Talk:Sad Puppies/Archive 1

Archive 1

Separate page?

I am not quite clear what was wrong with the redirect to the relevant section of the Hugos article. (In particular, there we don't seem to have picked as one of the prominent critics Irene Gallo going off a bit half-cocked). Pinkbeast (talk) 03:07, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

There is plenty of information for a separate article, and there are certainly enough reliable sources for it to be a separate article. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 02:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Why "Sad Puppies"?

Where'd the name come from? Article is silent on this. TJRC (talk) 05:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Here's a recent source re the self-naming of the Sad Puppies http://www.wired.com/2015/08/won-science-fictions-hugo-awards-matters/. Includes a quote from Larry Correia ('...he came up with the name after seeing an SPCA ad featuring forlorn canines staring into the camera, with singer Sarah McLachlan. “We did a joke based on that: That the leading cause of puppy-related sadness was boring message-fic winning awards,” he said, laughing.') Sorry, I'm too chicken to edit the Sad Puppies page directly. Dauphinfute (talk) 06:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

5th campaign to be led by Sarah Hoyt

I know that I read that Sarah Hoyt had announced that she would be leading the 2016-2017 campaign, but unfortunately my Google-fu has not been up to the task of finding a source. Kelly ^hi! 17:11, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I think I read she was going to do the 4th campaign, but then got sick. I'll have to try to find that source. I hadn't heard about the year after that. I must not read all the right forums online. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 02:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

You're correct - this new post by Correia includes the statement that Hoyt was supposed to be in charge but fell ill, so Torgersen took over. Kelly ^hi! 13:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Rabid Puppies logo

I removed the Rabid Puppies non-free logo from the article as a WP:NFCC#8 violation - while it would be appropriate at the top of a Rabid Puppies article to identify the organization, I don't think usage in this article can be justified. Kelly ^hi! 05:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Possibly it could be used in Vox Day in a section on Rabid Puppies if we don't have enough for a standalone article on that organization. Kelly ^hi! 05:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

That seems appropriate. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Breitbart

I also notice in the recent edits the spin put by Breitbart on Doherty's remarks has been restored. I have removed it. Breitbart is manifestly not a reliable source on this subject - something demonstrated not least by the way they have taken Doherty's quote and decided it means something entirely different! Pinkbeast (talk) 13:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Breitbart is at least as reliable as Entertainment Weekly, The Guardian, and all the other liberal papers and "news" outlets used as sources in the article. Yes, Breitbart leans conservative (quite obviously so), but in order to maintain neutrality, sources supporting every point of view on the topic need to be used. If Breitbart is acceptable on other topics, they are acceptable here. Reliability is not determined on a topic-by-topic case. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Breitbart isn't considered unreliable because it's conservative, it's considered unreliable because on many occasions it has invented and twisted facts in order to fit an agenda, and been called out on it. Both the fact that you think it's often not considered an RS because it is "conservative" and the fact that you think it makes sense to lump EW and The Guardian together as 'liberal papers and "news" outlets' shows that you have no ability to evaluate the reliability of sources outside of a narrow ideological view. --PresN 18:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

That's a load of bollocks and you know it. Breitbart, The Guardian, Entertainment Weekly, and many other news sources all have their own leanings. That doesn't make them unreliable sources, but it does mean you have to approach the sources with that in mind. Breitbart leans conservative, and The Guardian and Entertainment Weekly both lean liberal (The Guardian more so than EW). I am perfectly capable of evaluating sources and determining their slant (all news and information outlets have one) and how reliable they are, and then balancing the sources used in an article so that no one view is held above the others. This article is a good example as it had a reasonable mix of slants represented in the sources when I created it. In it's current incarnation, it still has a reasonable balance to it. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Leaving aside the general issues with Breitbart, they are unreliable _in this case_ because they've taken a quote from Doherty and decided he meant something entirely different to what he actually said. Pinkbeast (talk) 11:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

That's just splitting hairs. Breitbart didn't misrepresent Doherty at all. I guess we'll just have to disagree, though. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I think going from saying "organized simply to promote white men, which was not correct" to "portraying the Sad Puppies as a racist, sexist campaign aimed at promoting white men was entirely inaccurate" is a bit of a stretch. The reality - that the Puppy slates had a non-zero but small fraction of women on them - fits with the first statement but not with the second. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Recent change to the article

(Copied from Nihonjoe's talk page).

No, I think my edit was justified. One cannot cite the idea that the Sad and Rabid Puppies are entirely unrelated to a Puppy; and it is clearly pertinent that the Puppies were described as a "bunch of white guys".

I still also feel that the quote from Gallo is perhaps given undue prominence. Pinkbeast (talk) 03:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The two groups were run by different people with no coordination between them. Both groups have stated as much. As for the puppies being described as a "bunch of white guys", they were described as that, but it was a completely inaccurate description. Larry Correia is Hispanic, not white. Sarah A. Hoyt is also Hispanic, and clearly not male. The proposed nominees ran the gamut as far as race, gender, and political stripe. In doing research for the article, there were many, many instances of non-white, non-male supporters or participants with Sad Puppies (I can't speak for Vox Day and his crowd as his rhetoric was often so vitriolic that I tried to avoid them).

As for the quote from Gallo, she posted it publicly, and quite a lot was made of it in various press reports I read, and Tom DOherty himself responded very publicly about it, so I don't think it is given more weight than it's due. It was one of the more egregious cases of name calling during the entire process this year. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, since we are discussing the content, this discussion should be continued on the talk page of the article, not here. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The two groups were not run by different people with no coordination between them. If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.

However, my proposed edit does not say they were related. Your version says they were unrelated, an assertion which (besides being ridiculous) you have cited only to a Puppy saying so. They are not a reliable source on this subject, and if a genuinely independent source does not say they were unrelated, that should be removed.

The source did describe them as a "bunch of white guys". Whether or not that's true or false is academic; it is true that a source so described them.

"The proposed nominees ran the gamut as far as race, gender, and political stripe." Well, kinda. Why, of 52 names nominated by Sad Puppies, a full 9 were women. That is _three times_ as many as were men published by Rabid Puppy organiser Beale's "Castalia House" and almost twice as many as were men published by Baen, who by a happy coincidence publish Sad Puppy organiser Torgersen. A generous allotment, given that women constitute, ooh, _half of humanity_? They even got in a whole one of the four fiction categories.

It would be more accurate to say they included a few token non-white non-guys on the slate.

However, that's beside the point. You have no independent source for "unrelated"; it should be removed. An independent source did describe them as a "bunch of white guys"; it should be included. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, you quote Doherty as interpreted through the lens of Breitbart. That is quite unreasonable. What he actually said was that "Media coverage of the two groups initially suggested that they were organized simply to promote white men, which was not correct. Each Puppies’ slate of authors and editors included some women and writers of color", which is a very long way from saying that it was completely inaccurate. (Doherty's actual statement is compatible with the reality that the slates mostly promoted white men). Pinkbeast (talk) 16:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Finally, it seems clear to me that there are many more reasoned critical reactions which could be included as well as, or instead of, Gallo being regrettably intemperate. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Do not copy my comments anywhere without at least notifying me or (preferably) asking permission first. You are welcome to link to them, but not repost them without permission. I'll address your other concerns when I have time, but my comments regarding your obvious bias still stand. You need to drop the bias and approach this in a neutral fashion. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Please do not state or imply that other editors may not copy/move your contributions to Wikipedia, including talk page comments, without your permission. This is untrue- any contributions to Wikipedia, including talk page comments, even if they're on "your" talk page, are released under a license that allows other people to use them in whatever manner they see fit as long as they properly attribute them, as Pinkbeast did. You may not like it or find it rude, but he is allowed to do so. --PresN 21:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

It's a common courtesy. I am well aware of all the written and unwritten rules here. If a discussion involves me (which, by copying my comments, it does), I must be notified. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

There is no obligation to do so; furthermore, I would expect you to read the talk page for an article you created recently - especially when you've just requested that discussion be sent there. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:ABOUTSELF applies here. Correia, Torgersen, and Hoyt have all said that they are unrelated to Day. Day has said he is doing his own thing and has his own objectives. Per WP:BLP, we take them at their word barring good sources to the contrary. Kelly ^hi! 21:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

What Kelly wrote. Not accepting a person's own comments about themselves is absurd, unless verifiable and reliable information to the contrary can be found. We are not here to spread rumors about anyone, regardless of their affiliations. Implying a connection when there is no solid sourcing to back it up is a violation of WP:BLP as it could be potentially negative (as it would be in this case). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

In fact WP:ABOUTSELF prohibits the use of sources about themselves where "the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim". This claim by Torgersen is both self-serving and exceptional (given that it's obviously false). Pinkbeast (talk) 01:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not understanding how a clear statement by the individuals involved that they are unrelated is self-serving or exceptional. To use guilt by association without evidence is a violation of WP:V and WP:BLP. Kelly ^hi! 08:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

My suggestion- a statement along the lines of 'Torgersen has claimed that the Rabid Puppies slate is unrelated to his Sad Puppies slate' or something similar- we can't state it as fact with just a WP:SPS given that reliable sources have associated the two. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I still think WP:ABOUTSELF covers this situation adequately, however...there is a mention in the Wired article[1] that "both Correia and Torgersen have worked hard to distinguish themselves from Beale." Kelly ^hi! 09:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. All the better RS distinguish them - the claim is non-controversial. 104.238.169.134 (talk) 13:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

In fact the Wired article describes the Puppies, collectively, as "a campaign, organized by three white, male authors"; "the leaders of this two-pronged movement—one faction calls itself the Sad Puppies and the other the Rabid Puppies". One campaign. One movement. It doesn't say they are unrelated at all.

It would be "guilt by association" if we said they were related without sourcing it, but we aren't. The claim they are unrelated is self-serving because it benefits Torgersen not to be associated with Theodore Beale; it is exceptional because the idea that they are unrelated does not fit well with the apparent close cooperation between them. "both Correia and Torgersen have worked hard to distinguish themselves from Beale" says what we already know; that they _claim_ to be unrelated. 13:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Beale "has written that women should be deprived of the vote and refers to African Americans as 'half-savages'". Torgersen might well wish to disassociate himself from such a person, both because such views are not generally acceptable and because he is married to an African-American woman who might conceivably find them somewhat derogatory.

If the two prongs of the movement were unrelated, which per the source above (which Kelly produced, not me) they are not, the criticism that the Puppies have completely locked non-Puppy works out of the Hugo nominations can be ignored. Why, they didn't mean to do that! It's just unfortunate that that nasty Beale chap put in a slate at the same time.

The Puppies wish to portray themselves as a vast popular movement, and presenting themselves as two entirely independent groups fits that image better than presenting themselves as two sides of the same coin.

Hence the claim is self-serving. Pinkbeast (talk) 11:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of Pinkbeast's blazing bias (which s/he makes no attempt to hide), I read the article just now and found that it is reasonably fair. There are things that I would reword to make it more neutral, but it is not worth edit warring over (which Pinkbeast has been doing). Everyone needs to stop reverting each other and work together. Everyone needs to check their bias at the door and work to make sure the article is neutral, factual, and informative. There are obviously passionate views on both (all?) sides of this issue, so everyone needs to check all of that at the door. It is good to see that, despite the edit warring, the article is still fairly neitral. Thank you to everyone for doing good on at least that one point. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I could hide the fact that I don't like petty vandals if you like, but I think it's better to be open about it. I am doing my best to justify the edits I am making on the talk page, and am hardly the only editor who (for example) recognises that Torgersen's claims are self-serving.

I am, however, rather frustrated because we have hashed out many of the same issues on Hugo Awards - in particular the claim that the two Puppy factions are unrelated - and now we have to do the whole thing again. Pinkbeast (talk) 11:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The only relation between the two orgs is that Day decided to name his group similarly. Other than that, there is no coordination between the two groups, and they have very different expressed goals. Day wants to destroy the Hugos. Torgersen just wants more recognition of works and story types he believes are generally overlooked by the generally left-leaning people who have voted on the Hugos in recent years. Even the "usual crowd" at Worldcon admits to being generally left-leaning. It's not a secret. Now, were there things Torgersen could (and should) have done differently? Absolutely. Many things. But the core reason (which he has expressed multiple times in the various places where I've read his comments is to have a broader range of works considered for the Hugos. Day doesn't care about that at all, and has said so multiple times. He just wants to "blow up" the Hugos. This is another area where you're just going to have to accept that your view may not be reality, no matter how much you want it to be. When you approach the subject by calling it a "stink", it's very obvious where your opinions lie. The rest of us just want the article to be fair and neutral, not taking sides. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Your entire paragraph is based on the assumption that everything Torgersen says must be taken at face value. That fails the first hurdle; self-serving remarks are not a reliable source. (It also, frankly, seems a trifle credulous on your part.)

The source that has been produced on the subject says very clearly that the Puppies are one movement, one campaign. If the article expresses any opinion on their relatedness, it should be that. Other sources on this page talk about "Another group of allied rightwing campaigners", "the Puppy movement", "a small group of people led by Vox Day/Theodore Beale and Brad Torgerson", "a small clique of American writers and fans", etc.

I'm willing to leave it be, stating neither, but to baldly accept Torgersen's assertion they are unrelated is silly. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Which "The source" are you talking about? There are 39 in this article, so please be more specific.

Your entire attitude here is based on the assumption that Torgersen is lying (which is not surprising, given your extremely anti-puppy attitude throughout any discussion related to them). Where is the support for that? There are no reliable sources anywhere which indicate he has ever lied about anything related to SP. Barring that, I think it is perfectly acceptable to accept his assertion that the group he led (Sad Puppies) is not related to the group led by Day (Rabid Puppies). That various biased reports refer to both as "the Puppy movement" doesn't imply they are the same group, but rather that both are named with "Puppies" in the title, and it's easier to refer to both together that way. To not accept Torgersen's assertion they are not connected without solid evidence that they are related in any other way than one word in each of their names is far more "silly". ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Yours is based on the assumption that he is not, and WP:ABOUTSELF says that we don't trust people when they have a dog in the fight.

I have listed above some reasons that he might wish to distance himself from Beale - not least that, being married to a black woman, he might not want to be too closely associated with someone who thinks she is a "semi-savage" who can't be trusted with the vote.

"The source" is that which, as mentioned above, was produced by Kelly as evidence that they are unrelated. It (as also mentioned above) describes the Puppies as "a campaign, organized by three white, male authors"; "the leaders of this two-pronged movement—one faction calls itself the Sad Puppies and the other the Rabid Puppies". Campaign, singular. Movement, singular.

You might argue as to whether or not that constitutes evidence they are related, but I think you would be hard put to say it supports the idea they ain't.

And, personally, I have no idea why you buy this stuff. The Sad Puppies are simply opposed to message fiction, which is why they are so keen on John C Wright (an author published by Beale's tiny publishing house) writing ham-handedly obvious Catholic allegory? This is not an argument about what goes in the article, but that the claim that they are unrelated is "exceptional" and as such ruled out by ABOUTSELF. Pinkbeast (talk) 23:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Article from RealClearPolitics

Possibly a good source for the article.[2] I'm short on time for the next couple of weeks at least but wanted to park a link here for anyone interested. Kelly ^hi! 09:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

How many sad and how many rabid?

Hi,

I was fact checking a different article and I came here to see how big each of the two (Sad, Rabid) campaigns were. I didn't find it in the article. Do these groups have any form of publicised membership numbers? Or can it be deduced from the outcomes which group was bigger and by approximately how much?

This would be useful for me, but it would also probably be worthwhile putting in this article.

Thanks. Gronky (talk) 20:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Brandon Kempner, a professor at New Mexico Highlands University whose specialty is American popular literature, estimated the 2015 numbers as 525-550 Rabid Puppies and 400-500 Sad Puppies.[3] Kelly ^hi! 21:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! (I'm surprised at the number of rabids. Vox Day said he had 390 "minions"[4] and he doesn't sound like someone who'd undersell himself! But the methodology you linked to looks reasonably solid.) Gronky (talk) 21:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Are the quoted articles of reasonable quality?

I don't know this topic, but it does seem strange that the article includes things such as an article calling both groups "unrepentantly racist, misogynist, and homophobic" when I found elsewhere that Brad Torgersen said:

“the cognitive dissonance of people saying, ‘No, the Hugos are about quality,’ and then at the same time they’re like: ‘Ooh, we can vote for this author because they’re gay, or for this story because it’s got gay characters,’ or, ‘Ooh, we’re going to vote for this author because they’re not white.’ As soon as that becomes the criteria, well, quality goes out the window.” ... “When people go on about how we’re anti-diversity, I’m like: No. All we’re saying is storytelling ought to come first.”

That article goes on to note that Brad is married 21 years to a black woman, and Vox Day is native american with a bit of mexican. If we're to say the groups are "unrepentantly racist, misogynist, and homophobic" then we need to show some evidence. Those are harsh accusations!

(Vox seems to muddy the waters with a lot of controversialist nonsense, but he's just one (loud) person and I don't know anything about it beyond that one article I read. If he's the one saying racist or racist-ish stuff, then the article should attribute it to him and not the whole group.)

Is it possible that the article with the racism accusations is just gutter journalism? If so, I'd say it has to be removed.

Any crank working for a rag can write that Brad, or you, or I am an "unrepentant racist homophobe", but that doesn't mean they get quoted in encyclopedias.

I won't edit the article since I don't know the topic (and I'm busy the next few days), but just wanted to note my suspicions about quality issues. Gronky (talk) 22:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

"unrepentantly racist, misogynist, and homophobic" is not an article, but a quote from Irene Gallo, who happens to have made the remark about the Puppies which was most intemperate, angry, and publicly visible (after some repugnablogger banged on about it); it seems to have got in in order to be coupled to a Breitbart article spinning what Tor's Tom Doherty said in response. (This may not be obvious since I replaced the "analysis", which might politely be said to not closely resemble what he said, with what he actually said.)

I have suggested all along that it does not belong in the Wikipedia article, any more than the least carefully considered comment on any side of any contentious issue does.

However, the Wikipedia article does not say the Puppies are "unrepentantly racist, misogynist, and homophobic". It says that Irene Gallo said that they were. I'm still opposed to it being in the article, but the idea that we have put it in as a cited fact rather than as a quote is not valid.

Beale _says_ he is Native American etc, but he is not perhaps the most reliable source ever. And Torgersen may bang on about selecting on merit, but it is curious in the light of that to find that of his 17 picks in the "big four" fiction categories, 3 are written by women - for comparison purposes, two are men who write for Torgersen's own publisher and two are men who write for Beale's tiny Castalia House - but, we are told, the Beale slate is quite unrelated to the Torgersen one.

And, while I have absolutely no reason whatsoever to suppose that Torgersen is a racist, the argument that he cannot possibly be because he is married to someone black makes about as much sense as saying that Beale, who wishes to repeal women's suffrage, cannot possibly be sexist since he is married to a woman.

(Torgersen did, of course, imply as an insult that Scalzi is gay, and "apologise" not for making a homophobic remark but by saying that not "even Scalzi" deserved to be accused of being gay. Beside the point, but eminently citable.) Pinkbeast (talk) 00:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think being a quote saves it. The article describes these people, and it presents this quote as part of that. If we find an angry blogger who says the Sad Puppies are paedophiles, we can't just stick it in quotation marks and add it.

After thinking about it, such an unfounded accusation can't be left in. If anyone disagrees, do revert me. I'll be offline for the next while :-)

("being married to a black person means you can't possibly be racist" is a mischaracterisation of what I said, but it's not important.) Gronky (talk) 01:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I didn't intend a characterisation of what you said specifically but that this is a common Puppy argument. I fear I may have been straying off the point.

Gronky has taken it out, and DragonflySixtySeven has put it back in (reasonably enough) since it leaves Doherty's response hanging. Now, I'm all for taking the whole thing out, as you know, and having some of the more reasoned quotes from Hugo Awards rather than the angriest, but I don't want to act unilaterally without more justification. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Doherty's rebuttal can't be used as a justification for leaving "XYZ is a racist homophobe" in the article. If anyone thinks Doherty's rebuttal is left hanging, then it can be removed to. I think it's okay on its own because the first line of the paragraph says sad puppies is a white mans club, so Doherty saying the club doesn't exist to promote white men makes sense. Gronky (talk) 01:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

It was in there because it got a fair amount of coverage. Pinkbeast's obvious biases aside, Irene Gallo made the comment, it got picked up by quite a number of different places, and even caused Tom Doherty to make a public statement about it, resulting in Gallo apologizing for people being offended by it. The way it was presented in the article was very clear and doesn't ever indicate that members of the Sad Puppies group actually are that, just that Gallo said they were, and later rescinded her comments. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:50, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree with Nihonjoe here - the statements and reaction got quite a bit of coverage and I think they are worthy of inclusion. Kelly ^hi! 10:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I think this is a clear WP:BLP violation. (Remember that the policy is for biographical information, not just for pages that have a person's name as their title.) But hey, I tried to fix it. My time's up.

Overall, when documenting the insults from either side in this issue, I recommend being careful. Rather than saying something like "XYZ was denounced as a racist homophobe", you could say that a journalist/blogger/whatever made certain accusations which she later retracted and that her employer distanced himself from those retracted comments. (That's not a wording proposal, but you see what I mean. If the goal is to document something that happened, it can be done in a way which can't be confused with "hahaha, some people I don't like have gotten tagged as racist homophobe misogynists".) In general, the explanation should come before the statement.

But really, I think including this particular insult, and others of similar style, is pretty sure to be a BLP violation. WP documents events, it doesn't straight catalogue insults slung by each side. Gronky (talk) 17:23, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

That's because all the insults didn't get equal coverage in media. Gallo's comments did get a lot of coverage, and so it was mentioned in a neutral way, which didn't come close to violating WP:BLP. And your proposed wording example is pretty much how it was presented: Gallo made her comments, Doherty said they didn't represent him or Tor, and Gallo apologized for people being offended. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 14:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

What about the Tor boycott? DS (talk) 01:49, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Wasn't the Tor boycott a Rabid Puppies campaign? I honestly don't remember. Kelly ^hi! 10:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Did the Tor boycott have any significant impact (or reporting) whatsoever? It's not like the Rabid Puppies were buying Tor books anyway. Pinkbeast (talk) 23:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the article is saying that the Sad Puppies are racists, it appears to be quoting a prominent editor who made that accusation. Its okay to present a statement of opinion (see: WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV) as long as those opinions are not presented as facts. Nblund (talk) 21:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I feel the above discussion may be pertinent now an SPA who is doubtless totally unconnected with Beale is trying to get Gallo's exact words back in. Pinkbeast (talk) 02:22, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I completely agree. I can't see how this new editor could possibly be related at all to Beale. It's not like it only edits the Vox Day article. Oh, wait... ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 03:42, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I didn't actually see anything wrong with the edit - David Gerard (talk) 14:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with it either. Pinkbeast seems to be the only one who doesn't want the quote in the article. My comment above was only meant as a tongue-in-cheek agreement with Pinkbeast's assessment of Xday's likely identity. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Eh? It is Gronky who argued most strongly for keeping it out in 2015, particularly presenting an argument on BLP grounds. Now I think we should leave it be - we reached consensus (well, something we could all live with) then and presumably if we rehashed the entire issue we'd end up in the same place. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Should merge outcome onto history

I separated the different campaigns into different subheadings under the history heading to try to make the history clearer. I think we should merge the heading "outcome" onto the history (the first two campaigns already have the outcome listed in the history.) Guy who reads a lot (talk) 00:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that merging the outcome section contents into the appropriate history section would make sense. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:15, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Sad Puppies IV list released

I don't think I've yet seen this covered in third-party RS's, but a friend just told me that the Sad Puppies IV recommended list was recently released by Kate Paulk here. At least one author, Catherynne M. Valente, is apparently unhappy about being on the list.[5]. (As I was typing this, I saw that Alastair Reynolds is unhappy about it as well.[6])

Apparently Vox Day intends to release his new Rabid Puppies list on Monday, 21 March.[7]

In the nature of general updates, there is a new logo and mission statement for Sad Puppies IV on this page. Kelly ^hi! 08:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• Update - John Scalzi has also objected to his presence on the list.[8] Kelly ^hi! 08:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• In regards to sourcing, I see that much of this is being covered by File 770 - do we consider them a reliable source in this area? Kelly ^hi! 08:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• Rabid Puppies list released here. Kelly ^hi! 13:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I think File 770 is reliable (and David Langford's _Ansible_) but I am, of course, a filthy liberal who cannot be trusted. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

File 770 has won the Best Fanzine award 5 times, and been nominated another 22 times, so I think it's reliable. --PresN 17:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

In that case _Ansible_ certainly is; Langford notoriously has the longest mantlepiece in science fiction. (This may no longer be quite true; he started declining nominations a few years ago so someone else could have a go in one of the zine categories). Pinkbeast (talk) 17:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't see a reason to cover that someone was upset someone else thought their work was good enough for an award. File 770 is generally reliable (though often very biasedin its coverage). Ansible is also generally reliable. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

...that's certainly one way of looking at why someone might be upset at their name being included in a list that, in prior years, was largely seen by them and many of their compatriots as at minimum an affront to the respectful atmosphere of the SFF/Hugo community, and often much worse. Or, are you now proposing that Sad Puppies 4 is "unrelated" to Sad Puppies 1/2/3? --PresN 00:09, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Don't be a jerk. You know that's not what I was suggesting. The way I see it, readers can nominate whomever they wish, and it's not really the author's place to say that they can't do it. They are free to decline the nomination should they get enough nominations to be considered for the actual ballot, but beyond that, they have no rights beyond complaining that they don't like it that someone liked their work enough to nominate it. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Uh... one, we're talking about if we should mention the authors who are upset about being on the list or not, as in if it's a notable feature of this campaign that the people whose works are included in it don't want to be included, not their "author's rights" to not be on the list. Two, to reductio ad absurdum, if hitler and stalin got together and put out a list that said "Nihonjoe is the best at editing Wikipedia", you think a rational description of your response would be "complaining that you don't like it that someone liked your work enough to nominate it"? Three:

"Apparently some folks are confused why I don't want to be associated with a group who spent a couple of years saying I was talentless scum." "Their calling me talentless scum didn't hurt my career, mind you, and I've been called worse. But it made it clear they weren't good folks." "So now that they want to pretend that an association with them is a positive thing, my thought is, "Yeah, no. You're still terrible people."" - John Scalzi. --PresN 13:09, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I really wouldn't care what Hitler or Stalin thought of my editing (not that it would matter since they both died long before the internet was even a thing). While I don't think it really matters, go ahead and include that some people don't want to be nominated by people they have blanket-judged without knowing who actually nominated them. For all they know, it was a close friend who went to the Sad Puppies 4 website and nominated them. It's not like the voting was closed and available only to people who had dissed Scalzi. As far as I can tell, Correia and Torgersen are having little to no involvement in SP4, and I have seen some statements from each of them indicating they don't want to get involved when someone tried to hook them into it (their facebook and twitter feeds—as well as their blogs—are public, so feel free to have a look-see if you doubt me for whatever reason). So the fact that Scalzi doesn't like those two should have no bearing on whether he likes the people running it this time (at least one of those people wasn't really involved last time as far as I can tell). Pinkbeast keeps stating that the "people in question have an obvious motive to claim the opposite", and the same applies here. Are we going to accept comments from those involved as acceptable for inclusion, or not? We can't have it both ways. The way Pinkbeast says it, we can't even use Scalzi's statements until multiple reliable sources report them (which I think is absurd on its face, but there you have it). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The way Pinkbeast says it, we couldn't take Scalzi's statements as fact if multiple reliable sources said the opposite. Not the same situation.

I'm also still not following your logic- so, your perspective is that SP3/RP3 was really (set of authors including scalzi) who didn't like (Correia and Torgerson) and (unrelatedly, Vox Day). If the (set of authors) didn't like the other people who nominated/voted for the SP3 slate, then that was them blanket-judging them, as they did not know them as individuals. For SP4, as (Correia and Torgerson) are not involved if members of the (set of authors) don't want to be on the list, they're just blanket-judging. Additionally, the nominations for SP4, unlike SP3, were not filtered by the organizer, therefore one cannot assume that the listing of works by (set of authors) was not done by fans of those authors, rather than the same group of people who made nominations for SP3. It is, therefore, shameful and not worthy of note that anyone in the (set of authors) would dislike being on the SP4 list, since there's no way to prove that it involves the same people as SP3 or is at all related to SP3, other than the name.

That's... to continue my absurd Hitler analogy, if Hitler + Nazis had made a list of people they thought were cool, and some time later a group of people not including Hitler came together and referred to themselves as the "4th Reich" with the apparent intention of being viewed as the successor to the 3rd Reich, and put out a list of people they thought were cool, your opinion is that people who find themselves on the 4th's list who disliked the 3rd Reich should in no way be upset about being on the list or have a problem with it, as long as there was no way to prove that all the people in the 4th Reich were originally in the 3rd. They're just blanket-judging. We should, instead, assume that the 4th Reich is made up largely of anti-nazis who felt like joining. I mean, the puppies are certainly not Nazis, but that's a string of non-logic right there. "If it cannot be explicitly 100% proved, we should give the SP3/4 groups every benefit of the doubt, and conversely dismiss anything the (set of authors) says, and any RS that disagrees with the SP3/4 groups is both wrong and not really an RS." --PresN 17:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The only thing that makes sense in your comments is "the puppies are certainly not Nazis", though I find it odd that you keep comparing them to Nazis. If you're actually interested in presenting a neutral article, then comparing them repeatedly to Nazis on the talk page is hardly a good thing, especially since this article falls under WP:BLP.

All I care about here is making sure there is no undue weight given to obviously biased sources which have banded together to brand a group with whom they disagree as all sorts of things which are not provable. Yes, they state the two groups are the same people, but the groups themselves have never once said they were working together or that they were related. All we have is conjecture that they are related. None of the sources have provided any solid evidence they are related, yet because a bunch of biased sources are parroting each other, we must take their word as the gospel truth? And we must also discount the groups individual statements because they might be biased the other way?

Then, when one of the groups releases a list in which anyone could nominate (including, based on a number of the nominations, those who don't necessarily agree with the opinions of SP4), we want to give a bunch of space to people whining that they were suggested on the list? The most it should ever get in the article is something along the lines of, "The Sad Puppies 4 list was released and some of those who were on the list didn't want to be on it." Anything more is undue weight to something which would normally never even be reported by anyone.

The subject of any article should be given the benefit of the doubt unless it can be shown that they are wrong. If RS report something, it's fine to mention it, but it should also be mentioned that the subject of the article disagrees or denies it if they have expressed that. Being neutral means presenting both sides in the discussion. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth: "Editors may not [...] delete content they believe to be untrue, unless they have verified beforehand with a reliable source." That does not say "if several RSs say something that Nihonjoe does not believe to be true, then they are 'a bunch of biased sources [...] parroting each other'". I agree that the article should mention that SP3/RP3 claim not to be related. It does not follow that sources that say they are related are no longer valid sources.
• "we want to give a bunch of space to people whining that they were suggested on the list?" - way to be neutral. Also, yes- in an article about a series of campaigns to get a list of works nominated for an award, it would be a strange omission to not mention if some of the authors of those works did not want to be on the list. Just because Nihonjoe thinks that being on any awards list is an honor and anyone who disagrees, regardless of context, is a whiner, does not mean that relevant information to the topic ("Authors X, Y, and Z objected to their works' inclusion on the list.") should be discarded.
• "The subject of any article should be given the benefit of the doubt unless it can be shown that they are wrong." - well, given that you've redefined "shown that they are wrong" to not include anything that contradicts what the subject says, that's a tough one. If Kate Paulk says that every person who voted in her poll lives on the moon and votes socialist, by your above arguments that must be taken at face value, because sources that contradict her are biased. It's also just not true- BLP says that we can't say anything that may be damaging to a subject without an RS to back it up; it doesn't say that the primary sources of the article must be taken as authoritative, even about themselves, over and above secondary sources. --PresN 20:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Gosh, I have no idea where the indents have got to, but only if multiple reliable sources on Scalzi's emotional state say he is not upset would we be in a situation similar to the one with the Puppies being "unrelated". Pinkbeast (talk) 16:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Try an outdent, then? Helps make the conversation more readable. DS (talk) 22:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

2016 results

The recent results edit is a bit clumsy. Now the Sads have stopped slate-nominating and switched to being an longer recommendations list - a recommendations list compiled from anyone who contributes - it is surely (as the source notes) not that remarkable if they overlap with the nominees. The Guardian article is referring to the lack of wins for the Rabids and the "Corriera can't get a Hugo; this must mean there is a vast conspiracy to stop him" Puppies. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Also removed a sentence which was a direct copy (complete with grammatical error) of a comment on a blog post. On reflection the editor who added the results unfortunately juxtaposed two things - many Sads on nominees (unremarkable now they are a longlist to which any fan can contribute), Guardian says "defeat" - which looks silly, but ofc the Grauniad said that of the final outcome, not the nomination process. Tried to clarify. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:10, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Reverting without explanation

@David Gerard: Please offer an explanation for this edit. The other wording is more accurate as the two groups, despite the assumption of many people, are not related. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:20, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

And if you believe _that_, I have a bridge to sell you. They're about as unrelated as siblings are. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Here we go again. What proof (read: reliable references) do you have that show they are the same group or at all related other than by the name? I haven't ever found any. There are few reports from unreliable sources which claim that, but there are plenty of reliable sources which indicate they are not related. Even people in charge of the two groups state (repeatedly, since they get asked about it) that they are not related except for similar names. As far as I have been able to tell, there is very little (if any) crossover between the two groups. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:15, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I concur - reliable sources are needed to claim a relationship, especially since such a relationship was denied by both Correia/Torgersen and Day. Kelly ^hi! 10:12, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Correia nominated Day for SP (undeniable), and RP's slate was very similar to SP's (undeniable). Aside from that, however, I'm not aware of any specific connections which are asserted by reliable sources. Stating that Correia, Torgersen, and Day have all explicitly denied any connection is enough. DS (talk) 13:23, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

People in charge of the two groups deny it - an obviously self-serving claim. Besides Vox Day#Political Views, they're trying to portray themselves as a vast popular movement united by a love of John C. Wright's Catholic allegory, rather than a small group of vandals gaming the nomination system.

http://www.wired.com/2015/10/hugo-awards-controversy/ consistently is in the singular: "a campaign", "the attempt to hijack the Hugos", "this movement", Rabids are "a more militant wing", "the Puppies movement", etc.

http://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2015/apr/06/are-the-hugo-nominees-really-the-best-sci-fi-books-of-the-year and http://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2015/jul/31/the-puppies-are-taking-science-fictions-hugo-awards-back-in-time much the same from the Grauniad - "a clique", "a slate", "the campaign". (Before you say "oh, blogs don't count", Adam Roberts is not J. Random Guy but a prominent SF critic with several books under his belt). Pinkbeast (talk) 17:50, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Multiple serious specialist third party analysis certainly sounds sufficient to state the claim, even if noting the denial - David Gerard (talk) 17:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

To be frank, I'm not seeing anything there beyond partisans attempting to tar their opponents with an extremist brush. It's just opinion. What exactly is the concrete evidence to tie the two movements together as "related"? Kelly ^hi! 21:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe as editors we seek to find evidence- we just need reliable sources that state it, and we can include it as 'related' or (if you'd prefer) 'alleged to be related by Wired and The Guardian'. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:29, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I think "alleged to be related by Wired and The Guardian" would be accurate enough, given that that's all they do. Both groups have stated repeatedly they are not connected, so anything more would be original research or synthesis. I have no problem with that wording. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

No, we don't write "alleged to be X" when a reputable national newspaper says X. We write X. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:32, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

You do when the people in question claim the opposite. While Wired is generally reputable, The Guardian has flat-out lied in some of its articles. Both Wired and The Guardian are known for having extremely liberal viewpoints, so anything they report about a group which is generally considered fairly conservative has to be taken with a grain of salt. And, as I stated, those involved in the two groups have stated multiple times that they are not related in anything other than name. Therefore, we need to remain neutral by presenting the information as "alleged" because that's what it is. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

The people in question have an obvious motive to claim the opposite; we don't call creationists scientists just because they say they are. Let's have a non-Puppy source that believes this story about them being totally unrelated before we start giving it any credence. Pinkbeast (talk) 20:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I concur with Pinkbeast on this. Note what the multiple independent third-party RSes say, then note the subjects say otherwise - David Gerard (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

And that's perfectly fine. I've never objected to that. Though The Guardian is not reliable given how often they print flat-out lies. I have no problem with Wired as a RS, albeit a clearly biased one. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:49, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

However in this case one of the Grauniad articles is a blog article by a prominent SF critic. Whatever you think of the Graun, Adam Roberts is a RS in his own right. Pinkbeast (talk) 23:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I haven't said anything about any specific authors. In general, I consider The Guardian as reliable as the Huffington Post (which is to say, not reliable in the least). I make no comments regarding the individual authors who publish there. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:10, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Then perhaps you should, if you have some reason to suppose that Adam Roberts is not an authority in the field of SF criticism. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:23, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Frankly also it's an error to see this as everything in US politics seems to be, a battle between "liberals" and "conservatives". There are plenty of small-c and big-C Conservatives in SF who want no part of slate nominations. It's just a small group of vandals. Pinkbeast (talk) 23:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Yet every opinion and article you espouse falls into the liberal viewpoint, some very much so. And you refuse to accept any viewpoint espoused by anyone with a moderate or conservative viewpoint. I prefer to have a balance, and this article is always teetering on the edge with bias against the group. I agree with points made by people on both sides of the whole puppies controversy, yet when I try to promote unbiased wording, the liberal-minded editors jump out of the woodwork and scream bloody murder. Yes, the most vocal on both sides of this particular issue are a fairly small group of people. However, the media has tended to cover (and side with) those on the liberal side, far more than those on the conservative side. Entertainment Weekly posted an article that was so full of fabrications they had to pretty much toss it out and write a new one from scratch. And the same fabrications are included in almost all of the media coverage this topic has received. All I want in this article is to achieve a neutral balance. Is that too much to ask, what with the second pillar and all? ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:10, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

You say that, but which? I dislike the puppies because they are vandals. If all the media cover and side with the non-Puppy side, perhaps that is not because of some vast "liberal" conspiracy in the media. Perhaps it's because the Puppies are in fact a tiny minority and most SF fans - even if it results in their personal favourites being excluded - would prefer that Hugo nominations not be gamed.

I myself voted No Award for short stories above any entry the year "If you were a dinosaur, my love" was in. I didn't like it at all, or any other story in the category. I just can accept that it was nominated not because of some vast conspiracy but because other people don't always like what I do.

If we're playing it by the book, if "almost all" the media coverage says such-and-such, Wikipedia rules say we write such-and-such, even if we personally think such-and-such is a fabrication. By the book, you have just admitted that reliable sources agree in general that the Puppies cannot be trusted.

If we're not, then how plausible do you think it is that two entirely independent movements opposed to "boring message-fic" both happen, by pure coincidence, to be great admirers of John C. Wright's ham-handed Catholic allegory? Because it certainly looks like boring message-fic to me. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:23, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, "If you were a dinosaur, my love" was garbage, so that's not surprising. It wasn't even an actual story, and was barely (if you really stretched the definition) fantasy/sf. Considering Rabid Puppies was formed more than a year after Sad Puppies, it seems pretty obvious to me that they are separate. If anything, I'd say RP was inspired by the original SP campaign. As for them being "vandals": only RP has a stated goal of destroying the Hugos. SP has the stated goal of change so the nominees (and winners, by extension) start tending to represent a broader range of the field. Regarding minority status: I have never said either of the puppies groups represent a majority. I don't think it's a "tiny minority", though it is likely not a majority. Especially with SP4, their stated goal is to increase participation in the whole Hugo process so the award becomes more representative of fandom as a whole. Seems like a good idea to me.

Finally, regarding media coverage: I don't have a problem with going with usage of findable references. However, we can't be using the biased wording found in most of them. Me must present the information in a neutral manner. If a source states something, then we include that a source stated something. We don't report it as fact, especially when the groups themselves are disputing many or all of the characterizations or details. We report that such-and-such source stated this, and that whichever puppies group disputes that claim. That way, we remain neutral. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 15:44, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Was it garbage? Sez you. I would say it's a story I didn't like. Other people did like it and this is not in fact indicative of a vast conspiracy organised by the Nielsen-Haydens, a conspiracy so overwhelming in scope as to encompass all SF fandom, although curiously even though I've been a con-going fan for 20 years I have never heard of it. That conspiracy is a paranoid fantasy; Corriera can't get a Hugo because books by American gun nuts actually don't have a lot of worldwide appeal, which is why Ancillary Justice has been published in eighteen languages and his back catalogue has one title in French.

Frankly, while I daresay I am a US-politics "liberal" - I'm European, and practically everyone in Europe to the left of Nigel Farage is - you classify my edits as "liberal" only because you see everything through that lens. I don't as a rule allow it to get in the way of my editing, as I hope this edit demonstrates; while I'd be delighted to live to see most of the current Conservative Party dragged to the scaffold, Rees-Mogg didn't actually say that.

I despise the Puppies not because I am a "liberal" but because they are vandals. I've made no bones about that; they may spout about their high-minded aims but it's obvious to anyone that the Hugo nomination process wasn't designed to deal with slate nominations, and even the Church of Scientology had the decency to leave it at one book.

Where you fall flat is you haven't substantiated the idea that the wording is biased. If all media sources say X, then for Wikipedia purposes X is true. If your assertion that all the media present the Puppies in a way they wouldn't like is correct, and I daresay it is, then Wikipedia should follow suit. That's how sourcing works.

We remain neutral by writing what sources say whether we like it or not, and not taking self-serving remarks by the subject of an article as Gospel truth. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:17, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

With respect, the assertion If all media sources say X, then for Wikipedia purposes X is true. is not supported by policy. WP:NPOV is clear that opinions and contested assertions should not be stated as facts; but should be presented as opinions. If the statements of a writer in The Guardian or elsewhere are contested (as they appear to be here), they must be presented as opinion. Opinions do not become fact by being popularly held. We remain neutral by neutrally documenting information found in reliable sources, not by blindly parroting them; there is no WP:FOLLOWTHESOURCES. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 19:27, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this. Thank you for being more clear than I was able. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:32, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

NPOV calls for "all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". There are no reliable sources saying they are unrelated, given that the subject of an article is not a reliable source for an obviously self-serving claim ("but he would say that, wouldn't he") of dubious plausibility. So, yes, if all media sources say X, X is true, because we don't have any reliable sources to say "not-X".

The recent edit to the page to say "overlapping" is ingenious, I admit, but a bit of a cop out. At Eastercon this weekend I'm going to try and chase down back issues of BSFA publications which might be pertinent. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

With respect, the assertion if all media sources say X, X is true is not supported by policy. WP:NPOV is clear that opinions and contested assertions should not be stated as facts; but should be presented as opinions. Opinions do not become fact by being popularly held, or because editors decide that counter-opinions should be disregarded. Statements by Torgersen, Correia, Day that the slates are not related are no more self-serving than an accused person pleading not guilty; not even in the postcode of "unduly self-serving", far less the ballpark (see WP:BLPSPS).
Quoting Mandy Rice-Davies' famous ad hominem circumstantial/genetic fallacy does not make the statements by T, C & D false or unreliable; nor does it make the assertion of a relationship an objective truth.
We remain neutral by neutrally documenting information found in reliable sources, not by blindly parroting them; in the case of an opinion or contested assertion, we document that that opinion was held, and by whom; we do not present that opinion as fact. There is no WP:FOLLOWTHESOURCES. W.r.t the change in wording, for mine, "similar" would be better than "overlapping". - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 02:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not an assertion contested by any reliable source. If the accused person is found guilty, we describe them as guilty (not just that the opinion of the jury was that they were guilty). The distinction you're drawing between "opinions" and "facts" is a dubious one; there is a factual truth as to whether the Puppy movements are related or not, and every reliable source that's mentioned it says they are.

Denying an association with Beale seems obviously self-serving to me; I daresay his universal bigotry sticks in the craw of many of Corriera and Torgersen's fans. Furthermore (as mentioned above) if a small group of vandals are pretending to be a vast popular movement, so much the better if they pretend to be two vast popular movements.

That their assertion of being unrelated is patently false is merely an observation for this talk page. To suppose one of two entirely independent movements against "boring message-fic" would select an obscure author's obvious Catholic allegory as worthy of praise stretches credulity. When you find they both have, you might re-examine the idea that they are independent.

The argument you're making applies equally to the Earth not being 6,000 years old. All reliable sources that express a view on the subject say it is much older, and we don't go around saying that's a "contested opinion". Pinkbeast (talk) 16:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

In addition, to follow up on something Nihonjoe said upstream- The Guardian is an RS. It doesn't lose that status "because Nihonjoe said so". Can individual articles be proved factually incorrect? Yes- that's why we have editors to write articles, not robots. We can refuse to use individual articles that are proven to be wrong, or at least note the status while using them for other facts. If not being 100% accurate at all times on a topic is something that invalidates a source (for that topic or at all), then by your own logic we can't take anything Vox Day says about his own movement as a truth- the man lies like a rug when it achieves his aims, sometimes with a knowing wink at his readers so that they feel special.

Also, for the record- I liked "Dinosaur", but didn't think it was the best of the year, and thought it's sff credentials basically non-existent. (also, it didn't freaking win, it won the Nebula instead, why are puppies so obsessed with that story and incapable of reading the lists I spent so much time creating on this site). I also read all of the short story nominees this past year, found them bad to mediocre at best, and voted no award. The poor quality of the nominees indicated to me that the goal was not primarily to nominate good works by authors overlooked because of their writing themes or personal politics, and the fact that the RP list is so similar to the SP list despite the lack of quality of the shared nominees makes the idea that they are unrelated a fantasy, though perhaps not a nomination-worthy one. --PresN 18:56, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

YMMV. I quite enjoyed most of the Puppies noms but my tastes are admittedly toward the pulp side of things. Kelly ^hi! 19:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I tend to fall into the same camp as Kelly, though I also like plenty of "intellectual" fiction, too. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean others won't like it. The Dinosaur story is a case in point. Apparently, a lot of people liked it, and many others didn't. I have no problem with that. One man's junk is another man's treasure and all that. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:32, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

"Denying an association with Beale seems obviously self-serving to me." The issue is that it is similarly goal serving for those opposed to the Sad Puppies to label them in relation to Beale. There were numerous claims made by leftist news outlets attempting to link Sad Puppies with GamerGate because (as the wiki article for that controversy reflects) that movement has successfully been characterized as 100% pure bigotry, and if they can establish a link they can paint the Sad Puppies with the same brush. Thus, linking the Sad Puppies with Beale's admittedly objectionable political viewpoints similarly helps paint a negative picture of the SP. The fact that the SP and RP state that they are separate groups (speaking of which, how would it be self serving for Day to deny that the RP and SP are related?) is important, because it makes it clear that they do not condone the other groups statements.

To expand your logic, for a moment: many Muslims "claim" that their faith is not actually related to terrorism, that ISIS and such are extremist groups, and that they do not condone their actions. However, their denial is clearly self-serving, and because Fox News says that Islam is a terrorist religion, we have to ensure that Wikipedia mentions "the Islamic faith and related Terrorist organizations. Yes, Fox News is a little biased, but they not all of the news they report is false right-wing stuff, so therefor are an RP.

Clearly not going to fly, right? Of course, the example isn't perfect, but the basic point remains the same. In fact, in the Islam example there would be more justification for phrasing it that way, because the terrorist groups are not denying relation to Islam as the RP are denying relation to the SP, in fact they are the ones claiming that the relation exists. --Salasay Δ 19:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

What "partisans"? Rejecting everyone in SF who's not a Puppy as a "partisan" is a bit like declining to use any non-creationist sources on pages about creationism. They're a fringe; that's why as soon as they get to a vote that can't be gamed by slates, they get obliterated, much as the Church of Scientology was when they tried this stunt (although, to their relative credit, they didn't try and vandalise the awards altogether). Pinkbeast (talk) 00:46, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Any RS coverage of Torgersen on covers?

Torgersen's blog post on SF book covers caught a few people's attention in the SF blogosphere. But did it get any RS coverage? Might be worth noting in the article if it did - David Gerard (talk) 08:53, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Seems rather off topic for this article. Guy who reads a lot (talk) 17:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Not really - a lot of SP3 was, after all, a grown man literally complaining he couldn't judge books by their covers (incidentally particularly ironic in a field where in earlier decades covers were "top of the art pile" with no reference to the contents at all). But absent RS coverage it will have to stay out. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think he's literally complaining that he can't judge a book by it's cover-art. More, "If I go and get a book marketed as a sci-fi book, I want a gorram sci-fi book!" When he talks about "lovely spaceship on a book cover" he's referring to "a book marketed as sci-fi," not literally a book that's cover art prominently features a spaceship. In one of the early comments of the linked post, Torgersen replied "...you’re taking it a bit too literally. This isn’t about book covers, as much as it’s about the field as a whole having a brand label struggle. People got into SF/F in large numbers because of [list of reasons]. Our genre still preserves a patina of swashbuckling, but it’s usually only that: a facade. Nowadays you’re liable to be served up a lecture on Womens [sic] Studies, versus getting taken for a ride with the Gray Lensman, or Captain Kirk for that matter. You can have “issues” in your SF/F but I fear the issues have overtaken the adventure. Or at least this is the complaint I’ve been seeing and hearing from a lot of readers. People who freely admit to being avid SF/F readers until . . . they just kind of drifted off. The contents of the “package” stopped interesting them. Or actively repulsed them." Salasay Δ 20:12, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

@Salasay: You're new, so you may not know, but the talk pages of articles are for discussing the article itself; they're not forums to discuss opinions on related subjects, or even our opinions of (in this case) the Sad Puppy movement itself. So, if you want to discuss how only one subgenre of SF should ever be or have been marketed with SF themes, you'll need to do elsewhere. --PresN 23:32, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

It was not my intention to debate the subject independent of the article. I may have misinterpreted, but it seemed that the OP was asking if the linked blog post should be covered within the article, Guy said it was off topic, and Pinkbeast replied that it was on topic because SP3 was "a grown man literally complaining he couldn't judge books by their covers," but would not advocate inclusion into the article until it was covered by a reliable source. Below, discussion seemed to imply that a RS had been found and that Pinkbeast was thus okay with implementing the edit. Based on what Pinkbeast made it clear his take on the matter was, I was concerned that the impending edit might be biased in that vein, and thus wanted to ensure that the matter retained a neutral voice. I realize my interpretation of his words is not acceptable for inclusion in the article, but I felt it was important to point out that there was evidence contradicting the "a grown man literally complaining he couldn't judge books by their covers" interpretation, and that it should be taken into consideration when making such an edit. So, I included the text of the quote (which made up a majority of my post).Salasay Δ 02:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

No-one seems to have glommed up a source (pity), so this is besides the point, but I don't think it makes any difference that Torgersen backpedalled once he realised how ridiculous the complaint of being unable to judge a book by its cover made him sound. It certainly doesn't if a RS is found that details that he made that complaint. Pinkbeast (talk) 02:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

The reply I quoted occurred on the same day the blog post was made--it's pretty clear that that was actually his intended meaning. As for policy, I'm not sure what the line is between "evaluating a source" and "original research." If a theoretically reliable source were to report on someone's words in a manner directly contradicted by what that person actually said--and I'm not necessarily saying that's what's happening here--would that citation still be considered reliable?Salasay Δ 20:30, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@Salasay: A response to a thread 9 months later isn't super-useful, but to answer your question: It depends on the details. If Person A says something, and RS B mischaracterizes what they're saying, then... what happened that let you know that? Did Person A say that B mischaracterized them? If there were enough Bs saying it, it might be worth putting in an article "Person A said "X"; although A later clarified that it meant X1, several sources interpreted it as X2." Or did A not say anything, but you think the RS was mischaracterizing what they said? Then trying to override an RS with your opinion is OR, and would take consensus to remove/not put in the article. Without details, it's all a big gray area.

That said, in this case we have details! Torgersen said that it was a shame that SF symbols on a book cover did not denote the same "style" of SF that they used to- artwork that to him in the 60s meant that the contents were one style of SF, now no longer necessarily means that the contents are that same style. He clarified in his second post that his meaning was not that book cover branding has not stayed constant in the last 50 years, but that SF as a genre no longer produces as much of the same style of SF that it used to, and does not make it as easily discoverable to readers because of the book covers, who then stop reading.

So... if a hypothetical RS had discussed his first post, saying that Torgersen wishes he could judge a book by its cover, would it be wrong to use it in the article? Hard to say without details, but... not really. That's exactly what he wanted to do- he wanted the book covers that meant to him "SF style A" to still mean only that 50 years later, even though they actually meant just "SF" and so are not good measures of finding "SF style A" books. So, if an RS had called him out on that, or on his continuing absurd belief that pulp adventure SF is less prominent than it was 50 years ago because evil book publishers hate it instead of because shifts in reader taste, then it would be justified in doing so and we could use it as a source regardless of his "clarification".

All that said: Torgersen's post is 2 years old. No RS was found, or used in the article, which is about the Puppy campaigns, not Torgersen. Why did you necro this thread? --PresN 21:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for answering the question, that makes a lot of sense. I was not asking in direct relation to this discussion, as I recognize that the specifics of his statements are not an issue anymore (as far as the wiki is concerned). This was primarily a question about policy in general inspired by the situation here, though my response to Pink's "not that it matters, but..." comment may have muddied that.

I was not aware that thread necromancy was an Bad Thing on Wikipedia, given the format and purpose of wikis being different than in forums, and on top of that I did not notice the date on Pinks reply to me--I somehow missed his post when he replied, and wrongfully assumed that it was at least relatively new when I saw it today. Salasay Δ 23:56, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Does File 770 count as RS in this context? DS (talk) 23:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

We've used it in the past. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

2016?

Apparently, this year Hoyt is a) running SP, and b) urging people to not participate. Is this worth mentioning? DS (talk) 04:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I think we might wait and see. SP last year was effectively irrelevant because unsurprisingly they couldn't get anywhere without a slate (and due credit to them for eventually playing fair and not having a slate, pity it took four years) and between that and the changes to the nomination rules one hopes they might vanish into well-deserved obscurity. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Quinn

I really don't think (the fact that Zoe Quinn's Gamergate history got a nomination for Best Related Work) needs to be in this article. Did she discuss the Puppies? Did the Puppies discuss her? DS (talk) 17:44, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

There was a long period where the Puppies were actively recruiting SF-reading Gamergaters, dragging them into Hugo votes when they'd never bothered before. The general understanding among fandom is that the nomination of Quinn's book is to some extent a poke in the eye for the Puppies. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:56, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I reverted it mainly because, while I saw where you were going with it (as the two groups are often considered in the same breath), nowhere else in the article was that connection really made- Quinn is not mentioned, Gamergate is linked once as "and were alleged to be linked with the Gamergate controversy", so a new lead paragraph/2018 section that said nothing other than "this gamergate book got nominated" provided no context for how it was related to this article. I think that it could still work, but we'd need a source saying basically what you're stating here- that voters saw nominating it as a pseudo-rejection of the Puppies. (And not just that they saw it as a rejection of that whole angry anti-woman ideal that fed into both groups, but explicitly puppies.) --PresN 19:29, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I partially reverted PresN. I'm not thrilled w/ the current text but the claim isn't in the lede anymore. Protonk (talk) 14:00, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I strongly, strongly disagree. This putative connection which is the basis for its inclusion feels like OR. DS (talk) 05:53, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Well you guys do whatever you want to do. I think it's fatuous to claim that the puppies had no connection to GG and it's borderline gaslighting to claim such a connection is OR. But whatever. Protonk (talk) 14:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sake, don't be a drama llama. They're clearly the same kind of people, and many Puppies are likely involved in GG as well. The comparison between the two groups is apt, and no one is disagreeing with that. But this isn't your first week on Wikipedia, you know that to claim or imply that Quinn's book getting nominated was to "get back at" the Puppies because nominators equated them and GG requires a source, not just one or more editors agreeing that it seems true- that's literally the definition of OR. Don't go claiming that we're gaslighting you because someone called your unsourced implicit connection OR. --PresN 15:15, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Just because it's obviously true (and it is) doesn't mean it's cited. Find a cite? (I hoped File 770 might discuss it, but they haven't). Pinkbeast (talk) 11:19, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Just because it's obvious doesn't mean it's true. DS (talk) 12:48, 5 April 2018 (UTC):

Performative skepticism of the obvious shows up so much in this topic area. Protonk (talk) 15:57, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Campbell?

I distinctly recall Correia mentioning something to the effect of [his belief that there was something wrong with the awards] having begun when he was nominated for, but did not win, the John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer - and that this is what led to his initial attempt to get "Monster Hunter Legion" nominated for Best Novel.

Assuming we can get reliable sources for this, is it something worth including in the article? DS (talk) 00:43, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

There was a twitter/blog back and forth between Correia and George RR Martin that discussed it, where one would say something and the other would quote it on their own blog and respond; Martin made a big post with both sides combined here. So, that's basically just Correia saying it- "...You know what I found? WorldCon voters angry that a right-wing Republican (actually I’m a libertarian) who owned a gun store (gasp) was nominated for the prestigious Campbell. This is terrible." this was Correia's actual blog post. In fact, the initial blog post that started the puppies had a reference to the Campbell- "When I got nominated for the Campbell, the literati message-fic crowd had a conniption fit." (as an aside, no one has ever managed to find the supposed reviewer that claimed "If Larry Correia wins the Campbell, it will END WRITING FOREVER.", part of Correia's initial rallying cry). All that said, I can't find any 3rd-party source that reported on it- Gizmodo once quoted his original post, but that's about it. --PresN 04:28, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

"anti-diversity"

Where's the evidence that SP is against diversity in and of itself? Cosanostrapizzaman (talk) 00:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

The source supports this: As just one example among several, it says [The Sad Puppies] managed to push out those seeking to make the Hugos more representative of the diverse works within the genre. among many other statements which support this point. If you have some reason to believe this isn't a WP:RS, or this isn't a fair representation of the source, explain it. The burden is on you to establish consensus for this change. Grayfell (talk) 00:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

If you really want to use sources as a WP:RS, standards require that the author be quoted rather than stating it as fact, as this is a blatantly opinion-oriented article from a non-authoritative source. Kameron Hurley is an author who has never been nominated for the Hugo awards, nor is she a scholarly source of information regarding literature, history, literary history, or even standards of diversity in any way. "stories about non-traditionally gendered explorers and post-singularity, post-ethnic characters who are sometimes not men and often even have feelings?" is patently false regarding the actual work of Larry Correia, whose characters are about as racially and sexually diverse as they can get. This is pure, complete opinion that has no real validity in anything other than the "It was on the Internet, so it must be true!" meme. Post something as a source that isn't pure conjecture, for the love of dogs! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.95.11.189 (talk) 20:46, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Responding to the first comment in a section while ignoring all the other comments is confusing and disrespectful to the people you are talking to. I've already said later in this very talk page section, please post new comments at the bottom, per WP:BOTTOMPOST. Please also be more careful that you do not refactor other people's comments, as you did with this edit. Please also sign your comments. See WP:TPG for more.

Again, as I've already explained in this talk page section, there are many sources supporting this point. Grayfell (talk) 21:26, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

:: Other sources contradict it. As just one example among several, it says: "Torgersen often notes in interviews that he’s been married to an African-American woman for 21 years, so “I don’t need some know-it-all to come lecture me about race stuff.” He says the Hugos are beset by identity politics. “When people go on about how we’re anti-diversity, I’m like: No. All we’re saying is storytelling ought to come first.”" Plus, as the article itself says, Sad Puppies' latter two leaders were women. One of Wikipedia's pillars is that it's supposed to be neutral. This is subjective. It's an argument. There won't be consensus for either the change or the way it currently is. That's why it should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattymillhouse (talk • contribs) 23:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

There's a problem here. I cited a specific example (of many) of a source which says it's anti-diversity, and you respond with a quote from a member of the group saying it isn't. This appears to be cherry picking the source. It also says "Would sci-fi focus, as it has for much of its history, largely on brave white male engineers with ray guns fighting either a) hideous aliens or b) hideous governments who don’t want them to mine asteroids in space? Or would it continue its embrace of a broader sci-fi: stories about non-traditionally gendered explorers and post-singularity, post-ethnic characters who are sometimes not men and often even have feelings?" as well as other examples of the movement's opposition to diversity, especially Beale. Hitting ctrl+f and typing "diversity" is fine, but the underlying substance of that source is that this was opposed to diversity. Also, what, exactly, does beset by identity politics mean, and how does that support your perspective?

This isn't an isolated source, either.

• The Hugo Awards just made history, and defied alt-right extremists in the process from Vox: "...a giant rejection of right-wing gatekeeping in the struggle to diversify the world of science fiction and fantasy writing."
• Diversity wins as the Sad Puppies lose at the Hugo awards from a Guardian columnist: "High-profile names like Samuel Delany and Octavia Butler are often used by sci-fi’s apologists to say diversity has never been a problem. But all too often, these or a few others are the only “diverse” writers they can name."
• Sci-fi convention Worldcon reorganizes its programming amid exclusion backlash from The Verge: "In recent years, the convention has been caught in the middle of a cultural brawl between the more conservative sci-fi buffs and the younger, more liberal fan base that strives toward inclusivity. This clash reached a head back in 2015, when Sad Puppies..." - Would "anti-inclusivity" be better? (No.)
• How The Sad Puppies Won — By Losing, The NPR source you have pushed to emphasize, also supports that this was at best a Pyrrhic victory in opposition to diversity: "Puppy defenders have often made the offensive, judgmental and depressingly self-absorbed argument that voters couldn't possibly actually like works by or about women, trans people, gay people, writers of color and so forth. Clearly, the argument claims, people could only vote for those works out of a misguided social-justice agenda." If anything, "anti-diversity" is too generous a take away from that, and presenting this as justification for this being a "success" is absurdly simplistic.

There are plenty more where that came from, also. We summarize whole sources according to due weight, not isolated samples or false equivalence. Grayfell (talk) 02:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Given the very obvious socking going on, I've opened an SPI. Obviously I agree with Grayfell that describing "winning by losing" as "successful" is absurd, especially given that the whole mess stemmed from Correia's tantrum at his inability to win a Hugo and the campaign notably failed to win him a Hugo. Pinkbeast (talk) 08:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

FTAOD the SPI ended, predictably enough, in the socks being blocked for socking. Pinkbeast (talk) 12:24, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

You must be joking. You're citing opinion pieces in the Anglosphere political media as sources? You are actually doing that? I'm a bit shocked that Wikipedia's standards would be so low. Joeedh (talk) 06:15, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I presume that's sarcasm. As the English language Wikipedia, we obviously mainly but not exclusively use Anglosphere sources. Doug Weller talk 13:30, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

How is an explicit effort to select authors on ethnic/gender grounds or works that focus on such issues less political than an effort to refocus competition on traditional grounds of worldbuilding, narrative, character, storytelling etc? Presumably "progressive" works are at least as competitive in these areas as any other and would find broad voter support. It would be inaccurate to characterize the response purely in terms of politics, politicization, or selection bias without recognizing that the thing being responded to also represents these things. Random noter (talk) 14:52, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Yep, if you take all of the Puppy claims at face value, and ignore all of the 3rd-party sources cited in the article, then you could say that the Puppy groups were apolitical and the voters (aka "everyone else") was the real political explicit effort. Since ignoring sources in favor of disingenuous self-promoting statements runs counter to what Wikipedia does, the article instead attributes that statement to the puppies themselves, instead of objective reality: "Torgersen argued that popular works were often unfairly passed over by Hugo voters in favor of more literary works, or stories with progressive political themes.[19][20]". --PresN 15:02, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I'd also be interested in a cite for your statement that there was "an explicit effort to select authors on ethnic/gender grounds or works that focus on such issues" at the expense of "traditional grounds of worldbuilding, narrative, character, storytelling". DS (talk) 17:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

The problem with labeling them as anti-diversity comes with the fundamental misunderstanding we are having here. Just because this group has a conflict against people who are supporting diversity or trying to make something more diverse doesn't mean that the Sad Puppies group is against the idea of diversity. These articles saying that they pushed against diversity do not prove that. This is about the intention. Did Sad Puppies 'push against diversity' because they don't want minorities in Sci-Fi? If so, get a good source to prove this. Otherwise, it is clear that they had a problem with the reason and the motivation of the people trying to bring diversity. I've got no chips in this game, but the lack of clarification in this admittedly difficult to solve discussion is bothersome. If you give a good argument/source explaining that they are in fact against the idea of diversity and not just the way some people are going about it, I would be more than happy to agree with you. Player02110 (talk) 20:43, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I have placed your comment at the bottom of the section. Wikipedia doesn't handled threaded discussions very well, and it's too difficult to keep track of who said what where.

Reliable sources are not obligated to prove something to your personal satisfaction. They are reliable, and they say something, and so do we. This particular claim seems perfectly obvious on it's face to me, so I don't see how multiple sources stating something as a fact needs to be treated as an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim. Grayfell (talk) 20:55, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, "the way some people are going about it" - I'd be interested to see what you mean by that, and to know what your sources are for it. DS (talk) 19:39, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources are required to be unbiased and factual. A source that is (a) a one-off History, (b) an opinion piece (read the article. It's set in first-person singular, and while it may be the author's experience, AS FP is not acceptable as source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumplestiltskin1992 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Nope. Sources can certainly be biased and they nearly always are. See WP:RS (especially WP:BIASED) and WP:NPOV (especially WP:NPOV#Bias in sources). As for The Atlantic, they don't have "Opinion" articles. The closest you'll find is their "Ideas" section, but they would even consider that "fact-based discourse". One-off author or not, this appears to have been published within the standard editorial process of The Atlantic. We don't get to downgrade sources because we don't like what they say. Woodroar (talk) 00:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Then the statement itself violates NPOV. 1. "Avoid stating opinions as facts." The assertion, from the article, is an opinion (author writing first-person making an undocumented and unverified accusation). 2. "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts." Since this _is_ a seriously contested assertion (scroll up and see the discussion above for an example). 3. "Prefer nonjudgmental language" - calling something "anti-diversity" in a contentious post is _highly_ judgemental. 4. "Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views." So, in that lead paragraph...where is there any mention of opposing views? Bottom line, fails 4 out of 5 criteria in WP:NPOV#Explanation_of_the_neutral_point_of_view). So.. the undo is being reverted for failing NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumplestiltskin1992 (talk • contribs) 05:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Grayfell, above, lists several sources for this claim. Pinkbeast (talk) 11:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Struck edit by Mattymillhouse - illegitimate use of an alternative account (ie a sockpuppet), striking their talk page comments and reverting edits is routine. Doug Weller talk 13:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

NPOV

By removing edits with NPOV and sourced facts (not feelings) you're showing the people you think are against you, that there really is a problem. As in, the reverting "editors" are more interested in the biased feelings portrayed in the nonNPOV rather than actual facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BheanSith (talk • contribs)

@BheanSith: I'm not sure I understand what you're talking about here. Could you explain more? PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:11, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

@PeterTheFourth: I edited the article on blatant points of none-NPOV and points that were not factual. People keep changing it back to a biased inflammatory version. What more needs explanation?— Preceding unsigned comment added by BheanSith (talk • contribs) — BheanSith (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@BheanSith: How is the article currently non-NPOV? How do your edits align it more with a neutral point of view? PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:51, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

• We determine facts by looking at what reliable sources say; our role as an encyclopedia is to summarize them rather than to perform original research. WP:NPOV means covering what the sources say in a neutral manner. Which sources do you feel back up your changes? Which sources do you feel the version you object to misrepresents, and how? --Aquillion (talk) 10:38, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Just curious if anybody at all here can explain Wikipedias *supposed* NPOV policy being used as justification to put partisan language and lies in the opening paragraph supported by opinion pieces? Seems every other Wikipedia article I read has similar accusations put in a "response" section of some kind (e.g. page on a movie, critical response section for what people thought about it), yet here, there appears to be a small group of people dedicated to forcing their opinions into the introduction as fact. sintar07 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:46, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

A few points here:

• Wikipedia is based on sources. We summarize what reliable sources say and we have to fairly represent their viewpoints. Also, we have to do so in proportion to those sources. So if 75 sources say one thing and 25 say another, we heavily base our articles on what those 75 sources say. If 99 sources say one thing and 1 source says another, we may not even include that 1 source at all because it's clearly a minority viewpoint. That is WP:NPOV and it's sub-section WP:DUE in a nutshell.
• For the most part, reliable sources are great at indicating the type of content you're reading. Journalism is separated by sections, opinions/editorials are labelled as such, there's a distinction between original analysis and quoting other sources, etc. That's part of what makes reliable sources reliable. There's nothing in any of the sources you removed to indicate that they're editorial or opinion pieces. All signs point towards them being fact-based journalism. NPOV requires that we treat them as such.
• If you don't like those sources, there are dozens, perhaps hundreds, from reliable sources saying basically the same things. Many of them are already in the article.
• The opening paragraphs are called a "lead". They're really just a summary of the article itself. If you want to change the lead, you need to work to change the rest of the article.
• If you'd like to change the rest of the article, including adding a "response" section, then you're going to need reliable sources to do that. I doubt there are many reliable sources that take a counter position—and I've looked—though there's nothing stopping you from looking. But you absolutely need to start with sources.
• Yes, articles about movies often have "Reception" sections with a "Critical response" sub-section. They're all based on what reliable sources—in this case, reputable film critics—say. In many cases, the general opinion of such critics gets added to the lead, like in this article. So again, you need to start with sources. I hope this helps! Woodroar (talk) 11:36, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Late here, but I was sort-of in the science fiction world at the time and I think the critics of this article have a point though I understand covering science fiction fandom issues might be tricky. The sources most informed might be the most biased while "mainstream media" sources are often going to be poorly informed because it's not their normal beat. What I recall "The Sad Puppies" were mostly just traditionalist, they weren't anti-diversity. The Rabid Puppies, however, were kind of as described. Although not universally so they had some clear alt-right leanings. And yet I admit I'm not sure how I can "prove" this by reliable sources due to the issue of "Most informed on science fiction fandom are the most biased on it."

Still I'd prefer changing the lead a bit as it's based pretty much exclusively on Left-leaning sources and I don't think the body of the article entirely justifies it. The body of the article largely goes with what I experienced, that they were a reaction or some would say over-reaction to "progressive political themes." Analog, then at least, was associated to libertarianism more than anti-diversity/Right and their authors were clearly a big part of SP. (And though I'm conservative I'm not libertarian, far-right, a Trump supporter, or even a person who supported what they did at the time.)--Tibby57721 (talk) 14:22, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

"by means of"

In the first paragraph, the phrase "by means of" is misused. The author writes " It was initiated in 2013 by author Larry Correia by means of a voting bloc to get his own novel nominated". Presumably the author meant "as a kind of voting block". I do not have a suggestion for how else to phrase it because I do not know enough about the subject.

What's more, the sentence in full reads: " It was initiated in 2013 by author Larry Correia by means of a voting bloc to get his own novel nominated, and then through suggested slates in subsequent years."

Parsing this, we get "the campaign was initiated through suggested slates". The reader naturally asks herself, "what is a suggested slate?" And the linked page, merely a page on "slates", does not answer the question of what a "suggested slate" is. The answer to this question may be blindingly obvious to those involved in the Hugo awards, but to me, an outsider, it is anything but clear.

What's more, what does it mean for a campaign to be initiated "through" something? Surely the typical wording is to be "initiated by" something. From what little I know about the subject, the campaign named Sad Puppies was carried out by means of a voting block. Perhaps the phrasal verb "carried out" would jibe better with the phrase "by means of" than, as it stands, the verb "initiated".

Another thing: the phrase "get nominated" sounds informal, in comparison to "have nominated". The problem of informality is compounded with the opinionated tone of "getting his own book nominated", which is clearly pointing out the hypocrisy of using a political agenda for selfish ends. If it is to appear as a statement of fact, I suggest deleting the word "own".

Lastly, "(since 1953)" is irrelevant information to the subject matter. What is more relevant would be the year in which the Sad Puppies were founded (2013), which ought to be there right in the first line, not the last line of the first paragraph.

I have no dog (or puppy!) in this fight, so please take my advice as the Sunday afternoon ruminations of a professional copywriter, and not a passive aggressive attack on the writer(s) for their involvement in this controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:DF:AF29:5400:F187:3A42:B69F:ABC1 (talk) 12:26, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I've tried to edit the lead to fix some of these copyediting issues! You should feel free, now or in the future, to edit this or any article to fix errors like this- that's the point of wikipedia, that you can jump in and fix things with a quick explanation in the edit summary without having to get permission first. You were quite correct about the language issues, so now the article is better for it. --PresN 17:11, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 September 2021

This article references several extremely biased sources that do not publish facts, but their opinions. These biased opinions are then regurgitated in the article. Presenting biased opinions as facts is dishonest and makes your company a liar, which cannot be trusted. It doesn't matter what you say, or think of yourself, actions matter. Please stop publishing biased opinions as if they are facts. 50.86.49.194 (talk) 20:48, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:57, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Descriptors elsewiki

Would it be valid to describe SP as a "ballot manipulation campaign" when it's mentioned in other articles? If so, what sources could be used to support this statement? DS (talk) 16:22, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Inaccurate summary?

The article states that the campaign was unsuccessful and that the focus was to get Larry's 'Monster Hunter' series nominated, but according to Larry's own writing in 2015 that was not his intent.

https://monsterhunternation.com/2015/04/09/a-response-to-george-r-r-martin-from-the-author-who-started-sad-puppies/

"I launched the Sad Puppies campaign with the idea that if I could get authors with the wrong politics onto the Hugo ballot, I could prove to the world that the Hugos were in fact what you are all now admitting that they are. (Mission accomplished) Plus I wanted to expose that the perpetually outraged crowd would react with vehemence, vitriol, lies, and career sabotage, so that the world could see that our genre is overrun with bitter culture warriors who have politicized everything, and that if you had the wrong politics they would do everything in their power to destroy you (mission accomplished beyond my wildest dreams).

Not only did I know going into this that I would never win a Hugo, I also knew that I was going to make myself a target, and that I would be slandered, threatened, and have my career sabotaged."

So according to him it was to expose bias in the Hugos and it was successful. Shouldn't that be reflected in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.89.199 (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Hmmm... Woodroar (talk) 19:21, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

This entire article appears to be a PR placement from the final winners of the kerfuffle.

• We can't guess whether his intent matched his statement.
• We can't guess whether he really was a racist or just exposing racism.
• The only clear oddity is that the opening line of this Wikipedia article casts opposition to political posturing as "anti-diversity," which smells of triumphalist caricature of the losers.
• (Straw men make easy targets.)

I am not sympathetic to either the movement or its response. Nor have I expertise to make corrections beyond this bit of analysis. GnomonConquest (talk) 21:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)