Talk:Sad Puppies

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sad Puppies article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Sad Puppies. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Sad Puppies at the Reference desk.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Science Fiction Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Internet culture Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Internet culture To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles Expand : Pick an article from here or here Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images Stubs : All stubs are located here Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}} See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

This phrase seems to be doing a lot of "work" and carrying a lot of meaning which may not accurately reflect either the source linked or the article itself.

I do acknowledge that the sources cited & concede to the previous archived discussion that there was an anti-diversity effect (since most Puppy noms were white men vs the unaltered list), that the Sads and the Rabids cannot be treated separately (and that therefore Beale was de-facto the most prominent Puppy), etc. However "anti-diversity" probably doesn't belong in the lede since it requires other explanation that belongs in other parts of the article. "Anti-progressive" might work since it's both accurate and is a phrase found in the Atlantic article, but that might already be implied by "right-wing". Maybe we should just link a few more sources to the phrase? Nautical Mongoose (talk) 05:17, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, removing this phrase. Ageofultron (talk) 22:16, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what was suggested. DS (talk) 23:42, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm suggesting it - the Sad Pupies slate included women and people of color, and the cited source for this claim doesn't say "anti-diversity" exactly, it says the sad suppies opposed people voting for pro-diversity slates. That's not the same as the upppies, to hear them tell it, were advocating for more of a background-blind approach. "Anti-progressive" is more accurate. Hi! (talk) 01:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We could replace or support The Atlantic with The L.A. Times, SBS News, The Verge, Motherboard/Vice, or any of the sources from the Talk archives (as mentioned above). But it doesn't really matter: we're here to summarize what sources say, so whether or not they use the phrase "anti-diversity" is mostly irrelevant. What The Atlantic does say, that the Rabid Puppies managed to push out those seeking to make the Hugos more representative of the diverse works within the genre is basically the same thing. Woodroar (talk) 02:37, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The title of the current source itself is "Hijacking the Hugo Awards Won't Stifle Diversity in Science Fiction". If there was a good argument against the more strident wording in the lede, it would have been made 7 years ago when people were into it; instead, every so often someone comes around to make an unsubstantiated argument that mainly serves as a notice that something must be in fan news today about the Hugos. --PresN 03:03, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The articles linked above are mostly about the Rabid Puppies, which isn't the topic of this wiki article. For example, the SBS news article only says the sad puppies "wanted to see more pulpy, action-heavy sci-fi on the ballot. The Puppies were tired of stories that they called “heavy handed message fiction”...and not much came of it ". And goes on to contrast them with the rabid puppies who "stormed the Hugo nominations" etc. Hi! (talk) 20:54, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I see that this article is about both of them I guess? Based on the title I assumed they would have separate articles but I don't see one for rabid puppies. I guess it makes sense to combine them but the phrasing as is uses quotes about RB to describe SB which is misleading. Hi! (talk) 20:59, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This paper in Sociological Quarterly should be relevant here: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00380253.2023.2252866 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.197.93.157 (talk) 15:28, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]