Talk:Sad Puppies
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sad Puppies article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Sad Puppies. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Sad Puppies at the Reference desk. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"Anti-diversity"
[edit]This phrase seems to be doing a lot of "work" and carrying a lot of meaning which may not accurately reflect either the source linked or the article itself.
I do acknowledge that the sources cited & concede to the previous archived discussion that there was an anti-diversity effect (since most Puppy noms were white men vs the unaltered list), that the Sads and the Rabids cannot be treated separately (and that therefore Beale was de-facto the most prominent Puppy), etc. However "anti-diversity" probably doesn't belong in the lede since it requires other explanation that belongs in other parts of the article. "Anti-progressive" might work since it's both accurate and is a phrase found in the Atlantic article, but that might already be implied by "right-wing". Maybe we should just link a few more sources to the phrase? Nautical Mongoose (talk) 05:17, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- I concur, removing this phrase. Ageofultron (talk) 22:16, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- That's not what was suggested. DS (talk) 23:42, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- I'm suggesting it - the Sad Pupies slate included women and people of color, and the cited source for this claim doesn't say "anti-diversity" exactly, it says the sad suppies opposed people voting for pro-diversity slates. That's not the same as the upppies, to hear them tell it, were advocating for more of a background-blind approach. "Anti-progressive" is more accurate. Hi! (talk) 01:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- We could replace or support The Atlantic with The L.A. Times, SBS News, The Verge, Motherboard/Vice, or any of the sources from the Talk archives (as mentioned above). But it doesn't really matter: we're here to summarize what sources say, so whether or not they use the phrase "anti-diversity" is mostly irrelevant. What The Atlantic does say, that the Rabid Puppies
managed to push out those seeking to make the Hugos more representative of the diverse works within the genre
is basically the same thing. Woodroar (talk) 02:37, 20 July 2024 (UTC)- The title of the current source itself is "Hijacking the Hugo Awards Won't Stifle Diversity in Science Fiction". If there was a good argument against the more strident wording in the lede, it would have been made 7 years ago when people were into it; instead, every so often someone comes around to make an unsubstantiated argument that mainly serves as a notice that something must be in fan news today about the Hugos. --PresN 03:03, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- The articles linked above are mostly about the Rabid Puppies, which isn't the topic of this wiki article. For example, the SBS news article only says the sad puppies "wanted to see more pulpy, action-heavy sci-fi on the ballot. The Puppies were tired of stories that they called “heavy handed message fiction”...and not much came of it ". And goes on to contrast them with the rabid puppies who "stormed the Hugo nominations" etc. Hi! (talk) 20:54, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Actually I see that this article is about both of them I guess? Based on the title I assumed they would have separate articles but I don't see one for rabid puppies. I guess it makes sense to combine them but the phrasing as is uses quotes about RB to describe SB which is misleading. Hi! (talk) 20:59, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- The articles linked above are mostly about the Rabid Puppies, which isn't the topic of this wiki article. For example, the SBS news article only says the sad puppies "wanted to see more pulpy, action-heavy sci-fi on the ballot. The Puppies were tired of stories that they called “heavy handed message fiction”...and not much came of it ". And goes on to contrast them with the rabid puppies who "stormed the Hugo nominations" etc. Hi! (talk) 20:54, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- The title of the current source itself is "Hijacking the Hugo Awards Won't Stifle Diversity in Science Fiction". If there was a good argument against the more strident wording in the lede, it would have been made 7 years ago when people were into it; instead, every so often someone comes around to make an unsubstantiated argument that mainly serves as a notice that something must be in fan news today about the Hugos. --PresN 03:03, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- We could replace or support The Atlantic with The L.A. Times, SBS News, The Verge, Motherboard/Vice, or any of the sources from the Talk archives (as mentioned above). But it doesn't really matter: we're here to summarize what sources say, so whether or not they use the phrase "anti-diversity" is mostly irrelevant. What The Atlantic does say, that the Rabid Puppies
- I'm suggesting it - the Sad Pupies slate included women and people of color, and the cited source for this claim doesn't say "anti-diversity" exactly, it says the sad suppies opposed people voting for pro-diversity slates. That's not the same as the upppies, to hear them tell it, were advocating for more of a background-blind approach. "Anti-progressive" is more accurate. Hi! (talk) 01:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- That's not what was suggested. DS (talk) 23:42, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Interesting reference
[edit]This paper in Sociological Quarterly should be relevant here: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00380253.2023.2252866 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.197.93.157 (talk) 15:28, 13 September 2023 (UTC)