Talk:Sad Puppies

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

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


 * I concur, removing this phrase. Ageofultron (talk) 22:16, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not what was suggested. DS (talk) 23:42, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm suggesting it - the Sad Pupies slate included women and people of color, and the cited source for this claim doesn't say "anti-diversity" exactly, it says the sad suppies opposed people voting for pro-diversity slates. That's not the same as the upppies, to hear them tell it, were advocating for more of a background-blind approach. "Anti-progressive" is more accurate. Hi! (talk) 01:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We could replace or support The Atlantic with The L.A. Times, SBS News, The Verge, Motherboard/Vice, or any of the sources from the Talk archives (as mentioned above). But it doesn't really matter: we're here to summarize what sources say, so whether or not they use the phrase "anti-diversity" is mostly irrelevant. What The Atlantic does say, that the Rabid Puppies managed to push out those seeking to make the Hugos more representative of the diverse works within the genre is basically the same thing. Woodroar (talk) 02:37, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The title of the current source itself is "Hijacking the Hugo Awards Won't Stifle Diversity in Science Fiction". If there was a good argument against the more strident wording in the lede, it would have been made 7 years ago when people were into it; instead, every so often someone comes around to make an unsubstantiated argument that mainly serves as a notice that something must be in fan news today about the Hugos. -- Pres N  03:03, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The articles linked above are mostly about the Rabid Puppies, which isn't the topic of this wiki article. For example, the SBS news article only says the sad puppies "wanted to see more pulpy, action-heavy sci-fi on the ballot. The Puppies were tired of stories that they called “heavy handed message fiction”...and not much came of it ". And goes on to contrast them with the rabid puppies who "stormed the Hugo nominations" etc. Hi! (talk) 20:54, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually I see that this article is about both of them I guess? Based on the title I assumed they would have separate articles but I don't see one for rabid puppies. I guess it makes sense to combine them but the phrasing as is uses quotes about RB to describe SB which is misleading. Hi! (talk) 20:59, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Interesting reference
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)