Talk:Hugo Award

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Hugo Award has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Featured topic star Hugo Award is the main article in the Hugo Awards series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
June 26, 2011 Good article nominee Listed
August 13, 2011 Featured topic candidate Promoted
September 24, 2011 Featured article candidate Not promoted
Current status: Good article
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Awards and prizes (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Awards and prizes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of awards and prizes on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Science Fiction (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Harry Potter complaints[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Hood Ornament Returned[edit]

Previously the article claimed that the original, 1953 Hugo was based on the hood ornament of a 1953 Oldsmobile Here's a picture of the 1953 Hugo trophy [1]

Here are images of the the Olds Rocket 88 hood ornament from circa 1950 [2]

This gives specific years [3]

The hood ornament, for most years looks nothing like the 1953 Hugo, except for the 1951 model. There the base looks a fair amount like it, but the fins are quite different. They are larger and there are fewer of them on the hood ornament. Presuming that Oldsmobile had the same hood ornament on all of its cars that year, the Hugo was unlikely to have been based after it.

Mike Glyer, the publisher of File 770, gives this story on a Polish website. It is based on an article by Ben Jason, ScientiFiction, Winter 1994. In 1955, Nick and Noreen Falasca wanted to bring back the Hugo for the 1955 Cleveland Worldcon. They hoped that Jack McKnight might make the Hugo, but he did not reply to their letters. Nick Falasca suggested that they use am Oldsmobile "Rocket 88" model hood ornament. That is probably where the idea came from that those ornaments were used. The problem wsa that they had a hollow underside, and the idea had to be rejected. Instead, Ben Jason made the rounds of machine shops looking for a way to make affordable Hugos. Finally, someone advised him to make a picture of it. Eventually, Hoffman Bronze Company prepared a pattern from it, and made six chrome plated replicas from it. This first batch was too flawed to be used as Hugos. However, the second was lathed to remove surface pits and fissures, and proved satisfactory. Today's Hugos are based on that design. [4]

Rich Dengrove 4 May 2008(UTC)

A question about the prize[edit]

The Nebula Award article states that there is no cash prize associated with that award. Is it also the case with the Hugo? It would be helpful if the article clarified this. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 17, 2012; 19:19 (UTC)

2014 Hugo Awards[edit]

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.[5][6] 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)

Coordinated updates across articles[edit]

We need to get organized to fully coordinate updates across articles,as there should be some conformity in how this is handled.

1) update this article -- badly needed and overdue at this point.

2) at some point we might need a new article 2015 Hugo awards nomination controversy to cover everything, since there's a lot going on.

3) Need to update articles on:

  • Theodore Beale aka Vox Day - leader of Rabid Puppies, also publisher of John C. Wright
  • John C. Wright (author) nominated for three out of five slots for same award (?!) after being put on slate by Vox Day, called out in several articles for blogging anti-homosexual posts
  • Brad R. Torgersen a leader of Sad Puppies
  • Larry Correia another leader of Sad Puppies (and note that the editors on the talk page there are referring to the whole situation as a "witch hunt" which they don't want to mention at all, so the regulars appear to have a demonstrated bias on the topic.

DreamGuy (talk) 00:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

As I've just commented on Talk:Larry Correia: if you're so keen for this topic to be mentioned in Wikipedia, why not be bold and add something yourself? I wasn't sure that sufficient reliable sources exist, though looking above it seems I may have been wrong. WP:Recentism is an issue though, along with BLP. It's a shame we don't have articles for the Hugos by year (2014 Hugo Awards, etc) as that's really where the content would belong, rather than this article which is about the entire history of the awards. Robofish (talk) 00:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Granted, it is recent, but it is the most mainstream news coverage I've seen about the awards in, well, ever. DreamGuy (talk) 00:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I disagree with starting an article solely about the controversy. There isn't "a lot going on", there's one event (a slate being produced for blah blah reasons) and its result (slate sweeps nominations) and a bunch of reactions to that. If you can't write at least 5 paragraphs of sourced information without going into trivial detail and a calling list of every single blog article posted about it, then it's not really worth an article.
This whole thing is worth, at best, a small paragraph in this article. More realistically, it shouldn't be included at all unless grouped with other controversies of years past. The Hugo Awards have been going on since 1953- if this event had happened in 1985 you wouldn't even bother adding it in; it's only because it happened in 2015 that you think it's of earthshaking significance. Come 2017 (probably) the only reference to it will be a sentence talking about how "No Award" works, how it won the 1977 Dramatic Presentation award and several categories in 2015 due to a negative reaction to slate voting. How do I know this? Because there's a small note on Nebula Award for Best Short Story that the 1982 winner refused the award because of people gaming the system, and that's the only mention of it. --PresN 01:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Are there any serious concerns remaining about writing a paragraph or two based on these sources? It should reflect the stated goals of the campaigners, the negative reaction by the rest of fandom, and the parallels to Gamergate as highlighted in these sources.  Sandstein  12:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
One paragraph should be more than enough and Ill add a few more sources.
A response from Larry Correia
National Review
Any source that didn't bother to verify some basic facts in the press release they got on this, shouldnt be used as they have demonstrated their unreliability. WeldNeck (talk) 14:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
A source is much more likely to be reliable if it corrects errors, not the other way around. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I'd also include the response by Brad R. Torgersen, the organizer of this year's campaign.[7] I've also seen announcements that next year's campaign will be organized by Kate Paulk, and the year after next by Sarah Hoyt but I don't think we need to crystal-ball the future. Kelly hi! 15:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Agree with adding something from Torgersen as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WeldNeck (talkcontribs) 16:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Can we prove that the blog is written by Torgersen? We can use it to cite Torgersen's opinion if so, but unfortunately nothing else. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:38, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
WP:ABOUTSELF applies. I don't think there's any doubt about authorship. Kelly hi! 00:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with PresN on this one, per WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWS etc. Regarding the sources, I honestly don't see a lot of fact being reported even in the articles User:Sandstein doesn't categorize as opinion pieces - certainly not if we exclude "facts" of the form of reporting the opinion of the parties involved. Nobody seems particularly interested in an actual demographic analysis of the slate, for example, or in sales figures for the nominated works, or anything else that could possibly pretend to be an "objective measure" of the claims being thrown about regarding "judging works on their merit" vs "racism/misogyny" etc. 70.24.4.51 (talk) 12:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

One more thing - is Kate Paulk notable enough for an article yet, Sad Puppies aside? I keep seeing her name as a red link on SFF related pages. 70.24.4.51 (talk) 12:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

65 names - 10 women, 5 "John C Wright", 7 works published by Castalia House (a publisher operated by the slate's organiser with a roster of a full ten authors, one of whom is a woman (with an impressive catalogue of one book, not on the slate)).
Perhaps there is a reason no serious source feels a detailed demographic analysis is necessary to examine the idea that works have been submitted based on merit. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
The comment above about the 1982 Nebulas is a familiar line of spurious argument - "slates have always existed". Lisa Tuttle refused the award because one of the other nominees had sent copies of his story to SFWA members - presumably to make them more likely to read it. That is, perhaps, not quite the same thing as an organised effort to lock everyone else out of the awards for political reasons. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
David Langford's long-running Ansible should have something about this when it comes out (and did last year). Particularly, the reaction at Eastercon was (obviously) universally negative, but we need a RS to say that.
I think we should resist the idea that we stuff whatever is written full of self-justifying comments by the organisers. They are hardly reliable sources on their own motivations. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but I can't abide by a claim that anyone is "hardly a reliable source" on their own motivations without very convincing evidence. By default, I consider people the most reliable source possible on that subject. To say otherwise about a person veers close to branding them a psychopath, or at least a pathological liar.
As for your remark Perhaps there is a reason no serious source feels a detailed demographic analysis is necessary to examine the idea that works have been submitted based on merit, you are conflating different things I said in a way that was clearly not intended. Obviously I meant that the merit claim would be substantiated by sales figures. And as for organised effort[s] to lock everyone else out of the awards, that is not substantiated - first off, you have no definition of "everyone else", and second you have no evidence of lockstep voting. 70.24.4.51 (talk) 11:07, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
A couple authors withdrew their work from the nominations. http://io9.com/two-authors-withdraw-their-work-from-the-hugo-awards-1698053027 ForbiddenRocky (talk) 22:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Previous gaming of nominations / voting[edit]

  • Harry Harrison once wrote, in an introduction to one of his books, that he witnessed the gaming of the Hugos one year. (Sorry I can't be more specific.) Choor monster (talk) 22:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I would imagine that was the 1987 Hugos, where a novel by L. Ron Hubbard appeared on the ballot; it was generally believed at the time that the Church of Scientology might have been involved with the surprising number of people who nominated it, and the actual voting placed it below No Award. That's the most egregious example of abuse of the nominations procedure by slates until the Sad Puppies came along.
If you want to stick that in the article, I imagine David Langford has written about it... somewhere. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
George R. R. Martin recently wrote about the incident on his blog but we probably can't use that per WP:SPS. I ordered a 1981 book on the history of the Hugos, hopefully the incident is mentioned there. If so I'll see if there's a good way to include it. Kelly hi! 07:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Harrison was writing about something much earlier. My memory is still vague, but I believe he mentioned it in his introduction to his 1970 collection Prime Number (which ironically contains a story dear to all MRAs). He was commenting on how while he didn't have any Hugos, he did have his own named section at Big British Bookstore. He mentioned the Hugos were corruptible—he'd seen it. Implicit was the idea that the free market was of course incorruptible. As is well-known, the Scientologists went on to also game the best-seller lists. (For all I know, he may have been thinking of Asimov's unique Hugo for all-time best series, when everyone "knew" Tolkien was going to win it.) Choor monster (talk) 12:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Harlan Ellison apparently also spoke about this in 1995: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFR9TYxAVZQ 70.24.4.51 (talk) 14:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
My memory is still fuzzy, and I feel bad about sending anyone on some wild-goose chase, but I now think that the Harrison comments about gaming the Hugos appeared in his interview with Charles Platt, printed in the latter's Dream Makers. Choor monster (talk) 21:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I've given this a section heading, since it was in "Coordinated updates across articles".

I'm also going to take the slightly unusual step of discussing article content before it's in the article. A bit of narrative the Puppies love is the idea that of course this sort of thing has always gone on, and their current act of vandalism is not exceptional.

This isn't true. There's some reason to believe blocs have formed to put individual works onto the Hugo ballot - in particular, the '87 L. Ron Hubbard nomination. It's widely acknowledged that fans of an author with a strong back catalogue will be prone to nominate (and vote for) that author, and that sometimes that means someone gets a Hugo for one of their weaker books.

But there is no evidence, as far as I'm aware, that anyone has previously organised a nominations bloc to put a work into _every_ category, or that anyone has organised a nominations bloc because of a conspiracy theory. It is obvious that no-one has previously organised a nominations bloc to lock down every category by nominating five works, ensuring that no non-slate candidate can win. We should resist any suggestion, not backed up by cites from reliable sources, that this is not an exceptional incident. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you. But it would be nice to collect all the past accusations in one place, all the better to see how right you are. Choor monster (talk) 21:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I expect someone disagrees with this - the drive-by IPs and whoever was banging on about SJWs are presumably Puppies. But I've no objection to what you're doing at all; I'm just saying, I expect at some point we'll get a neat piece of bogus synthesis. Pinkbeast (talk) 10:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Article again updated[edit]

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)

Puppy wings[edit]

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)

1977 No Award for Best Dramatic Presentation[edit]

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)

Connie Willis[edit]

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)

German source[edit]

My German is not up to http://derstandard.at/2000014347072/Was-George-R-R-Martin-zum-rechten-Hack-der-Hugo?_lexikaGroup=1 - anyone else? Pinkbeast (talk) 15:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Not much to add, except this is an RS that calls it "Puppygate". Also, they refer to "Doctor Who" fans as gaming the ballot repeatedly. See also The Guardian. (It is not the already sourced article.) These seem to be the only two so far. Choor monster (talk) 18:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
More than two. Here's a French use: 20 minutes, and there are several newsblogs that are probably RS, like The Mary Sue, Daily Review and so on. (Google "Puppygate Martin" so as not to get any other scandal called Puppygate.) Choor monster (talk) 18:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)