "War on Terror" don't need to be put in quotes because that's the common name of the thing and Wikipedia might well use that phrase even if we weren't describing something Card had said, other phrases such as "an experiment in fictional writing", "young out-of-work urban men", and "mutually destructive path" are obviously not Wikipedia prose and can't be presented as such. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree as far as the second one is concerned. The others use somewhat common language so I don't see the necessity there; but I'm mainly concerned with the one or two word quotations. Chrononem   &#9742;  21:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I can see reasons to remove many of the quotation marks, looking at the initial edit. It's perfectly acceptable, in my opinion, to use some of Card's words as part of Wikipedia prose. I would remove the quotes around: "an experiment in fictional writing," "Hitler- or Stalin-style dictator", "young out-of-work urban men", "a mutually self-destructive path", "beautiful", "natural", and "moot". I would leave quotes around "mortal enemy" and "urban gangs" because in the first case the words aren't being used in a traditional sense (governments aren't usually considered a "mortal enemy") and the second case is an example of use–mention distinction that does need quotation marks or something like that. I think another applicable guideline is WP:WORDSASWORDS. If we're using words as words, which I think we should for the majority of encyclopedic writing, than there's no need to put quotes around them. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC) Even better, I'd suggest replacing "young out-of-work urban men" with "young unemployed urban men" ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm seeing a consensus forming on removing most of the quotes I originally removed and a few others. I'll give it a couple days to see if we get any strong dissent and then complete the edit. Chrononem   &#9742;  14:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Orson Scott Card. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120608005602/http://radio.nationalreview.com/betweenthecovers/post/?q=MmM1YWNlNTQ1MDI1OWYyNzhiZDgyZGZkOTZkY2FkYjU= to http://radio.nationalreview.com/betweenthecovers/post/?q=MmM1YWNlNTQ1MDI1OWYyNzhiZDgyZGZkOTZkY2FkYjU=

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Suggested edits
Article should mention (within treatment of his politics and/or public image) that his subtle blacklisting remains ongoing. Whereas Card used to get invites for readings--that is, till he up and decided publically to not ONLY agree (for his own, religious reasons), coincidentally with much of what, say, Cardinal Bergoglio (now the Pope Francis) has had to say, quasi politically, about certain inherent weaknesses w/in free market capitalism, but, unfortunately for Mr. Card, to happen to agree with the Pope's stance against gay marriage ('tho note that unlike His Holiness, Card no longer advocates against same-sex unions). (References):
 * 1) "[...] Yes, I still love the dialogue between me and my readers, but since I'm still being punished for offending the Inquisition, I rarely get reviewed and almost never get invited anywhere to actually meet my readers. That's just part of life here under the iron rule of the Established Church of North America. So, being mostly cut off from my readers[...]."--May 4, 2017 "Uncle Orson Reviews Everything," O Scott Card link
 * 2) "Just as Scott Eckern, Orson Scott Card, and Brendan Eich should not be deprived of their livelihood for their political views—and those on the right should think twice before launching a boycott of Quentin Tarantino for his recent comments about police—the Hollywood Ten and other Communists should not have been shut out of the studio system for arguing in favor of an unpopular ideology." - Daily Beast, Nov. 15, 2015
 * 3) "it’s not unheard of for boycotts to be called over the views of an individual involved in the production, as when Spartacus was protested for crediting blacklisted writer Dalton Trumbo or Ender’s Game for Orson Scott Card’s homophobic views." - Entertainment Weekly, Nov. 3, 2015
 * 4) NYT, 2013
 * 5) etcetera (eg he's taken to entering Hollywood contests anonymously The Wrap. Mar. 10, 2017) --Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 23:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Addition(s) to Opinion Section?
The opinion section seems surprisingly scarce other than information about his party association and his views on homosexuality. The Ender´s Game trilogy was rich with thematic information. For example, one could detail views on war based on how his character, Andrew Wiggins, killed many of his enemies, including Stilson, Bonzo Madrid, (almost) the whole race of Buggers and a Hive Queen, in order to make sure that they could´t ever hurt him again, or to end a conflict swiftly and efficiently. Andrew Wiggins could prove exemplary by Orson Scott Card´s design, perhaps detailing some of Cards´ views on war or conflict. The question is if the values expressed in his fiction books are his own, and how much his writing and the actions of his characters reflect his own view. -66.154.208.26 (talk) 19:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's unlikely that we would be able to include much of that in the opinion section unless Card has talked/written significantly about his views on those topics. However, it is conceivable that reliable secondary sources have analyzed the themes of his novels, so that could be a section here or in the article/s on his book/s. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:45, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, for editors following this: Roscelese means, I believe, we would need to determine which of his political views become cited within sources in addition to themselves (i.e., Card is of course well known to extensively publish his political commentary nevertheless but a bit of it receives yet further notice elsewhere).--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 21:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Views about homosexuality: Using his own words
Reading through this section today, there were a lot of cases of partial quotes, two or three words at a time, with Wikipedia inserting words in the middle, trying to paraphrase him. This was especially true in the description of the 1990 essay.

This is fine in theory, but going to the original source and reading it, I came away with a totally different picture of his viewpoint than I had from the Wikipedia article. To attempt to rectify this, I made a series of edits to replace partial quotes with complete sentences, and added a few additional block quotes from him that clarified his position.

Here are a few of the misconceptions I came away with after reading the article that were rectified when I read the original sources:
 * In 1990, Card advocated imprisoning homosexuals, but later changed his view (he actually advocated leaving the law the way it was, but enforcing it very sparingly)
 * Card stated that there was no genetic component to homosexuality, that it was "a myth" (he actually said that it's not the only component)
 * Card declared that any government that legalized gay marriage was his mortal enemy that he would destroy (ambiguous, the quote was actually part of a rhetorical question to the general public)

Since there was some discussion back in 2015 regarding the use of quotes, I figured I'd come here and explain my reasoning behind adding these in. I recognize that there are potential style issues with over-quoting, as discussed in 2015, but this was the quickest way I could find to make Wikipedia's description of Card's views match his own. I can get behind attempts to clean this up that are in harmony with this goal.

Lolinder (talk) 22:36, 16 June 2017 (UTC)