Talk:Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers Association/Archive 1

of America?
I don't believe this is true anymore: "The 'America' in the organization's title refers to the fact that authors (regardless of nationality or residence) must be published in the U.S.A. in order to qualify as SFWA members." It is true that only material published in the US is eligible for a Nebula Award. Maybe someone who knows better than I can confirm this. Metamagician3000 12:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

August 2007 DMCA notice
http://www.boingboing.net/2007/08/30/science-fiction-writ-1.html --AVRS 13:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Controversies
The SFWA seems particularly adept at shooting itself in the foot so I added a controversies section so that they might at least have a resource for education to possibly avoid such inanities in the future (or at least make new inanities). The only two that I can immediately call to mind are the Lem debacle and the Scribd DMCA fuck-up but I know I have heard at least half a dozen other snit fits and imbroglios they've been involved in. Litch (talk) 04:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Re-added controversies section. If better sourcing is desired, please provide it. at least 2 links are included. Whitewashing isn't going to make this go away. Litch (talk) 12:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The deleting of unsourced claims is not "whitewashing", it is Wikipedia policy. (Verifiability) Your information may be true, but unless you provide appropriate sources as evidence, by definition they are mere allegations (and potentially libelous) and therefore are not appropriate for an encyclopedia.  It is NOT the responsibility of other editors to research and verify your claims. Trowbridge (talk) 12:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I was specifically objecting to the deletion of the SOURCED claims.Litch (talk) 11:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Of the six so-called "controversies" you listed, a source was provided for one; and that source did not even support the claim you made, but rather appeared to contradict it. - Trowbridge (talk) 13:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * As Trowbridge noted, it isn't my job to do your research for you. Furthermore, the claims you made are covered by Undue and Bias. From your entries it appears that you have heard rumors but haven't tried to find out what actually happened in any of these cases.Shsilver (talk) 13:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Then the appropriate response should have been to discuss it in the talk page rather than overly eager deletion.Litch (talk) 11:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

As all controversies have been properly sourced & there has been more than adequate time to adjust the wording, I removed the neutrality flag. Would someone care to spell out the "undue weight" argument as I do not see it unless the article is intended to be some sort of SFWA hagiography.Litch (talk) 15:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I re-wrote the controversies section and tried to introduce NPOV. It was not neutral before, according to the sources. I removed the Undue weight flag. Sourcing could be better as the only source of the old Lem page is the wayback machine using that old address. Riverpa (talk) 02:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Fantasy
When did the organization change its name to cover fantasy? --when it flirted with the initialism SFFWA, i assume, but when i assuem ... --P64 (talk) 22:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Bulletin cover image
There's disagreement between me and about which cover image should be shown in the "Bulletin" section. I think that File:SFWA Bulletin no. 200 cover image.jpg is a better fit than File:SFWA Bulletin Vol. 47 Issue 4 cover.jpg, because the section is mostly about the controversy, and the new image is not subject to critical commentary (WP:NFCC). I'm also pinging and, who have made edits about this topic (see Files for deletion/2014 March 29).  Sandstein  17:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I have added the cover to #200 below to illustrate the content relating to the controversy. I think that #203 is a better choice to illustrate the overall section because the section is about the Bulletin in general, not the controversy, and #203 was intended as an "evergreen" issue that will be used for the foreseeable future to promote and educated about SFWA: "This issue, guest-edited by Tansy Rayner Roberts, with Jaym Gates as Production Editor, was specially created to be used as an outreach tool for conventions and other events."  Matthewj42   13:52 EST, 29 March 2014  — Preceding undated comment added 17:53, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The number, size, and layout of the images is now poor. They extend too far beyond the section to illustrate it effectively. (For me now, the first and larger image extends beyond the section. The section evidently illustrates the list of SFWA presidents!)
 * If I may put this backwardly: I believe the text must be longer, in order to accommodate effectively the two images we now have. (Locating one at the left margin won't work well.) Perhaps there is more to say in words about what they are intended to illustrate--including some of what Matthew says above.
 * --P64 (talk) 18:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with  Matthewj42   that the cover used to represent the Bulletin should not be the controversial one, as the complaints about it and subsequent change in editorial policy for the Bulletin indicate that SFWA as an organization would not want it to be represented that way. I think putting the controversial cover in a separate controversy section is more appropriate. -- Netmouse 14:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Netmouse concerning a "separate controversy section" --if there were one--as in 2009, apparently (see Controversies, above).
 * Section 1, History, is not Controversies, and does not say enough about the sexism controversy to support illustration by cover #200 (which should not be at the top of the section if it were appropriate in that respect). Furthermore, the controversial cover is more prominent there, and it is worse in the sense Netmouse warns against, as a representation of the organization's history than it was of the organization's Bulletin.
 * The image of cover #203 is much larger than most such illustrations at English Wikipedia--too large, if its purpose is simply to represent the Bulletin in general. The large size is appropriate only if one purpose is to illustrate the resolution of the sexism controversy--e.g., large enough for visitors to appreciate, or to deprecate, the assessment by Sue Granquist that we quote ("suspiciously like a woman in a burka. 'Nuff said"). --P64 (talk) 19:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Introductory Paragraphs
I am wondering why the statement about sexism is in the opening paragraphs that define the organization. The controversy about the Bulletin is a serious one with important ramifications, one that as a past president of SFWA and as a feminist I consider important to acknowledge. Certainly it should be noted as it is in the Bulletin and controversies sections. However, it doesn't define the organization. Had nothing been done about the situation or if it represented the majority of the views by members of SFWA, it might be appropriate as part of the defining paragraphs. However, neither of those things are true. SFWA addressed the controversy in a prompt manner, with significant changes to the Bulletin, and the controversy involved only a handful of people in an organization with well over a thousand members. This is an organization that does a great deal of positive services for its members, with hundreds of volunteers who put in tens of thousands of hours of work every year, almost all of which goes uncredited. The Bulletin incident was a serious one that needed to be addressed; however, it doesn't define the organization. I would like to delete that statement from the opening paragraphs. -- Catherine Asaro, Past President, SFWA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.3.196.232 (talk) 15:18, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Ms. Asaro, welcome to Wikipedia. Your point is well taken. Our style guide, at WP:LEAD instructs us that "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects. [It] should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." In view of this, I have rewritten and expanded the lead to touch upon everything the article does, which makes the controversy less prominent. Considering that it was the subject of quite a bit of coverage, though, I believe that it is sufficiently prominent to warrant a mention in the lead.  Sandstein   17:52, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The way you phrased it, referring to the Bulletin rather than the organization, works better. However, I still don't think it is appropriate. In fact, the article as a whole is biased. It has almost nothing about what SFWA is or what it does. Rather than an article about SFWA, it would be more appropriately a side article about controversies in SFWA. This is a group with roughly 1800 members involved in hundreds, even thousands of activities large and small, from groups, SIGS, committees, and volunteers acting on behalf of the membership. Yet the article includes almost nothing about the work, history, or ongoing purpose. For example, it says nothing about Griefcom, about the medical or legal funds for authors, about SFWA's efforts to support authors rights in publishing, about the development of various SIGs, for example the YA/MG group and Andre Norton Award, about the work on copyright and e-piracy, about the SFWA anthologies, about the services it offers authors in online development. The article has nothing about the SFWA presence at places like the Baltimore Book Festival, the DC Science and Engineering Festival, the BEA, and numerous other events; nothing about the resources it makes available for educators; nothing about it's participation in programs designed to get authors paid for unlicensed use of their work in other countries; nothing about the author events it sponsors, such as the reading series or galas. I could continue at length, but you get the idea. The majority of what the organization does is relatively boring when seen from the outside, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. And boring or not, an unbiased encyclopedia article should reflect the organization as a whole. Best -- Catherine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.3.196.232 (talk) 22:34, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree that the article should be more comprehensive. That's true for most Wikipedia articles. But our editors can only write what they know about, and they must only write about what is published in reliable sources (see WP:RS). Our article reflects this. But, this being Wikipedia, anybody can improve it. If you or people you know who are not currently officers of the organization (see WP:COI) would like to help make the article more comprehensive by editing it, they are welcome to do so.  Sandstein   15:50, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll check with them. Maybe our communications director could put together something. Best -- Catherine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.3.196.232 (talk) 00:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

SFWA people
Is photographer Jim Fiscus really the SFWA director at large? The linked short biography does not mention speculative fiction.

Is Clarkesworld podcaster Kate Baker really the SFWA operations manager? The linked short biography doesn't mention any official role and the latter seems to me probably a fulltime administrative job--executive director, in effect.
 * Yes, she says . I made that the first formal reference in her stub biography. ✅ -P64 2015-07-18

Steven H Silver is the SFWA event manager, the linked biography says. We show "Steven H" (no dot, which I deleted per the biography) in the list of references and should probably show that in the list of Administrative staff, in order to match for the sake of observant visitors. ✅ -P64 2015-07-17

(I added the initial to James E. Gunn.) --P64 (talk) 19:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Gunn is now James E. Gunn (writer). [much ✅ there] --P64 (talk) 18:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Deep links to sfwa.org broken
Old deep links to sfwa.org are broken. Apparently, SFWA did a redesign of their web site around 2010, and most of the old content is gone.

This affects not only this article, but also other articles referring to SFWA (e.g. of former SFWA staff). Oefe (talk) 20:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110805165759/http://www.locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/GrandMaster.html to http://www.locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/GrandMaster.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110805173202/http://www.locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/GrandMasterWinsByYear.html to http://www.locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/GrandMasterWinsByYear.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605211851/http://www.locusmag.com/News/2009/01/ray-bradbury-award.html to http://www.locusmag.com/News/2009/01/ray-bradbury-award.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111016210647/http://www.locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/Sfwa.html to http://www.locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/Sfwa.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:32, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Name change: "Introducing the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers Association"
Please pardon me, but I'm too tired to move the article ATM.

Press release: "Introducing the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers Association".

Edit: And apparently too tire to notice that it had already been changes.

—DocWatson42 (talk) 03:29, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

"In recent years"
Relative time expressions need to be anchored, goddammit! jae (talk) 23:23, 19 January 2023 (UTC)