Jump to content

Talk:Hugo Award/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Reversion question

How do I revert a page to an older version? The slashdot scum screwing with this page pissed me off.--Tasadar24 23:50, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Picture of a Hugo

Can we get a picture of the Hugo on this page? Anouymous 06:38, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I have added a picture of the 2005 Hugo Award. VJDocherty 08:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Different design

Not to sound like a pervert or a sex-addict but I would propose they redesign the look of the actual award. It looks kind of like a... you know. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.11.97.146 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC).

Well most people say it looks like a classic rocket, but it is true that we occasionaly use the 'where do the batteries go' joke. :-) Nevertheless, the design is what it is and is specified in the WSFS constitution, so it's not likely to change any time soon. VJDocherty 12:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Base Selection

I changed the line that said the Worldcon committee designed the Hugo Bases to say they selected the Hugo bases. The committees may have designed the bases in the past, but at least in recent years, there has been a competition sponsored by most Worldcons, in which members of fandom submit designs and the committee selects the design. I (and many others)submitted a design for Noreascon 4 in 2004. The committee selected my design for the Retro Hugos, and Scott Lefton's for the regular Hugos that year.

Patrick J. O'Connor

Patrick - that's a good point. I think I would add the qualification that the Worldcon committee is *responsible* for producing the base design, and can then choose the best method to create it - by someone on the committee, or by direct commission or by competition. VJDocherty 10:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Does it really belong there? It seems to mostly point to online retail sites to get these audio recordings from. Unless someone explains why it should stay, I'd like to remove it per WP:EL. 67.117.130.181 05:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

One can find a zillion references to the Hugo Awards with a Google search; I'm not sure the snortyville link is noteworthy. Avt tor 17:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Hugo Award for Best Professional Magazine

Why is there no article for Hugo Award for Best Professional Magazine? This is one of only two such categories not to have an article. --Orange Mike 17:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


Paging an authority on Hugo Rules as pertain to Semiprozine . . .

Can someone conversant with Hugo Semiprozine rules weigh in here? Talk:Kathryn_Cramer

Thanks. --Pleasantville 02:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC) aka Kathryn Cramer


Special Hugos

Could a list of the recipients of the special Hugo Awards (Like Watchmen, for instance, be put here? Or does it already exist somewhere else? Marvin the Parinoid Android 03:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Someday, the official site at http://www.TheHugoAwards.org/ may have a "sort by category" list (currently the list is only available by year) -- probably if we get it database-driven to make it easier to do the sorts without having to worry about the lists getting out of synch. (One thing at a time; we just launched the new site earlier today!) At the moment it does not have a way to list out the special Hugos as separate categories. Possibly someone would like to go through the list and write an article on Special Hugos and collect them all up there. Kevin Standlee 01:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The Nebula Award and logrolling

I have removed a queried statement that the Nebula Award has been 'increasingly criticised for "logrolling" since 1990s'. The statement is arguably true and I am sure citations could be found, both for the statement in general and for specific instances. However, any cited sources would almost certainly derive from internal arguments within the awarding body for the Nebula Award, the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America, and would need rather more detailed and careful treatment than is warranted in an article on another topic - such as this one. PWilkinson (talk) 03:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Hood Ornament?

A D. Gary Grady did a lot of work to prove that the Hugo was not based on the Olds Rocket Hood Ornament. And I would like to correct that in the article. Does anyone have any objection? Rich Dengrove 22 February 2008 (UTC)

As long as you source it to the same sources D.Gary used, sounds good. (Mention the legend, then source the refutation.) Multajn dankojn! --Orange Mike | Talk 04:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The legend is in the article, isn't it? As for sources, I absolutely intend to stick to D. Gary Grady's sources. The only sources I might have a problem with are the ones, like the links to Craig's list, I suspect are temporary. Rich Dengrove 22 February 2008 (UTC)

2008 nominations

The 2008 nominations have been revealed. --Private Sweety (talk) 09:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Who Votes for this Award

I didn't find anywhere in the article where it describes who votes on this award or what the voting procedure is. Certainly how an award is arrived at should be a critical part of the description of that award? --JeffW 23:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The voters are the members of that years Worldcon. Each annual WorldCon has its own open memebership. the voting is unique also as it is austrailian rules elimitation. There is good documentatuon at http://www.worldcon.org/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exprexxo (talk • contribs) 06:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I think something to that effect should be added to the article. --JeffW 16:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I have updated the article to make the voting procedure clearer. VJDocherty 14:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. --JeffW 16:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I still find it a bit befuddling. E.g. I've heard it's really a "FAN'S AWARD," which explains the Harry Potter prize. I.e. the Hugo is decided by fans and the Nebula by authors. Also heard it said that more people vote for the TV Hugo than the novel, which is a pretty severe comment on the quality of the award. I had been looking to the award as a guide of quality, but after winning a terrible Hugo (Hyperion), I'm inclined not to trust it. Anyway, if the voting procedure could be elaborated (and critiqued), I'd really appreciate it. I'd like to better understand the Hugo. --Smilo Don (talk) 03:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
You really need to visit the website http://www.worldcon.org/ for details on the awards. If you are a member of that worldcon, you can vote for the hugos. The convention is held around the world, and science fiction and fantasy fans, authors, publisher, artists and the top people in that community attend every year. It is both a peer and a fan award. I've been voting in the hugos on and off for about 25 years, it's a wonderful proces. Timmccloud (talk) 04:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Works not in English are eligible for the Hugo Award

I have just removed a statement from the article lead that the Awards are only for work in English. In fact, while the source that was cited is the official website for the Awards and can thus be treated as authoritative, it actually states, "Any work is eligible, regardless of its place or language of publication. Works first published in languages other than English are also eligible in their first year of publication in English translation."

The first sentence that I have quoted makes it clear that the Awards are, in principle, for works published in any language, not just English. I suspect that the previous editor misread the second sentence.

Having said that, I don't believe that any work not originally published in English has ever actually won a Hugo, even in English translation - but, as non-English language works are in principle eligible, I would suggest that this is a matter for the main body of the article, provided the appropriate facts can be suitably sourced.

PWilkinson (talk) 19:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The sole exception is Pan's Labyrinth, which was originally in Spanish. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Alternative History is NOT Science Fiction

It's Fiction.

If alternative history is science fiction, then books like Dan Brown's "The Da Vinci Code" and Philip Roth's "The Plot Against America" are science fiction, which they certainly are not. Michael Chabon's book "The Yiddish Policemen's Union" won the Hugo (and Nebula) Awards but other than a minor alt-history setting, it's really nothing more than a Jewish Detective Novel that could have easily been set in the Jewish district of any large European or Northeastern city. Billing alt-history books as science fiction is misleading and it does damage to the credibility of the Hugo (and Nebula) Awards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.24.134 (talk) 21:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

File:HugoAward.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:HugoAward.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Tuck on German Hugos

Donald Tuck, on p. 901 of volume 3 of his The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy, has a listing under "Hugo Awards (German)", as follows: "This trophy, in the form of a document signed by Hugo Gernsback, was first awarded at the Biggercon in 1957, covering 1955 and 1956; the second was in 1958 [neither recipient known]. The third was in 1959 at the First European Convention, Zürich, to K.-H. Scheer for the novel Oktavian III."

I've never seen this mentioned in other references, and it's clearly not really anything to do with the Hugos, but it might be worth mentioning as a footnote. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Info from Franson/DeVore and Clute/Nicholls

Bibliographic info for Franson and DeVore is:

  • Franson, Donald (1978). A History of the Hugo, Nebula and International Fantasy Awards. Dearborn, Michigan: Misfit Press. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

The history of the Hugos is an essay in the book from page 3 to page 8, by Donald Franson, titled "The Hugo Nominations".

Any reason why you don't have a list of sources at the end of the article, by the way? See e.g. Startling_Stories#References; I think if you have print citations it's useful to list them for the reader.

Biblio info for the Clute/Nicholls is

  • Clute, John (1993). The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction. New York: St. Martin's Press. ISBN 0-312-09618-6. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

There's a 1978 edition too, but the later one is much expanded.

The first useful thing from Franson is the conception of the awards. He cites the March 1954 issue of Future Science Fiction, which I have, so I dug that up. Biblio info for that is:

Robert A. Madle, "Inside Science Fiction" in Future Science Fiction vol. 4, no 6 (Mar 1954), p.54.

though I don't cite magazines much so this may not be standard format. What Madle says is:

The banquet was held Sunday evening, with Isaac Asimov as toastmaster ... the First Annual Science Fiction Awards were presented. Forry Ackerman, voted the year's top fan, turned over "Hugo" over to Ken Slater of England; Virgil Finlay was the fen's choice of all the interior artists and ... [etc.] We feel that the presentation of these awards (conceived of by Harold Lynch) should be an annual custom, and trust that future conventions will continue the tradition established at 1953 convention. [sic]

Harold Lynch is (or was) a fan, and perhaps was part of the convention committee. See also this copy of a newszine from the con itself; the website is not a reliable source, sadly, though the zine itself might be if we could get a copy.

I won't list the categories that Franson and DeVore list as they are all given on the WSFS website; e.g. here. I think it would be good to tabulate the extinct categories as well as the surviving ones.

Franson, pp. 3–4: "At the Detention, in Detroit in 1959, there were two important innovations. The first was that awards would be for the previous calendar year, rather than on a vague "preceding year" basis. This was partly due to the second innovation, that of nominating ballots, which required extra time for the two sets of ballots to be distributed and returned. It was specified that 1958 items which won at the Solacon [the 1958 Los Angeles convention] would be ineligible for a second award: this applied only to individual stories, not to magazines or artists."

Franson, p. 4: "Besides these innovations, which continue in effect to date, the institution of "No Award" was established. Two of the categories, Best Movie and Best New Author, were promptly so voted. This was an open nomination, with nominating ballots, and even final ballots, available to all of fandom, not just members of the convention. This is another of the rules which has undergone change through the years."

Franson, p. 4: "P. Schuyler Miller wrote in the letter column of Shangri-L'Affaires #51 that the Pittcon (1960) would have only six categories, 'for the simple reason that Ben Jason had six of the original Hugo rockets left and let us have them.' ... They must have located another rocketship to give a Special Hugo Award to Hugo Gernsback, the first committee-given Hugo, not voted on by the membership."

Note that Peter Nicholls in the Clute/Nicholls explicitly says that this was not a Hugo, and I believe other references follow Nicholls on this. I'll check.

Franson, p. 4: "In 1961 ... rules were added to the nominating ballots. From time to time, the current committee, or the business meeting at the convention, would think of some new rules to prevent something from happening again that had already happened; or to clarify something that had been misunderstood. According to the decision of the Pittcon business meeting, the final ballots were now to be distributed only to the members of the convention, though nominating ballots were still sent out wholesale and reproduced freely in fanzines. The Chicon III (1962) in Chicago topped this by sending out nominating ballots to be printed in prozines. This was the last year of the open nominating ballot (except for 1965 and 1967) ...."

Franson, p. 4: "Rules for 1963 stated that only members of the DisCon (Washington, D.C.) or of the previous convention (the Chicon) could nominate. This rule was followed by conventions to come with a couple of exceptions as already noted. Final voting was restricted (and has been since 1960) to members of the current convention, who receive their ballots with one of the convention progress reports. ... At the DisCon ... there were some new rules made regarding them at the business meeting, of the 'lock-the-barn-door-after-the-horse-has-been-stolen' variety. Seems that a couple of series had won recent Short Fiction and Drama awards, and rules were changed so that only individual stories or programs could be nominated. This rules continues to this day, making possible the strange picture of five Star Trek episodes competing against one another in 1968."

Franson, pp. 4–5: At the Pacificon II (1964, Oakland) ... another category was dropped: Dramatic Presentation was voted "No Award" on the nominating ballots, so it did not even appear on the final ballot."

Franson, p. 5: "The Loncon II committee (London, 1965) inadvertently left off Dramatic Presentation and continued Book Publisher, possibly in the assumption that the Pacificon had standardized the categories. Protests and write-ins put Dramatic Presentation back on the final ballot, together with two nominees. ... Best Short Story [was] defined as anything shorter than a novel. ... The Tricon (Cleveland, 1966) nominating ballots contained spaces for three choices in each category. Perhaps this was to increase the nominations, which had been small (the Pacificon II Program Book tells just how small). ... on the final ballot, ... once again Dramatic Presentation did not make it. Rules adopted at the Loncon permitted committees to add or drop categories as necessary."

On pp. 25–26 Franson quotes the number of nominations each nominee received (this is the information he mentions above as having come from the Pacificon program). The five nominated novels received no more than 20 nominations; one nominee (Herbert's "Dune World") received only 11 nominations. Franson adds "The purpose of the listing was to show how few votes were being received, and to justify the committee's variation in the number of contenders in each category due to the spread of votes." He lists nominating votes in all categories, and it might be worth noting that the ultimate short fiction winner, Anderson's "No Truce With Kings", received only 9 nominations, though it received 93 votes in the final ballot.

Franson, p. 5: "In fandom, there have been all sorts of polls and awards (mostly honorary) for fan achievement, ranging from the popular Fanac Poll to the unpopular Fan Achievement Awards -- these were proposed statuettes based on an Emsh cover on the October 1956 Infinity, to be given out at convention banquets, along with the Hugos. After the downfall of this proposal, unofficial fan polls were popular for a while, then languished. Then, for the NyCon 3 (New York, 1967) someone go the idea of Fan Achievement Awards. These were to be separate from the Hugos, which were Science Fiction Achievement Awards, but voted on by the membership on the same ballots. There were to be three categories: Best Fanzine, Best Fan Writer, and Best Fan ARtist (the distinction between amateur and fan is nice: even a pro can be a fan). Unfortunately, one of the categories, Best Fanzine, was taken away from the regular Hugos. Objections were raised to this: to the separation of fans from pro; and to the name chosen for the separate fan awards, the Pongs -- named after 'Hoy Ping Pong', a facetious pseudonym of Bob Tucker, well-liked fan. It wasn't Tucker that anyone objected to, just the name 'Pong'. The unfortunate name was dropped, but not before the nominating ballots went out, which included the three new categoriesw as Fan Achievement Awards, rather than Science Fiction Achievement Awards, the Hugos. The final ballot listed them all together as Achievement Awards. Finally the committee gave them full status as Hugos. So now there were two additional Hugo categories."

Franson, p. 6: "Formal World Science Fiction Society (Uninc.) rules made their appearance at the Noreascon (Boston, 1971), among other clarifications allowing only five nominees in each category on the final ballot. (This rule has been stretched at times.) The business meeting redefined Fan Artist so that no Pro Artists could compete, and expanded the Drama award from 'radio, television, stage or screen' to 'any medium of dramatized science fiction or fantasy'. As a result, recordings have been nominated."

Franson, p. 6: "Just when it seemed that the regular Hugo categories were at last straightened out, the business meeting at DisCon II adopted a whole new constitution for the WSFS, scrapping most of the previous Hugo rules defining categories. This limited them to ten (including a reborn Special Award) but gave the convention committees a free hand to juggle categories once again. Aussiecon (Melbourne, Australia, 1975) didn't ratify the new Constituion in toto. It was argued that fandom wanted specific Hugo categories, and nine of them were reinstated (leaving out Novella -- nevertheless Novella didn't miss a convention, showgin that by now the categories had a life of their own). AussieCon tried out a new category "Contribution to the Field", but abandoned it on account of vagueness before it reached the final ballot. MidAmeriCon (Kansas City, 1976) announced ten categories as usual, and allowed only MidAmericon members to nominate, under the terms of the new Constitution. SunCon (Miami Beach, 1977) Convention Journal #3 printed another new Constitution, voted on at the MidAmeriCon business meeting, which resotred all the categories and rules generally as they were before."

Nicholls, p. 595: "HUGO. The almost invariably used term, in honour of Hugo Gernsback, for the Science Fiction Achievement Award; it has been an official variant of the formal title since 1958. ... the original idea, from fan Hal Lynch, was based on the National Film Academy Awards (Oscars). The first model was designed and produced by Jack McKnight; from 1955 a similar design by Ben Jason has normally been used. The rockets have been cast since 1984 (except 1991) in Birmingham, UK, at the foundry of prominent fan Peter Weston; in 1992 they were gold-plated to celebrate the 50th Worldcon."

I've gone through everything up through here and added it to this article (or the Best Dramatic Presentation article). --PresN 04:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Question

There's a little more that I think could be added from Nicholls, and I will try to get to that tomorrow. I am just starting to look through my other sources and I found some critical comments by James Blish in his More Issues at Hand. Are there any objections if I just add this material as I come across it? I'll try to get through all my sources by the end of the weekend; it might be quicker than that. You can of course revert and discuss here if necessary; it just seems like that would be quicker than me posting the source info verbatim for you to process. Let me know. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

If that is faster for you I'm fine with that; I can tweak wording and such after you're done. For criticism I'm pretty sure that anything you add will be left in verbatim, so go for it. --PresN 07:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Recognition and criticism paragraph

I was going to add some material from Nicholls but I have some reservations about that section of the article, so I'm going to quote the relevant part of Nicholls here, and then go back to the FAC and add more comments there, rather than try to edit it to correct what I see as flaws.

Nicholls, p. 596: The Hugos have for many years been subject to criticism on the grounds that awards made by a small, self-selected group of hardcore sf fans do not necessarily reflect either literary merit or the preferences of the sf reading public generally; hardcord fandom probably makes up less than 1 per cent of the general sf readership. Certainly Hugos have tended to be given to traditional, hard sf, and have seldom been awarded to experimental work, but they have been, on the whole, surprisingly eclectic. While many awards have gone to (good but) conservative writers like Poul Anderson, Robert A. Heinlein, Clifford D. Simak and Larry Niven, they have also been given to such doyens of the New Wave as Harlan Ellison, Roger Zelazny and James Tiptree, Jr, and to a number of works of literary excellence which quite fail to conform to the standard patterns of genre expectation, such as Walter M. Miller Jr's A Canticle for Leibowitz (1959) and Ursula K. Le Guin's The Dispossessed (1974). Neither was Fritz Leiber's eccentric The Big Time (1958; 1961), which won the award before going into book format, a traditionalist selection. The rival award, the Nebula, is chosen by professional writers, but there is no evidence that they have consistently selected works of superior literary merit; indeed some critics would argue the contrary case, that the Hugo voters have proved themselves marginally the more reliable judges. Though good books are often ignored, and in some years individual awards have seemed strange, the track record of the Hugos has been, on the whole, quite honorable. Another cavil is that both Hugo and Nebula, being US-centred, are notably chauvinistic, and awards to non-US writers have been rare. Nevertheless, despite all the criticisms to which both awards are readily subject, they are of real value to their recipients in increasing book sales.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:29, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Sources section?

Any objections if I add a sources section, like this? I am finding it a bit frustrating to look through the footnotes to see if a particular source has been used; I think source sections are very helpful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Here's the sort of thing I'd like to add, except I would see if there is sensible way to combine all the WSFS website sources into one line.

"1973 Hugo Awards". World Science Fiction Society. Archived from the original on 2011-05-07. Retrieved 2010-04-19. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, though I don't think you'll be able to get anywhere on combining the websites. --PresN 17:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

You might be able to just use "The Hugo Awards" as a general title in Sources (ie. present the base URL and archive thereof) and then do something like ""Hugo Awards Logo" (2011-07-08 archive)". However, this would only work if all of the dates are the same (I haven't checked whether they are). Nikkimaria (talk) 22:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Sources list with websites removed

1991 design.

"The rocket trophy was formally redesigned in 1984, and since then only the base of the trophy has changed each year." Except for 1991! http://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-trophies/1991-hugo-award-trophy/ It's obviously the 1982 design. The clear plastic rocket and metal part of the base are identical but 91 used a round of marble in place of 82's round of wood. http://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-trophies/1982-hugo-award-trophy/ Bizzybody (talk) 11:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The Fix Is In. The Hugos Lose.

OK, this explains it. "Only about 700 ... members actually vote." The award can be easily rigged by a band of zealous fans, publishers, agents, authors, and/or PR people. No wonder books like "Doomsday Book" (historical fiction), "Paladin of Souls" (romantic fantasy), "The Yiddish Policemen's Union" (detective novel) and "The Graveyard Book" (ghost story) have won this award. The Hugos (and the Nebulas) have lost all credibility and can no longer be trusted to select a great sci-fi. Too bad. They've finally killed off a great award for a great genre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.27.213 (talk) 16:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Were you under the impression that it had ever been anything other than that?
People chosing to vote or not vote make a big difference. It's open to all worldcon attendees, but not all of them chose to participate.
This is not news. It's always been this way. Everyone involved is aware of it.
Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for confirming my suspicions. But having been a sci-fi fan since a young age and having recently gone back and read (and re-read) most of the Hugo Award winners, there seems to have been a qualitative change in the nature of the award winners starting sometime in the early to mid '90s. Any ideas as to what happened and why there was such a divergence away from great (hard and soft) science fiction?
Perhaps new generations of fans with different preferences?
This conversation is really more appropriate for a blog than Wikipedia... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps the changing nature of the award would be worth documenting. The shift away from sci-fi is pretty noticeable.

If some telling evolution of the Convention can be documented, it may be worth covering in another article, and briefly mentioning here. It would be appropriate to mention/link changes in Convention scope, or the emphasis of its promotion, alongside the rules governing participation in the vote and developments such as internet campaigns (if all can be documented). --P64 (talk) 16:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Hugo Award/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll review this article in the next couple days, once I wrap up a review I currently have going. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

After reading this a couple times over, I could not find any issues with this peace. If I were to be nitpicky, I'd say replace "and instated afterward as an official Hugo Award" with "and established afterward...", since it's slightly cleaner. Since I found no major problems, I'll pass the article as a GA. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

No list of winners?

Shouldn't we have a list of winning works, somewhere? Jim Hardy (talk) 04:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

There are lists of winning and nominated works for each category already. They're in the template at the bottom, as well as the "Categories" section. --PresN 07:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Many visitors are sure to be interested in such lists. (Whether most visitors are interested may depend on how the articles on particular books and artists link to this page, to its subpages, or to both, which I don't know.)
It may be useful to have "Winners" show up in the Contents, even at the top, and that can be done with a section that consists of nothing or almost nothing but a Main article link, or an equivalent link to a Category. --P64 (talk) 16:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I hope I have used the last few minutes well. :::See the revision "help users find ..." --P64 (talk) 02:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Missing Split Categories

There seem to be a few missing split and unsplit categories in the former categories table.

From 1957 (http://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-history/1957-hugo-awards/) there were two prozine categories, one for American and one for British publications. More generally, both Editor and DP categories existed in unsplit forms before being broken into the long and short form versions we have today. I would think the history would be worth at least a note in any discussion of categories. Glennglazer (talk) 00:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Harry Potter complaints

The complaints about Harry Potter were a combination of "it's not sf", "it's a children's book", and "Rowling didn't care enough to send someone to accept the award." The Hugo rules (http://www.worldcon.org/bm/const-2002.html#hugo) explicitly state that fantasy as well as sf is eligible, though there are few Hugo winners that are unambiguously fantasy. As long as I was about it, I did some other tidying. Vicki Rosenzweig 14:01, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

In 1959 (http://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-history/1959-hugo-awards/), both "The 7th Voyage of Sinbad" and "Dracula" were nominated and neither one is SF. This establishes a precedent almost as far back as the genesis of the Hugos in 1953. Glennglazer (talk) 01:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I think perhaps the Harry Potter kvetching doesn't really rate discussion in the top-level article on the Hugo award. It *is* true, and worth mentioning, that the award goes most often to SF, but putting that right next to the mention of the complaints about Harry Potter seems to me to make a much stronger statement. And of course the Lord of the Rings movies have won two hugos, and Buffy won a hugo, so there are *at least* three examples of fantasy winning in just the last couple of years. And examples go back to at least 1959 (Bloch's "That Hell-Bound Train"). I haven't edited the page to do this yet, though. David Dyer-Bennet 16:14 CST 13-Feb-2004.

Yes, but the best-novel award is the one everyone talks about. When someone says "the hugo" they mean for novel. Regardless, there have been complaints about it, that makes it fodder for the article. →Raul654 22:18, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)

Also the "dramatic presentation" is almost allways for a movie. Altough "The Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy" (the radio series) ran second (to "Superman - the Movie"!) one year. // Liftarn

The potter complaint isn't the only one regarding the Hugos. The Hugos are, by the very nature of the voting system, more prone to award popular works versus "good" works. Unlike awards given by peers (for example, Nebulas and the Oscars), it's unlikely that a person is familar with every work in a category he or she is voting for, and if there's only one work he or she read, it's common for someone to vote for that one. This is especially true in the most popular categories, Novel and Dramatic Presentation. //Uhlek

Personally, I gave up on the Hugos when they gave the award to Gollum's acceptance speech. 23skidoo 15:02, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

The facts are that people often don't show up to collect their awards in person. David Langford usually sends Martin Hoare or someone else to collect their awards. Most movies TV shows do not have producers accepting the awards; Craig Miller, Jeff Walker, or others often stand in for them. Flying from Britain to California kills a whole day in each direction, and Rowling earns $100,000 a day sitting at her keyboard, which is not trivial. Nobody thought that Peter Jackson was snubbing the Hugos when he did not interrupt post-production of the third Lord of the Rings movie to fly in from New Zealand to accept an award. Rowling has prominently mentioned winning the Hugo in other contexts since winning the award. Section 3.2.1 of the WSFS by-laws clearly state that the awards are for science fiction and fantasy. The Potter book may be the first unambiguously fantasy book to actually win, though Heinlein's Glory Road and Norton's Witch World were on the ballot in 1964 and Joan Vinge's The Snow Queen in 1981 certainly contained fantasy elements. This small tempest in a teapot does not reach the level of significance to be mentioned here, let alone taking up a large chunk of the history section. Gossip isn't history. There is commentary here which is unsourced and highly POV and which should be removed. Try putting this commentary on the Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire page (where it would actually be more relevant) and see how the editors there respond. Avt tor 20:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Removing the "Recent Controversy" discussion

I'm going to remove this section. The footnotes referencing the voting stats don't prove anything -- and if they did, it'd be original research. (The 885 best novel votes at Philcon are well within the historical numbers in the NESFA paper, anyway.) If somebody wants to replace it with something well-sourced, that's great -- links to actual discussion of the win, some external analysis of Hugo voting patterns showing HP as an anomaly (cf. the rumored ballot stuffing for L. Ron Hubbard back in 1987). As it is, we've just got gossip. --Chronodm (talk) 14:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and that also goes for the Dramatic Presentation controversy. Yes, there's been plenty of it, but we need references. Chronodm (talk) 14:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

2014 Hugo Awards

Someone really should remove the section on the 2014 Hugo Awards as it is demonstratively false if one looks up the blog posts of Larry Correia. Since I am a fan of Mr. Correia I am not going to personally touch this article. I will however say that there is an "Entertainment" news agency that is being sued for Libel currently for their hit piece about Sad Puppies 3. The Stated goal of Sad Puppies has never been about putting up "white men" for the award. It's stated goal has been to bolster the people voting for the Hugos and to put up good stories no matter the authors race, gender, orientation or political views. Paulwharton (talk) 04:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh and I should add that Larry Correia started "Sad Puppies" in 2013. making the article very erroneous as the article claims that something started in 2013 was in response to a 2014 awards. It makes one wonder how much more of the linked "source" is false. Paulwharton (talk) 05:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
(Moved to the bottom) Wikipedia bases its contents on what reliable sources write (in this case the Daily Telegraph, a reputable mainstream newspaper), and not on blog posts by people directly involved in controversies. See, generally, WP:RS and particularly WP:BLPSPS. If you can cite reliable sources that contradict what the article contains, we can discuss their inclusion.  Sandstein  12:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
The Telegraph article itself notes that Sad Puppies has been running since 2013: For the third year running, Sad Puppies encouraged their followers to vote for their selection of nominees, making the greatest impact yet. While the article in question indeed implies a motivation of putting up "white men" for the award, it's clear that this is editorial opinion - factually, the slate itself, per Torgersen's own account, includes several women and minority authors, and the Telegraph article notes Annie Bellet in particular.
The article does not say that the campaign is in response to the notable increase in the number of women, younger people, and people of color receiving awards in 2014. It merely talks about those two things side by side - a sort of journalistic analogue to WP:SYNTH. It could not possibly make that argument, since it admits the campaign is older than that. It does not say anything about an attempt by a minority of fans [to] pick more "literary" works rather than "popular" works; that is a pure invention of the version of this page that I stumbled upon. And although the article claims that the 2014 awards celebrated [this] increasing diversity, its citation here is to a previous Telegraph article which doesn't specifically point any of this out.
The article, further, does not argue that Correia and Torgersen see their slate as offering more traditional choices - the only thing they say about the nominations is that the authors are predominantly white and male. It doesn't even support the claim that the slate includ[es] works they and their colleagues had written or edited - although it is true - and including this information seems like a WP:UNDUE attempt to suggest that something untoward is going on (it is not; everything happening here is within the rules and nothing that Scalzi et. al. haven't done themselves before).
Finally, the article names names of people advocating for "No Award" votes and other protests; I can't fathom any NPOV reason to exclude their names from mention while including Correia's, Torgersen's and Day's/Beale's.
I have WP:BOLDly redone the paragraph in question to reflect these realities. I have endeavoured to present the article even-handedly, in particular by keeping in the claim about the 2015 nominees being predominantly white and male, while allowing Correia and Torgersen's directly quoted criticism to stand on its own without editorialization either by the Telegraph or previous Wikipedians. I also added Sandifer's quote from the article, so that both sides are at least heard in their own words. That said, we really could use more sources for this controversy. I know there's been quite a bit of internet buzz about it, and I really can't fathom that the Telegraph is the only RS writing about it. 70.24.4.51 (talk) 13:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Specifically regarding WP:BLPSPS: it says, right there: "Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject" (emphasis mine). The next section of the page, WP:SELFPUB, lays out the rules for such a citation. I see nothing here that prevents a citation of Correia's or Torgersen's blogs for the explicit purpose of establishing the contents and purpose of the nomination slate. There is nothing unduly self-serving about that (since it's matter of fact, and it would be unreasonable to deny people's own opinion of their own basic motivations); there are no claims about third parties (the nominees are second parties); it does not involve claims about unrelated events (the only event involved is the nomination campaign itself); authenticity is not in question (these are well-known authors and the identities of their blogs are well established); and it would certainly not result in the article being based primarily on those sources. 70.24.4.51 (talk) 13:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
One of your comments above is completely off-base, showing no comprehension of how WP works. You criticize an RS doing the "journalistic analogue" of SYNTH. Well yes, that is their prerogative, and we are allowed to rely on it. The same goes for all the other restrictions WP editors face: OR, BLP, SELF, NPOV, etc. We aren't supposed to be making certain judgment calls, but we wait for others, with a decent track record, to make them for us. Choor monster (talk) 14:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
So once a source gets officially deemed Reliable, its editorial spin is beyond reproach? Seriously? Regardless, the point stands that the article didn't make the claim that was attributed to it. 70.24.4.51 (talk) 16:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Their "editorial spin" is not generally allowed, e.g., NYT editorials. Claiming to find spin inside an RS article is another matter, and is also generally not allowed. Meanwhile, misreading or twisting what RS say is also not allowed, so stick to that in your current criticisms of this WP article. Choor monster (talk) 17:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I think your are misunderstanding the IPs complaint, at least as I understand it. She's saying the reliable source doesn't draw a connection between increase diversity last year and the Sad Puppies this year. The article talks about one thing, then goes onto talk about the other. It could just be background for the reader, a 'look how far we've falling' theme or anything else. It is a RS prerogative to make connections but unless they do so, we can't assume they meant to. We can no more assume a connection between two pieces of unconnected information in the same article, than we could in two difference articles. --Elfwood (talk) 18:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
70.24.4.51, do you normally use a user account? You give the impression of an experienced editor.

I agree with Elfwood here. I also recommend not to name those disagreeing with the campaign, because their identity is not an integral part of the story like that of the leaders of the campaign, but rather they are more or less random individuals from the fandom who happen to have commented on the story. For this reason, I also wouldn't mention some non-notable guy's hyperbolic opinion about a "neo-fascist hijacking". Godwinist quotes are a dime dozen on the Internet, what we need is analysis by additional reliable sources.  Sandstein  17:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I like that I've been told that I give the impression of an experienced editor and show no comprehension of how WP works in the same discussion. I have never made an account, and this kind of thing is exactly why. Anyway, it's absurd to me that names of people opposed to the campaign are not an integral part of the story while the names of its creators are. Since when do we include criticism on Wikipedia without indicating where the criticism comes from? The identity of Correia et. al.'s "opponents", as far as I can tell, is common knowledge within the fandom.
As for the idea that Claiming to find spin inside an RS article... is also generally not allowed: just about the first thing that WP:RS tells me is that

The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings: The piece of work itself (the article, book); The creator of the work (the writer, journalist); The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press). Any of the three can affect reliability.

That is, it is not the case that we can say "the Telegraph is an RS therefore the article is an RS." And if we can't argue about apparent editorialization in a putatively reliable source, how are we supposed to challenge a claim to reliability?
The article in question doesn't appear to come from a news agency like AP or Reuters, and is published anonymously. Since the article doesn't present any objective metrics regarding the slate, and seems mostly concerned with what various people had to say about it - along with some randomly inserted commentary from "pop culture website io9" - I think a case can also be made for WP:NOTGOSSIP. 70.24.4.51 (talk) 19:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
An experienced editor is someone who knows how to edit articles, talk pages well and is aware of policy and guidelines. That is not the same as someone who understands WP policies and guidelines. All you've shown in your analysis of WP:RS is implicit in what I said: the different parts of an "RS" are not automatically RS. Choor monster (talk) 20:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The current paragraph is problematic...relying on a single source (without a byline) for an extremely controversial claim that violates WP:BLP. It's made even more problematic by the fact that some claims made in the article are pretty easily disproved - there are women and minorities on the Sad Pupplies slate, and one of the organizers (Corriea) is Hispanic. It should be removed per WP:BLP until better sources emerge. Kelly hi! 18:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
The Telegraph is a generally reliable source, and I'm not sure what the lack of a byline matters. What are the specific claims in our article you think violate BLP and/or are wrong? The claim that the slate is "predominantly" composed of white men isn't disproven by the fact that there are other people on it as well; it's a matter of proportion according to the journalist's judgment.  Sandstein  19:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Also, I'm not sure how it can be associated with Gamergate when it predates it by a couple of years. Kelly hi! 18:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
That doesn't strike me as a problem. The two movements, or campaigns, or groups can well have become associated at some point after which they were both created.  Sandstein  19:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
It's certainly possible, but given the vitriol being slung about on this issue, it seems reasonable to wait for some sort of confirmation, rather than including what appears to be gossip.Kerani (talk) 00:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
We could move over to the The Guardian's piece. It feels a bit more sober and I'm more inclined to trust the Guardian to the Telegraph anyway. It takes a slightly different take: pointing out that the Puppies's slate pushed American authors. That's a lot easier to show and moves away from that point of controversy until more RS appear. The article also praises some of the nominations (like Butcher's Skin Game)and doesn't mention GamerGate at all (which is always a plus because we really don't want that drama here). --Elfwood (talk) 18:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Also, Entertainment Weekly noted in its correction to this article that the Sad Puppies slate included many women and people of color. Kelly hi! 18:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
No problem with including the Guardian also, but I prefer the Telegraph as a source in this case because it's known as a conservative-aligned newspaper and is therefore less likely to be viewed with suspicion when reporting about this issue. The EW article can be used also to make the counterpoint you mention.  Sandstein  19:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Just did some checking around on the web - looks like Corriea, Torgerson, and Day have all written their own articles refuting the claims made in the Telegraph, the Guardian, and EW regarding racism, Gamergate connections, et al. If the claims are included, the denials probably should be too. I didn't save the links but they're easy enough to find. Looks like they all wrote multiple pieces but here are a couple examples.[1][2] Kelly hi! 19:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Obviously we can't use self-published texts as sources for claims that require analysis, such as whether anybody's intentions were misogynist or racist - never mind that our article did not make any such assertions. If the media got the story all wrong, as the campaigners seem to assert, then I expect we will at some point have secondary sources to reflect this - in the meantime we should use the ones we have.  Sandstein  19:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
The story is only a couple of days old. When the current sources are obviously problematic, as echoed by EW's correction, and the claims made in other sources that echo those erroneous assertions, we should be cautious and wait for a more reliable account to appear. And certainly WP:ABOUTSELF allows us to use works published by the campaign organizers as sources for their own motivations, so long as they are properly attributed. Opinions on the opposing side need to be attributed as well, per WP:NPOV. But so far, it appears the journalists haven't even talked to the campaign organizers, according to evidence they're been presenting. I guess my main point is that journalists on a deadline are not infallible (as demonstrated by the Killian documents controversy and the Rolling Stone rape hoax), but we are not on a deadline. We can wait for the story to settle, But if we do want to include it immediately, per WP:NPOV we need to include the viewpoints of the subjects of the BLP. Kelly hi! 19:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Agreed that the best take is to wait for the noise to die down. The multiple articles with similar wording being published at the same time is concerning, particularly given the rapid backpeddling from EW and the lack of attribution/by-lines from other sources. Kerani (talk) 00:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

If we do include this bit, can we move it out of 'History'? Make a new 'Controveries' section or something? Right now History is just the history of the rules of the award themselves, and the 2014 bit just feels like a slap of WP:RECENTISM on the end of it. It's not like there's any discussion about The Wheel of Time getting nominated last year, or Vox Day taking 6th out of 5 last year, or Harry Potter winning a while back, or the one time "No Award" won in Dramatic Presentation, so to have only this year's controversy in 'History' seems out of place. --PresN 19:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

And this is why a little patience and reflection is a good thing. The Telegraph just updated its article. There is no longer any mention of GamerGate, which a good thing for this page. As I said, we really don't want the drama. Seem to be some other changes too. Some pro-Puppies quotes I don't remember seeing before. --Elfwood (talk) 18:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Would agree that excluding mention of GamerGate is the wisest course of action unless and until a meaningful connection is shown. However, right now there's nothing in the article about the Sad Puppies slate at all, and it seems like the reason there isn't is that people perceive their own particular ox being gored. That's not a good basis on which to edit or not edit articles on WP.Bjones (talk) 13:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Slate has a new piece covering this issue, which obviously needs to receive coverage in this article. The piece contains many links to other coverage that can also be mined for quotes, etc. I'm not advocating a position myself, but the article does explicitly link the matter with GamerGate. I would absolutely not support a "controversies" section, because those things are shit magnets. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The Slate article is better than some I have read over the past few days (and there have been some doozies) but given that it has a fairly lengthy correction at the bottom of it (as do nearly all articles from the big name media outlets) I think the above consensus to let this cool for a few days is appropriate. WeldNeck (talk) 20:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
The corrections are trivial in nature. I'm not sure why they should have any bearing on whether or not this issue warrants a mention in the article. Given that multiple reliable sources around the world have coverage of this voting controversy (leaving aside any GamerGate comparisons), it would be nothing short of extraordinary if it wasn't given at least a paragraph. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
You call a correction like this trivia? I'd hate to see what you think significant looks like. Back to point though, I never said this material should be excluded (you'd do better to accurately summarize someone's argument before you try to propose an alternative) just that we should wait until these "trivial" corrections get fleshed out. WeldNeck (talk) 14:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

It's insane that this isn't already in the article. It's been covered across an extremely wide range of reliable sources. Disputing the factual accuracy of those articles seems to be a case of editors wanting to overrule or ignore the sources. There has been coverage of this year's controversy, and a number of those sources explicitly link this to Gamersgate. Declaring those comparisons to be wrong to try to avoid getting this article involved in a dispute seems both a bit WP:OR as well as wishful thinking. DreamGuy (talk) 23:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

My point was that the BLP subjects have specifically denied a GamerGate connection, so their viewpoints should be included as well per WP:NPOV. Kelly hi! 05:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
The preponderance of reliable sources say the Sad Puppies behavior is similar to the behavior in GamerGate, not that the people involved in the two separate events are linked. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
The "preponderance of reliable sources" make no such statement. Some more rabid (no pun intended) SJW types are pissing and moaning that the forces of darkness and fascism are descending on the SciFi community like Fallschirmjägerdivision over Crete but they usually don't need much of an excuse to act irrationally and clutch their pearls. WeldNeck (talk) 14:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
There are dozens and dozens of articles about the voting controversy that specifically mention GamerGate in some capacity, many of which are linked in this talk section. Your comment just isn't factually accurate. Here's another. And I think referring to any group as "SJW types" who "act irrationally and clutch their pearls" is a clear indication you are unable to contribute to this discussion in a neutral manner. As with any article on Wikipedia, we go with what reliable sources say, not the opinions of editors. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Dozens and dozens ... I challenge you to name more than 8 from reliable sources. Also, I didn't realize that editors were required to discuss things in a neutral manner. I thought only our mainspace contributions were supposed to reflect this. Has there been a policy change that I am unaware of? Like you, I let my biases spill forth on the odd article talk page. But when I'm editing Wikipedia articles, I stick rigidly to the policies and guidelines of the project. WeldNeck (talk) 18:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Even a basic Google news search for "'sad puppies' gamergate" yields well over a thousand hits. And I was trying to be kind when I said you are "unable to contribute to this discussion in a neutral manner." If you really want the gloves off, I think your comments about "SJW types" and "clutch[ing] their pearls" are disgusting, and certainly have no place in reasonable discourse. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Very few of those articles actually link those two things though (all the astroturfing aside) ... a more 'advanced' google search would have told you that. As for my ability to be a part of this discussion, you are entitled to your opinion, but I think I might stick around for a while. I wouldnt want to see the pearl clutching SJW POV dominate yet another article around here. No need to be kind, I'm a big boy, I can take it. Tell me whats really on your mind. WeldNeck (talk) 22:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I think that both of you (and anyone else in this discussion) need to cool off and not insult other editors/non-editors. Since WeldNeck wanted a policy, how about a pillar: WP:Civility. Any civility violations going forward are going to result in temporary, escalating blocks- this is an encyclopedia article about a literature award, not a schoolyard. --PresN 23:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Article again updated

Taking into account the above discussion, I've updated the article with a paragraph that attempts to summarize what reliable mainstream news media report about the topic. I've avoided referencing for analysis any sources that appear to identify themselves closely with the one or the other side, or linking to any primary sources such as blog posts by any involved persons. I think that at this level of granularity we should stick to what is deemed worthy of reproduction in top-quality secondary sources. An aspect that could be mentioned also is the apparently fringe quality of some of the nominees, such as the one guy apparently mostly talked about in terms of his homophobic views, but I haven't found solid sources that would allow us to cover this aspect in a concise, even-handed and non-insulting manner.  Sandstein  16:37, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

That edit sticks to the reliable sources, and isn't any longer than it should be. Thanks, good work. I expect people are going to say it would be fairer to quote some of the primary sources directly, but that's a dangerous road to go down, and could quickly lead to this section growing out of hand. Let's keep it as short and well-sourced as possible. Robofish (talk) 17:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

1977 No Award for Best Dramatic Presentation

I've seen passing references to this but have never seen a reason - does anyone know why there was "No Award" for Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation - Long Form at SunCon in 1977? Curious as a longtime fan of "Logan's Run". It seems like it would be an interesting bit of history to add to this article if any sources exist - I couldn't find anything online but perhaps an established editor here might have some periodicals from that time frame that discuss whatever the controversy was. Kelly hi! 08:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

From what I understand, it was specifically because Star Wars had been released but wasn't eligible yet, and people thought that none of the actual nominees measured up to it. I don't know if there was any concrete campaign to vote no award as a vote for Star Wars or not. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 13:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Historical note, since it gets lost- "No Award" also won for Dramatic Presentation in 1959, 1963, and 1971. 59 was the year that "No Award" was first established, and also when the rule got changed from "the last year from the awards show" to "the prior calendar year", so it probably had some nomination missing that people were upset about. 63 saw a clarification that the drama award was supposed to be for episodes, not series, so the "No Award" that year was likely a backlash against The Twilight Zone as a series having won three times in a row; none of the other nominees that year are great. 71 was the first year that the work just had to be audio/visual, which meant that recordings/albums could be nominated... and some mediocre ones were, apparently. Source for these are speculation crossed with "A History of the Hugo, Nebula, and International Fantasy Awards", Franson and DeVore (1978). --PresN 16:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks, I just ordered a copy of the 1981 edition from Amazon. It may be a while before I can get to it though, real life demands. Kelly hi! 16:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Puppy wings

I've just removed the claim that the "Sad Puppies" slate is "right wing", for a number of reasons. First of all, in an international context (such as the World Science Fiction Convention), "right wing" can mean far right; it's an accusation of extremism that needs an impeccable source. Secondly, the Puppy organizers say their slate is not right wing, so any treatment of politics needs to include that side. Thirdly, the slate includes a socialist; it's objectively not blanket right wing. And lastly, the source that was in the article was just Damien Walter (who really doesn't like Larry Correia) reporting on George R. R. Martin's opinion that the slate was right-wing, but the article text said in Wikipedia's voice that the slate was right-wing. I'm not saying there no conservatives anywhere in the slate or among the organizers; you can easily find sources as to Correia's politics, or John C. Wright's, and of course Vox Day will tend to be on the Vox Day wing of any group he's affiliated with. The matter simply needs better treatment, and impeccable sources - Entertainment Weekly has already had to withdraw an article they published online because it was objectively defamatory.

As a side note on style, an "internet group" is nowadays not objectively different from a "group". If "internet group" was meant to say that some people promoted the slate on their blogs, that should simply be said - again it is easily sourced. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 21:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I undid your edit before reading this, sorry. That said, we have a generally reliable world-class media organization describing these groups as right-wing, not merely attributing this to Martin, whereas what you say is as far as I can tell your original research. If there is any disagreement among reliable sources as to the political affiliation of these people, we can qualify it, but the sources now cited describe these Puppies groups (and not their nominees) as right-wing.  Sandstein  21:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
And I undid yours for reasons stated in the edit summary. You call this "well sourced" but only use sources that confirm to this astroturfed set of talking points. No way Jose. 50.172.116.92 (talk) 22:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Sandstein, this article definitely should cover the two Puppy slates, if only because the effectiveness of above-board slate voting is now a major issue with regard to Hugo voting, probably permanently. This article should not attempt to parse out who is right and who is wrong in the current dispute; when an avowedly left-wing newspaper (I trust that is not disputed) describes one side as "right wing", they are surely trying to say "bad", but we should keep our hands off of it. My comments above were not a suggestion for material to be added to the article - so not "original research" in the sense that is prohibited - but only a comment about what had been added to the article already.
As to the particular source you added - if it was meant to convey Martin's opinion, which is relevant, that can be done by reference to Martin's actual statements on his blog and so forth, without needing to quote The Guardian. If it was meant to give the opinion of a news reporter, I strongly advise picking another one. Damien Walter and Larry Correia have a history of loud mutual acrimony, and it's doubtful that either could step aside from it to speak neutrally. This article shouldn't use Walter as a source on Correia, nor Correia as a source on Walter; that would be like treating Jeremy Clarkson as a neutral source on Piers Morgan. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 02:07, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
OK, let's look at this separately:
  • "Right-wing" is sourced not to Martin or Walter, whose history with any people involved I'm not aware of and doesn't come across in the article, but to Alison Flood, writing in her own voice that "Another group of allied rightwing campaigners, dubbing themselves the Rabid Puppies...". Other sources that dub the campaigns right-wing are Salon and The Daily Beast (by the same author). Now it's possible that any one of these publications has a left-wing slant (depending on the political position of the observer, of course, almost everything can be left-wing), but that doesn't change that they are reliable news media. Even the conservative opinion site Breitbart.com uses the right-wing moniker ("Right-wingers like Theodore Beale"). I don't see how in the view of this one can argue that it is not neutral or accurate to dub these campaigns "right-wing" in Wikipedia's voice, referenced to the publications at issue.
  • The Gamergate link is so well-established by multiple sources that it takes more than random invective such as "astroturfed set of talking points", "bullshit" and "horseshit piece" to remove it. Notably, that the Gamergate controversy predates the campaigns or vice versa is not in contradiction to the two topics or groups now being associated with each other, either ideologically or by way of personal overlap.
It would be much easier for me to take these objections seriously if they came from registered editors rather than from anonymous IPs, and from people who, in the case of 50.172.116.92, indicate that they are interested in writing a neutral encyclopedia rather than slinging invective around.  Sandstein  08:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Considering Kelly's latest additions, I've now edited the article such that the attributions "right-wing" and "leftist" are each attributed to the respective publication in the text, because otherwise we'll be here forever arguing who to believe about who is right- or left-wing. I'm not sure that the correction by EW needs to be in there, though: because we don't report that the initial articles characterized the campaign slates as all-white, all-male, it seems to be a bit confusing to note that they are not.  Sandstein  08:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I think the attributions are definitely an improvement - it's tough to find any neutral sources on this issue. And you're right, there was no need to note that was a correction. I did include Correia's response to the Gamergate allegation, I thought that was important per WP:NPOV. Kelly hi! 09:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
OK with noting Correia's response to the Gamergate link, although I would prefer it if we could link to a secondary source for this also.  Sandstein  09:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree, hopefully a better ref will appear. The only reliable source I could find that actually talked to Correia, Torgersen, and Day was The American Spectator, and it doesn't touch on Gamergate, only the initial aims of the campaign and their response to the media coverage of the slate. You editing down of Correia's response was appropriate, it's going to be tough to keep this short. There seem to be multiple separate but overlapping factions on both sides of this controversy, all with different aims and goals, and it seems to apply to a lot of the media coverage as well. And unlike Gamergate, these are mostly prominent authors to whom WP:BLP applies. We're going to have to walk a careful line to avoid this becoming a battleground probably until after these awards have run their course and feelings have died down. Kelly hi! 09:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I am removing the Daily Beast citation, as it is very problematic from a BLP perspective. Chu's article directs personal epithets at Correia and more generally at Sad Puppies supporters (many of whom are identifiable by name, and all of whom are obviously living persons). You may feel that "right-wing" is an appropriate, encyclopedic description for a BLP, but we don't need to link outwards to that other vitriol. The Daily Beast story is clearly tabloid journalism, whatever you may think of the site generally. 70.24.4.51 (talk) 11:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Concur. Kelly hi! 13:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I have removed references to the Entertainment Weekly coverage; using EW as a source is highly problematic. In particular, the assertion that "Entertainment Weekly (EW) noted that the Sad Puppies slate included women and non-Caucasian authors" is false by omission; they originally published a defamatory article that claimed the opposite (and other worse things), then withdrew that article and replaced it with a corrected one. Any coverage of the latter article would need to include coverage of EW's actions in publishing the first one; but in fact that would result in putting undue weight on one publication's actions. It's better just to keep away from EW's opinions entirely. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 13:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

The "women and non-Caucasian" aspect was also noted by National Review so I've attributed it to them. Kelly hi! 14:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
That looks fine, thanks for the update. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 14:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Bias is in the eye of the beholder, evidently, but if one removes the Daily Beast, I think we need to remove the National Review also. Their writer calls the actions of readily identifiable people "slanderous", which raises the same sort of problems, and with statements such as "In its rage and self-righteousness, the Left always overreaches. Always." it becomes pretty clear that this is an opinion piece written to promote one side of the dispute, and therefore not the best piece to look for more-or-less detached analysis of BLP actions concerning the "other side". I've removed the Review text until such BLP claims can be attributed to a less problematic source.  Sandstein  16:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that you run into an NPOV issue. If sources on one side are making claims of racial bias, and sources on the other side are saying this is slanderous and denying it, you need to include both. I actually didn't have that much of an issue with the Daily Beast article but it was opinion and it was pretty inflammatory. The National Review article does clearly come from the other side of the ideological divide but seems much more rational in comparison to Chu. Kelly hi! 16:21, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
WP:BALANCE is the policy I'm thinking of. Kelly hi! 16:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
The National Review article at least purports to be able to back up the "slanderous" claim, citing the major correction that EW had to make to their article. Slander is an objective claim; a few of Chu's claims are nothing like objective. The National Review also speaks vaguely about "the Left", not "opponents of SP" and certainly not naming names. I hesitate to bring up Gamergate (again?), but in that case I'm pretty sure it was ruled that "gamergate supporters" don't get BLP protection, but "members of the GJP mailing list" do. This situation looks parallel to me. 70.24.4.51 (talk) 22:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Connie Willis

I would say that Connie Willis's opinion is significant because she is a prominent author with an exceptional number of Hugos who was asked to present this year's awards and declined because of these shenanigans. _That_ she declined is notable in and of itself - I can't think of other cases where someone has declined other than for purely logistical reasons (won't be at the Worldcon, etc) - and she's not just J. Random Person who doesn't like slates. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I think this is significant and I think David Gerrold's comments are also noteworthy, but I'm not sure about secondary RS.
Are what I find for secondary sources so far. - ForbiddenRocky (talk) 04:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps, but if we go into individual reactions this is going to get larger than the one paragraph we discussed above this topic deserves here. Perhaps this can all be expanded upon at 73rd World Science Fiction Convention, which is the article for this year's Hugos, per WP:SS.  Sandstein  11:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Not sure it belongs at 73rd World Science Fiction Convention which about more than the Hugos. Maybe a spinoff if it gets too big on the Hugo page. There are a lot of details are are relevant just to the Hugos and not to WorldCon. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
The "one paragraph" is not set in stone - if more notable things happen, there will naturally be more to write about. I still contend Willis's withdrawal is, absolutely, notable; and the withdrawals from the ballot by Kloos and Bellet probably are as well. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:10, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hugo_Award/Archive_1&oldid=1136804587"