Misplaced Pages

It seems that this should be listed on the author's page, not for this movie. It seems a little ridiculous to exclude the author of the story from credit because of his personal beliefs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.117.74.153 (talk) 04:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Well then, it's agreed then. I don't agree with is personal beliefs either, but he already does have a large, more extensive and better section on his authors page (like you said, where it belongs), about his personal beliefs, which have nothing to do with the film, plot, casting, philosophy, message, etc. This section is moved. It just echos what's already on the authors page.

Darrellx (talk) 22:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not agreed and you're responding to a two month old thread. Please read the rest of this talk page where editors (excluding sockpuppets) have formed consensus for including this abundantly-sourced content in this article.. - MrX 22:57, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Citation and verifiability problems

This section has some citation and verifiability problems. It says that "some ... groups began to criticize the film." It doesn't say which groups and it doesn't provide a citation for this assertion, so which groups are saying what about whom? I am inclined to delete the whole first half of this section, but it won't make much sense if we leave in only what is currently verifiable. Elizium23 (talk) 01:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment

Ender's Game series is an inspirational series. It would be a tragedy if they took away the integrity of the story by changing the plot or the characters' personalities. The emotion within the story would only be enhanced with stirring music. The formics could be either extemely disturbing or disappointingly dull. We hope they put in an effort to make this meet the high standards the book sets. Valentine & Wang-mu

Does anyone have any more information on this? This has been the subject of much talk for about 10 years, and many rumors have abounded, but nothing substantial has yet to be seen.

The author has shared your sentiments. That's why he took so long in allowing the movie to be made. Although movies are rarely as good as the book, this has not changed.

Darrellx (talk) 17:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Please note that Misplaced Pages Talk pages are not forums and therefore please refrain from making such comments in future. MisterShiney ✉ 17:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Controversy

Whatly (talk · contribs) has thrice blanked an entire section of this article. As this content is adequately sourced and relevant to the subject of the article, I would ask Whatly to justify such a bold edit. Also, here is a fourth source from The Guardian . - MrX 23:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think its adequately sourced at all. I said why in the edit summaries, I'm wondering how you respond to what I've said. That Guardian source is also inadequate as it describes his views as "repugnant". Whatly (talk) 23:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The reliability of sources for Misplaced Pages's purposes is not determined by the choice of words that the sources use, for example "bigoted" or "repugnant". Reliability is determined by the reputation of the news organizations with respect to editorial oversight and accuracy of reporting. Salon and The Guardian easily meet our standard. Please see WP:RS or feel free to open a case at WP:RSN if you believe the sources are unreliable. As of now though, there are two experienced editors who disagree with your views, and rather than edit war, you should make your case here and try to gain consensus for removing this content. - MrX 23:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Well Salon doesn't say there's been any controversy. As for The Guardian, it is a blog piece with somebody of a clearly biased view against Card so it cannot be relied upon to give an account of any controversy about the his role. You could say "John Smith in The Guardian claimed that.....", though his opinion probably isn't noteworthy and so fails in the weight department. Whatly (talk) 00:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Salon doesn't have to say it's a controversy, since other sources plainly say it is a controversy and Salon doesn't contradict that characterization. The guardian blog post is perfectly acceptable to support that the film was a source of controversy, whether you believe the author is "clearly biased" or not. Here is another source that does call it a controversy. Here's another source and another and another and another. Here's one from The Daily Telegraph. There are many more corroborating sources available, as simple search will reveal.

Do you still wish to stand by your assertion that this controversy is irrelevant, trivial and of undue weight, or perhaps now would be a convenient time to restore the content that you removed? - MrX 01:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I've never disputed that there are sources. The sources proposed were just inadequate, including The Guardian because the author's view that the movie has been "weighed down" cannot be added as anything other than his personal opinion. I stand by it, as the sources you've proposed don't compare to news sources like the BBC or NYT which seem like a benchmark when adding an entire controversy section to a big film like this. I would take the Telegraph, but it doesn't say that there's been controversy, just that there could be in November. Whatly (talk) 01:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by the sources being inadequate. The sources are reputable agencies, and each article discusses the film and the controversy surrounding Orson Scott Card. More importantly, the coverage of the controversy is broad. That more than meets our inclusion requirements. A single editor can not dictate a requirement for specific sources such as the New York Times or the BBC. There is demonstrably a controversy at the center of this film's upcoming release. You may want to spend more time reading the sources if you sincerely do not grasp that fact. - MrX 02:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

It's easy to find sources for just about any claim or criticism. The problem is undue weight and notability. It doesn't necessarily meet our inclusion requirements just because there are sources. If there's a notable controversy about this film then it will be reported in notable media, like the BBC or NYT. I'm not being specific about them, any similarly noteworthy news sources is fine. For example, The Telegraph isn't on the same level as the BBC or NYT, though it's miles ahead of those other sources. Whatly (talk) 03:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Not really. Notability in this case is determined by non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources. Your assertion of the types of "noteworthy news sources" required to establish notability for purposes of inclusion are simply not consistent with our policies, or consensus. If you know of such a policy, please present it. - MrX 03:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

There are always different levels of notability. Is it notable enough for an entire "controversy" section on a 110 million dollar film? From the current choice of sources, I don't think it is. A requirement of being reported in actual news sources is a pretty low benchmark to add this. Whatly (talk) 09:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Is being mentioned on the cover of Entertainment Weekly notable enough? Here's the article itself . TerminalPreppie (talk) 16:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The cover says DC Comics, a separate issue. In the article all it says is that there's "talk of a potential boycott". Pretty weak stuff. Even if it was described in detail, its still just a magazine. A requirement of a real news source like the Washington Post, Daily Mail, etc isn't asking too much considering this is such a big film. Whatly (talk) 17:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Please share your realization. Whatly (talk) 17:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Please point to the guideline that disqualifies a weekly publication with a circulation of 1.8 million as "just a magazine". The article is 75% regarding ender's game and is titled "The 'Ender's Game' controversy", whether the cover alludes to the other 25%, it is still on the cover. I don't think anyone here is trying to promote this issue (I can't wait until November), but you certainly are trying to sweep it under the rug. TerminalPreppie (talk) 17:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

There's not a specific rule for that, obviously, but what does seem to disqualify it is the weight and notability requirement. An alleged controversy that has only been reported in magazines and entertainment sites isn't good enough for an entire section entitled controversy on a big film like this. If there was any real controversy of notability then it would be reported in respected news media. That article barely mentions any controversy. The most it says is that there's "talk of a potential boycott". Everything else is irrelevant to the section you want to add. The only other thing that comes close is when it says "building backlash", but that could be talking about the comics or just opposition to Card in general (which the subsequent talk to the producer implies). Whatly (talk) 18:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Better yet, I will share our source's realization:

"The 'Ender's Game' controversy - DC Comics' big gay controversy"

"There's talk of a potential boycott, but unlike the familiar scenario, this furor isn't over the film's content — it's aimed at novelist Orson Scott Card, who has used the success of the Ender best-sellers to position himself as a national voice against same-sex marriage."

"So what does the building backlash mean for the $110 million Ender's Game, which stars Asa Butterfield, Harrison Ford, Abigail Breslin, and Hailee Steinfeld and opens Nov. 1? Producer Roberto Orci (Star Trek, Fringe) says he wasn't aware of Card's views when he decided to adapt the beloved sci-fi classic: It didn't occur to me to do background checks on anybody. Still, he says, the movie should be judged on its message, not the personal beliefs of the original author."

To summarize, we have

1. The word "controversy" used twice in this one source, and repeated in several other sources.
2. Several major journalistic publications reporting the controversy.
3. One editor (out of four) who has objected to the content on editorial premises.
4. No policy based reason to omit the content.

- MrX 18:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

They're certainly not major. No major journalistic publications have reported on this alleged controversy. If the major journalistic publications of the NYT, BBC, Independent, Washington Post, Times, etc have not mentioned this at all, despite each churning out stories like there's no tomorrow, then a controversy section on this 110mil film is unjustified due to the several policies that I've mentioned. I think we should stop going around in circles, this is getting too repetitive. Whatly (talk) 18:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• Whatly (talk · contribs) has now been blocked as a sock of Acoma Magic (talk · contribs), per checkuser - Alison 17:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Alison. - MrX 17:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Post-production

How long are we going to keep the section on this page before it becomes clear that the release date will not be changed? If they felt the change was necessary the studio would surely have said so by now. Trailers are playing and everything, and all the ads I've seen still say November 1. Wehpudicabok (talk) 03:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Controversy section

Please help the Misplaced Pages community at large and add Material to this wiki entry that relates to the film, who made it, the actors, special interesting FACTS about the making of the film, ect........ and please Stop Re-adding the section. When a person opens a REAL encyclopedia in a library and looks up a topic, the "Controversy Section" usually appears under the AUTHORS BIO. The authors PERSONAL BELIEFS have nothing to do with this film; are not even remotely expressed in the slightest detail in the films plot; and as the books author has no influence on how it is made the section titled Controversy SHOULD NOT be added to the biographical information of this STAND ALONE FILM.

WIKIPEDIA is not a place to find everything relating to someone and try to lambast that person for their personal beliefs on all related articles about that person. If you wish to point out the "controversy" then it should be done on the authors wiki bio entry (which it already has).70.196.197.46 (talk) 04:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The controversy is well-documented: I count 92 Google News hits on this subject, all of them directly related to the film; there are currently three sources in the proposed section that are reliable secondary sources: two are the Hollywood Reporter and one is Salon.com. The first part of the section is a little weaker: there is a {{citation needed}} tag and the rest of the sources are primary, but that does not warrant your proposal to remove it completely, and your claims are baseless. Elizium23 (talk) 06:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, given the views of the author and how widely they are known, there is no justified reason for their exclusion. You say his views have no effect on the film, but they clearly are clearly likely going to affect the views/box office. -- MisterShiney ✉ 07:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

There is a recently established CONSENSUS to include this content, as it is very relevant to what the media is reporting about the film. To put it another way, the controversy is what makes the film notable (at this point). Feel free to add content about the film's production, plot, etc., as long as it is reliably sourced. Please also read and follow WP:STATUSQUO and WP:BRD. - MrX

Lead

190.235.83.32 (talk · contribs) objects (four times) to the addition of two sentences to the lede summarizing the controversy. I invite that user to discuss their views here. - MrX 19:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Given that it is directly releated to the controversy section I sub-sub headed it. -- MisterShiney ✉ 19:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

This controversy took up a third of the lead yet there`s little recognition of the controversy in terms of sources. Who care`s about the boycott by the unknown geeksout? Card mentions a boycott in passing but that`s it. There needs to be a lot more attention given to the boycott by sources for it to make it in the lead as the lead needs to summarise the most important aspects of the article and as it currently stands, this controversy is ignored in nearly all reports on the movie and so it is obviously not an important aspect.

I especially like how NPOV it was, describing his views as intolerant. Signed 190.235.83.32 (talk)‎.

Yes, thats why you break it down. It is not so much the unknown Geeksout, its more the fact that it was a Homosexual boycott because of his thoughts. -- MisterShiney ✉ 19:37, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

There are abundant sources: Salon, Entertainment Weekly, CNN, The Guardian, The Wall Street Journal, NPR, NBC, HuffPo and Wired to name a few prominent ones. The media cares about the boycotts. The top 10 Google News hits point to this controversy, and not other aspects of the topic (By the way, Google has a well-established track record of determining what's important and what's not).

Card has responded publicly, which is unusual and highly notable. Yes, this is one of the most important aspects of the article. The film's notability at this point is largely due to this controversy. WP:LEAD states "According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources.". Also, "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." - MrX 19:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Can I see these sources? As the article currently has no notable ones.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.233.251.14 (talk • contribs)

Incorrect. There are citations in the article and Google is your friend.- MrX 20:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

No, I`m after notable sources, not blogs. Has The Guardian and half a dozen similarly notable news sources published a news article on the subject?

Again: Salon, Entertainment Weekly, CNN, The Guardian, The Wall Street Journal, NPR, NBC, HuffPo and Wired. If you would like to question the reliability of any of these sources, you are free to so so at can do so at WP:RSN. - MrX 21:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The google link you gave me had blog after blog with the wall street journal as a blog as well. I checked the guardian and I found a blog and a just published news piece. However, the controversy still doesn`t comàre the much larger, important and extensively sourced development setion which doesn´t make it into the lead. The controversy is dwarfed by the development in terms of notability and content, making the controversy barely reported and achnowledged in comparison.

Interesting. That's almost the exact same argument that banned user Acoma Magic (talk · contribs) made here before his sock was blocked by Alison. - MrX 21:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Great minds think alike. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.233.251.14 (talk) 21:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I've tagged some of the lead sources as better source needed. The geeks out source as is is just a tagged thread. Please cite the original article and where it is notable. Also "Skip Ender's Game" website needs notability. Anyone can make a website that opposes anything they want, so please add the news article sources. The Huffington Post articles are written under the Huffpost Gay Voices section so those references have been clarified.

The article about Card and Superman does not mention the film, only the novel, so it should be replaced with a better source pertaining to the film. There should be plenty of articles that relate the FILM to Card and his views; it does not need to be WP:SYNTHed from the Card/Superman article. -AngusWOOF (talk) 01:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed that some of the sources needed improvement. I've added one and cited one that was already in the article, providing a couple of direct quotes. I left the original sources, but wouldn't object to them being removed now. I think this addresses all of the sourcing issues, but the section could probably still use some light copy editing. - MrX 01:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the media sources; keep 'em coming! They still need improvement or at least some organizing. The paragraph says that in March, "some LGBT and pro gay-marriage groups criticized the film," yet the sources refer to just ONE group, Geeks Out, which later organized the boycott in July. It is also not clear what they are criticizing in March: the film deal, the producer credit, the DC Comics deal, Card's views (not like that's changed in March 2013), Card's associations with certain organizations, or other national events (court rulings, BSA, prop 8).

Card's responses also need to be clarified and presented properly. Huffpost relates to the DC Comics deal and book, and was written in February, so I removed that, and call for a later article. I moved the "moot" statement to the second line of that paragraph but it needs similar clarification as to what he considers settled and moot.

The film's producers and directors have also responded to the issue so that definitely needs to be included in the article to keep it balanced. The Entertainment Weekly quotes boxed above would fulfill that. -AngusWOOF (talk) 05:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, and mostly agree. I will make a couple of adjustments to try to address them. - MrX 11:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it looks good now (as of this edit). It's balanced, precise, well-sourced and provides context without being too lengthy. - MrX 13:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree so I put it right back. MilesMoney (talk) 03:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposed boycott now passes wp:N threshold...in SPADES

Both Mr. Card and Lionsgate have issued statements in response to the boycott movement, emphasizing that “Ender’s Game” has nothing to do with gay rights or really any contemporary debate. Lionsgate said that while it does not “agree with the personal views of Orson Scott Card,” his opinions “are completely irrelevant to a discussion of ‘Ender’s Game.’ ” The studio’s response, though self-serving, is exactly right.

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Adding to the article the "completely irrelevant" quote that was missing from the Lionsgate response. -AngusWOOF (talk) 18:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

1. Card, Orson Scott (September 30, 2005). ""Uncle Orson Reviews Everything"". Hatrack.com. Retrieved 2006-05-19. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)