Talk:Larry Correia

Sad Puppies

Shouldn't the article have some mention of the witch-hunt that Correia is currently being subjected to? 50.131.153.242 (talk) 05:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

A brief controversy section might be appropriate. It's something that could easily over-shadow the rest of the article and violate policy if done poorly. But there are certainly sources available for it since I just now checked to see what you were talking about. Edit Ferret (talk) 21:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

If Barack Obama doesn't need a controversy section, neither does Larry Correia. :^) Jennifer Lost the War (talk) 23:53, 08 April 2015 (UTC)

Rather than creating a "Controversy" section, we could briefly mention the witch-hunt in either the pre-existing "Career" or "Other" section. Meatsgains (talk) 00:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I was being cheeky, but I am personally of the opinion that writing about it would quickly cause a political argument between editors similar to what happened with GamerGate and so forth. Jennifer Lost the War (talk) 01:10, 09 April 2015 (UTC)

Frankly, if you refer to it as a "witch-hunt", you're almost certainly too biased about the topic to be making the edits yourself. Considering that this has received extensive coverage in multiple reliable sources worldwide, not mentioning it would also be biased. DreamGuy (talk) 00:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

In that case, why not add it yourself? I'm only vaguely aware of this controversy, and I'm not so sure about the coverage in reliable sources you refer to - I've only seen it covered in blogs. But if you think the sources exist, and the subject is worth mentioning, please, add it to the article. Robofish (talk) 00:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Unless it is discussed elsewhere in the article, Sad Puppies should not be mentioned in the lead as this gives it undue weight. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey everyone, I went ahead and included a brief mention of his involvement in the Sad Puppies. I think a general audience is more likely to know Correia for his involvement with that group than for his other works -- the only reason I came here was to get more detail on his ties to Sad Puppies.

I tried my level best to keep it brief and neutral. Its tough to write a reasonable description of a movement whose goals are hotly contested, so I hope this is a workable effort. Nblund (talk) 15:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I expanded it a bit, with a lot more references. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 08:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Not sure where to put this, because I don't often (or ever, really) edit and I'm not exactly conversant in the tools etc, but...isn't it at least suggestive of a problem when the section on "Sad Puppies" is larger than the rest of the article pit together, excluding the bibliography? I mean...I'm embarrassed *for* you guys and gals, frankly. It's larger than the bloody "career" section, for crying out loud! Neutral point of view? Right. I must have been given a trick dictionary, because, according to it, "balanced" is one thing this article *isn't*. 96.35.47.2 (talk) 10:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I think the section is excessive too. It appears to be a clear case of WP:UNDUE in its current state. Details of the campaign itself aren't relevant to this biography. This article really only needs to summarize it and explain Correia's involvement. Accordingly, I've trimmed the section. Deli nk (talk) 12:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The prior version seems to leave out the political significance of the whole "Sad Puppies" saga. If the problem is length, then we can trim, but this seems like it obscures the whole reason for the controversy. Correia got quite a bit of mainstream press coverage because of his involvement in the "Sad Puppies" and (right or wrong) most of it portrayed the campaign as a bit of a right-wing backlash. Nblund (talk) 23:09, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I just created a Sad Puppies article since there is certainly enough in the way of media coverage to do so. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I've made two changes to the lead. That the Puppy slate was "more popular" works is an uncited assertion (indeed, while Amazon sales ranks don't mean much, it turns out the non-slate works scored considerably higher than slate ones in 2015). It seems pertinent that the campaign he organised nominated his own work, in contrast with Torgersen who recused himself from nominations on a slate he organised. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Good edit. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The same phrasing is also in the Sad Puppies subsection. I (think) I wrote that, and I was partly working from this article which says: "Torgersen has argued that the real problem isn't just a trend towards nomination of diverse works, but also nominees that reflect literary, rather than popular, tastes". I think this usage of "popular" means something more like "middlebrow", and doesn't necessarily suggest that the books are best sellers, but I see where it might be confusing. Nblund (talk) 21:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Writing career

Tried to add the following intro under "Writing career":

"Correia used to be active on firearms discussion boards, where he would write about his interest in weapons and low budget monster movies, and also get inspiration from various online threads. The original rough draft of Dead Six started out in such a thread called "Welcome Back, Mr. Nightcrawler". His self published first novel was written for, and marketed directly to, the posters on these boards. One of these posters had once worked in a large independent bookstore, and passed it on to his old employer, who contacted the publisher at Baen and strongly recommended them to publish the book. After reading it, they offered him a publishing contract."

But when adding the link to the source, Wikipedia refused to accept it: "Your edit was not saved because it contains a new external link to a site registered on Wikipedia's blacklist"

The blacklisted link: http://www.exeminer.com/article/an-interview-with-monster-hunter-author-larry-correia (it is supposed to be "examiner" not "exeminer", but Wikipedia would otherwise refuse to accept it)

Honestly, I don't see the need why it should be blacklisted. 2A02:FE0:C900:1:F969:D028:146:4BDA (talk) 15:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)