Talk:Harry Styles/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Personal Life Section (Again)

I am making this section yet again just to clarify for a third time that I request administrator intervention against random people deliberately reverting changes to intentionally microaggress against Harry Styles for not labeling his sexual orientation. Biphobia (which does not always have to affect bi identified people) is a real and harmful prejudice, and people who come in and randomly revert the edits on this page are doing so I believe deliberately to harmfully skew Harry's google search results in an attempt to make him appear definitively heterosexual - something unsupported by Harry's statements since he was 22 years old and something clearly driven by intolerance of people with fluid sexuality. This is not objectivity, this is not thoughtfulness, this is biphobia being written into the public discourse.

After I made this edit, I posted up on my twitter account my success in keeping the edit up for more than 24 hours, and I had people comment on the post (because it circulated) that they have tried to edit this page in the past over long periods of times to be more respectful to no avail. This is not objectivity, this is at this point a dedicated campaign to frame Harry Styles (and people with fluid sexualities) in ways that are intentionally damaging - to Harry, to his fans, to the public discourse, and to all people who do not exist within the gay and straight binary. Wikipedia is supposed to be objective - is this objective behavior, to frame an article where the interviewee was cornered under duress as a reliable indicator of their sexual orientation? To ensure that the article never dies, that this public figure can never be free of something they said when they were 19 years old, despite repeated refutations since? How on earth is this objective or any sort of allyship with queer people? What kind of message is Wikipedia sending with this - because it IS sending a message when "I'm pretty sure I'm not bisexual" is bolded in his featured snippet. Because people take that as "I'm straight" and all of these "objective" editors know this.

I am not an activist, but I refuse to lie down and say this is okay. It's so far from okay to allow this behavior to continue. 14:42, 28 April 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by H-influenzae (talk • contribs)

I would also just like to affirm since there is a real and disgusting presence of it on this page that I entirely reject the larrie conspiracy theory, and conspiracy theorists who have repeatedly vandalized this page are no friends of mine or of other queer people. I am invested in this not because I believe in a conspiracy theory but purely because I believe in the right to self-determination of all people, and that this is sending a very negative message to a lot of people.H-influenzae (talk) 15:08, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Since the GQ article is under arbitration I feel like if for some reason it must stay, it is imperative that the circumstances in which that information was gathered - e.g. Harry being cornered against his wishes, which the journalist gleefully owns up to in the article - be mentioned.H-influenzae (talk) 22:39, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Harry Styles Personal Life

Hello to all!

I realize I have been accused of “edit warring” at this point and my apologies but I really do not mean to edit war. I am simply trying to make the case that the way Harry’s personal life section is written is misleading and inaccurate with regard to how it does not make it clear that he does not label his sexuality, but is attracted to men and women. Harry is not the only celebrity to do so - many other celebrities came out as non-labeling just this year, and it seems like the fact that the article treats his sexuality as a lot more ambiguous than it is, is actively harmful to the wider discourse, to non-labeled LGBT people, and of course, to the public figure himself, who I think deserves to be taken at his word.

I think that this should at least be a conversation on the table that “Styles’ sexuality has long been subject to speculation” is simply a disrespectful thing to say about a human being - we wouldn’t say it about an average person, and a celebrity should be treated the same way. I also think that it is trivializing to frame his statement that he does not label his sexuality as on the same level as “it’s important to be open-minded” etc. - the sentence sounds like he’s a lot more ambiguous about it, when this is not the only time he’s refused to label his sexuality as an answer. He said he didn’t label it in The Face in 2019, and implies it in the Guardian article too. I also think that treating the Guardian as his base statement on his sexuality and gender presentation just because it was the most recent time he was asked gives too much weight to one source.

I also think we need to reassess the role of Medicine as he brought the song back in the last third of Love on Tour: US; it was prominent enough that Rob Sheffield wrote about it in a review of Harryween and in a follow up thread he even mentioned that the lyrics are confirmed as “I mess around with them” and that Harry had fact checked that for him in his 2019 RS interview which is one piece of potentially new information https://twitter.com/robsheff/status/1455318016560861187?s=20

I realize this song is not “official” but I think its significance has been brushed off. Tons of news outlets have reported about it for three years, including recently. It’s well known as a song he performs among both casual and serious fans, and he makes it pretty clear while performing that the song is about himself.

We don’t have to make all of these changes but we should make some of them because this section is just bad.

H-influenzae (talk) 03:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any source saying Styles is attracted to men and women. Reliable sources publish articles that contain speculations about people's–specifically celebrities'–personal lives all the time, including but not limited to romances, sexualities, feuds, criminal activities. Nothing disrespectful about it. Styles' queerbaiting does not have enough support from reliable sources to be due for inclusion. Analyzing lyrics from "Medicine" to synthesize a sexual orientation is improper. KyleJoan^talk 03:32, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

With all due respect, it’s kind of a heteronormative attitude to say that I’m “synthesizing a sexual orientation” - that would be claiming based upon those lyrics that I believed he identified as a specific sexuality. If I were to claim that he was bisexual from that, then to our knowledge that would be inaccurate, but I just literally quoted a song he wrote and said ‘he said he is attracted to men and women in this song.’ To manufacture heterosexuality out of that is, I feel, equally improper, unless you believe that there is something inherently neutral about identifying as straight, which there is not.

H-influenzae (talk) 03:45, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Who manufactured heterosexuality? Where in the article does it say that Styles is heterosexual? KyleJoan^talk 03:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Harry styles dated, and then married louis tomlinson back in 2016 which is why 1D went on hiatus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fugly.rat (talk • contribs) 22:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

It was never confirmed that Harry Styles dated and married bandmate Louis Tomlinson. It was always speculation, it is not the reason why One Direction went on Hiatus. He has never come forward with his sexual orientation but I truthfully do not think this information is relevant for the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marthagonzo (talk • contribs) 20:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

You are saying I am synthesizing a sexual orientation by saying (accurately) he has lyrics saying he is attracted to men and women. I’m really trying to not use language that will get me banned again because I am aware these are challenging conversations and I don’t want to make ad hominem attacks, but if it’s “synthesizing a sexual orientation” to say the things that he actually wrote. . .like I’m genuinely confused about what you’re trying to say there. Is it not equally “synthesizing a sexual orientation” to omit that information and imply that he is only attracted to women? — Preceding unsigned comment added by H-influenzae (talk • contribs) 03:56, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Is there a specific rule on Wikipedia that specifically states clear and confirmed song lyrics are not allowed to be cited in conversations about sexual orientation? Is there a way to word the inclusion of Medicine’s lyrics that would satisfy Wikipedia’s editorial standards?

H-influenzae (talk) 04:00, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Unless reliable sources regard the lyrics as important to the conversation, then no. I get it. You think they are. Now present the reliable sources that believe the same. Little Mix has a song about wings. Should we include in their article that they're humans with wings because I believe those lyrics are important to the discussion about human biology? Aside from outright ridiculousness, that wholly violates WP:DUE. Do you still not understand that? The article says he does not label his sexuality. You're trying to piece different sources together to imply he is not only attracted to women, which no reliable source supports. Please read WP:ACTIVIST. KyleJoan^talk 04:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I really think the Wings song is a false equivalence for many reasons and that saying ‘his own word’ is not credible is something I disagree with but if that’s the rule across the board then I understand.

H-influenzae (talk) 04:09, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

You need reliable sources that consider the song lyrics to be true statements about himself. Wikipedia can't just assume that his lyrics are true statements. KyleJoan's example was an exaggeration in order to show that your argument was flawed, because music lyrics can say anything. A closer example perhaps would be to write that Michael Jackson had a fan named Billie Jean that claimed was his lover had a son of his, based only on the lyrics for "Billie Jean". If you check the Background section, you'll how there are reliable sources that talk about how that song is or may be based on real events. But Wikipedia doesn't say so simply based on the lyrics, we do it based on the reliable sources. —El Millo (talk) 04:37, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Yup. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Slightly off-topic, but this discussion reminded me of something I read in a WaPo article:

"Author Hannah Moskowitz was browsing Wikipedia last summer when she fired off a tweet: "me, yelling at the 'personal life' section of Wikipedia: JUST TELL ME IF THEY'RE GAY." It racked up nearly 6,000 retweets and 36,000 likes. Moskowitz still isn’t sure why that particular tweet struck such a nerve — but it’s a long-running joke in the LGBT community that if you want to find out if a famous person is gay, you go right to Wiki’s “personal life.”" Please carry on.Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

It is funny that that article mentions Styles specifically as being someone who a person may want to search for specifically this information. I do feel like his wikipedia page has to contend with the fact that he has been bothered about his sexuality and relationships for so long, ever since he was a teenager, that he’s grown very hardened to being asked about it, which I feel is not very conducive to the way an encyclopedia values certain sources - if a public figure wants to engage with certain aspects of their life in their work, but doesn’t feel like talking about that with a journalist, it puts one in a bit of a bind of how to talk about them. I’d love to add a line in the section that mentions how private he is because I do think that adds a lot of context to someone uninitiated who may wonder if he is a provocateur who only dates famous people, which he does get painted as sometimes, but I’m still trying to figure out how to word it. He’s never spoken openly about any of the relationships actually on his profile except for Caroline so I think it’s worthwhile to note that part of his perceived cagey-ness is that he’s just a private person generally.

H-influenzae (talk) 22:51, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Huh, I didn't even notice that Styles was mentioned. That is funny. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:20, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Page 161- in this book [1] may have something useful, either for this article or the queerbaiting article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:49, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I definitely have the opinion that accusing real people of queerbaiting is kind of shitty because generally it’s easier to be a successful straight person than it is to be a successful queer person (or at least, a queer man, I know that the sexualization of lesbians is a whole other topic) - in the case of Harry Styles, he’s very talented and would no doubt be successful if he were as energetic and engaging and good at songwriting while being masculine. He’d probably appeal to even MORE people in my personal opinion, because fewer people would be put off by the way he chooses to present himself and live his life. But he chooses to be authentic no matter what people seem to throw at him and in my personal opinion I think it’s commendable. I saw him live just this year for the first time and the authenticity and joy he brings to the stage is really powerful. For anyone who feels an amount of cynicism about him, I’d really recommend attending one of his shows! Really cool atmosphere.

H-influenzae (talk) 23:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Any content included on his sexuality needs to be directly stated by himself or reliable sources - and we can't make fact-sounding statements on his sexuality based on speculation from sources. Unless he explicitly says he is attracted to both men and women (or multiple genders), which to my knowledge he never has (hence all the "speculation" derived from his vagueness), a statement like that has no place in the article. --Lapadite (talk) 19:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I reiterate that him stating outright "the boys and the girls are in/I mess around with them/and I'm okay with it" in one's own art would constitute coming out of the closet for every average person and that it's positively ludicrous that celebrities are required to be poked and prodded by journalists rather than treated as reliable sources about their own sexuality. It could be valuable for Wikipedia to analyze why public figures such as Harry Styles and Sufjan Stevens are widely accepted by millions of people as LGBT+ and yet Wikipedia chooses to frame them as not "out" when average people are not forced to talk to journalists about their sexual orientations or relationships. Whether people in this thread like it or not, Wikipedia has made a distinctly political choice when deciding what counts as "out" that in my personal opinion is harmful and invasive. Like, it's arguable that the personal life section including sexual orientation & gender identity at all ONLY for LGBT+ celebrities is also a political decision that could be re-evaluated for its harms, but if Wikipedia is institutionally not ready to have that conversation, then at the very least expression in a celebrity's art should matter. I acknowledge that I've been outvoted here, but saying "I like boys and girls" in a song is less legitimate than it is if he said it in a tweet (which IS counted as legitimate - see Lil Nas X's coming out tweet being seen as legitimate) - like, it's just willfully obtuse! Not to drag people in this thread too hard, but it's fine to just say "I'm suspicious of men who date women talking about their attraction to men" except that would suddenly be contentious, wouldn't it? H-influenzae (talk) 19:58, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

WP doesn't make assumptions or inferences about anything, including someone's personal life based on the lyrics in their music. It's WP policy: WP:OR, WP:V, WP:BLP. As Facu-el Millo told you above, "You need reliable sources that consider the song lyrics to be true statements about himself". That's how WP works, we write what reliable sources state, with WP policy in mind; we don't write our own interpretations, ideas or beliefs. Btw, music, and any art, is known for taking poetic license. Just as we don't make assertions about someone's life from lyrics about crimes, bad intentions, accusations, mental health, we don't make them about their identity or sex life. If an artist sings "I'm crazy/going crazy", we don't write that the artist has mental health issues based on the lyrics. Think about how absurd and risky that is. And even IF Wikipedia was in the business of interpreting lyrics to make factual statements about people, "I mess around with boys and girls" is not an explicit statement about sexual identity. "Messing around", in and outside of art, does not = declaring or identifying with a particular orientation, or even considering oneself not-straight. "It's positively ludicrous that celebrities are required to be poked and prodded by journalists rather than treated as reliable sources about their own sexuality" - On WP, celebs ARE treated as sources about their own sexuality. A celeb needs to make a direct statement on their sexual orientation/identity for most reliable sources to report their identity, thus for Wikipedia to report it. If Harry Styles wanted to publicize that he considers himself not-straight, he would state that he is not-straight. He does not, despite "hints" of sexual ambiguity over the years (as per media). And when asked directly if he was bisexual he stated "I'm not", later saying he doesn't want talk to about his sexuality, and "I want things to look a certain way. Not because it makes me look gay, or it makes me look straight, or it makes me look bisexual, but because I think it looks cool. And more than that, I dunno, I just think sexuality's something that's fun. Honestly? I can't say I've given it any more thought than that." That's his prerogative, as it's people's prerogative to then conclude whatever they conclude about his approach to this; which is neither here nor there. The fact of the matter is he (the primary source) does not state whether or not he is heterosexual, therefore WP can not state whether or not he's heterosexual. "It could be valuable for Wikipedia to analyze why ..." Wikipedia does not "analyze", Wikipedia reports what reliable sources analyze. You may have the wrong idea of what Wikipedia's purpose is; please also review this policy: WP:NOT. Lapadite (talk) 05:18, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I am deeply confused about why you are being so aggressive, to the point of making a comment to "stick to the source" on the general wiki page. I have not made any edits to his personal life section since December, nor do I plan to as this was already litigated back then. It is in fact you who got so angry that this discussion was had two months previously that you felt the need to make a comment regarding a conversation that was already resolved. I reiterate that it is extremely ridiculous to claim someone saying "I am crazy" in a song is the same as someone talking about how they "mess around with them" and "I'm okay with it." I'm not saying that given the confines of Wikipedia's policies that the choice that was made was incorrect. I am having a reasonable conversation about what it means that queer people on Wikipedia are required to literally talk to journalists about their sexual orientation when straight people are never required to talk to journalists about their sexual orientation - they are simply assumed to be straight as the default. Decades of queer studies have discussed why viewing straight as the default is harmful and it's a double standard that straight celebrities on Wikipedia in their own wiki articles don't have, for example, "Ryan Gosling is straight" - in fact, you will get called a vandal for doing so and your change will be reverted. I must reiterate that I am quite obviously well aware of Wikipedia's stance on his sexual orientation, however, it is also NOT CONSISTENT. Tyler the Creator's own personal life section talks about song lyrics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyler,_the_Creator#Personal_life - why are his song lyrics allowed to be used in his Wikipedia article when he has referred to himself as "gay as fuck" in Rolling Stone, but Harry saying he hasn't begun to label his sexual orientation means that his song lyrics are invalid? It seems to me as though to ensure consistency, Tyler the Creator's personal life section should also have the song lyrics removed, no? If you disagree, then this starts to look like a value statement about people who don't label their sexual orientation, and again, decades of queer studies can tell you why this is problematic. H-influenzae (talk) 13:35, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

H-influenzae, please note in Tyler's article that the discussions of his lyrics are sourced to independent sources that made that connection, not to the lyrics directly as an editor's analysis. If you have reliable sources that discuss Harry's sexuality as reflected in his song lyrics, inclusion in the article can be discussed. Also, please read (or re-read) WP:BLP. Schazjmd (talk) 15:39, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I've been thinking on this a lot because the coverage for Medicine was so extensive and I needed time to meditate on how to phrase it in a way that would be most respectful - perhaps other editors could be of assistance in this regard.

Rolling Stone has referred to Medicine as a "Stonesy pansexual anthem" here https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/harry-styles-harryween-madison-square-garden-1251686/ and "a guitar jam with a flamboyantly pansexual hook" here https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/harry-styles-cover-interview-album-871568/

NME here https://www.nme.com/news/music/harry-styles-medicine-new-song-bisexuality-2263361 says "Styles appears to have addressed his rumoured bisexuality. Lyrically, ‘Medicine’ (a leftover from sessions for his album) finds Styles singing: “The boys and the girls are in, I’ll mess around with them, and I’m OK with it.”"

The Guardian here says "In a new song debuted this month, Styles seemed to align himself more directly with the LGBTQ community than he had to date" and called it an "important moment for some bisexual music lovers" https://www.theguardian.com/music/2018/mar/22/both-directions-why-harry-styles-new-song-is-a-breakthrough-for-bisexual-music-fans

Would it be fair to say something like "Harry's unreleased song Medicine has the lyric 'the boys and the girls are in/I mess around with them/and I'm okay with it' which some critics have interpreted is a reference to Styles' attraction to men and women" with citations to Rolling Stone, NME, and The Guardian? These are pretty reputable sources and we know "The Eternal Sunshine of Harry Styles" was directly fact checked by Harry's team as it is a profile of him.

I am going to change it and then if we need to discuss it that's okay.

H-influenzae (talk) 20:43, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Disagree with this edit. Stating "a reference to Styles' attraction to men and women" makes it sound like he is known to be bisexual and the song lyrics are a reference to that. None of the sources support this. Going back to Lapadite's earlier response, I don't see much benefit to more musings from media on his sexuality when we already cite interviews where he is directly asked about it.

As an aside, I'm unsure about your removal of the GQ interview. Per Wikipedia:Conflicting sources we do not necessarily remove a source if later sources contradict the first one. I think it makes more sense to leave it in, making sure to attribute it to GQ, and follow that up with the other more recent interviews. Sexuality is not set in stone for some folks and even if he is bisexual now it does not mean he was or believed he was at the time of that interview. Cannolis (talk) 21:29, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

It's not that it's because it's a "contradicting source" it's that it's not an accurate source and it's being prioritized in his search results very harmfully. In addition, how is that saying "he is bisexual"? Attraction =/= identity, this is a core part of queer activism and honestly offensive to people who do not label their orientation.

I am trying so hard to make these edits because it is genuinely extremely exhausting to see thinkpieces mistaking him to be definitively heterosexual when he said he was unlabeled 5 years ago and has been singing about liking men and women for four years. Like, this isn't a bacteria fact, phrasing this section the wrong way has a really negative impact on a lot of people. H-influenzae (talk) 21:53, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Cannolis reasoning. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:34, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Harry Styles Not Currently w/ Olivia Wilde?

It appears as though this relationship (Harry Styles/Olivia Wilde) has ended based on there being no info box on any of the major searches reflecting its existence.

Can we update any mentions of Olivia Wilde off of Harry’s Wikipedia page? 173.227.72.99 (talk) 20:16, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

If we have a WP:BLP good source to base it on. If "ended" isn't in any usable source, we don't add it. WP:BLPSELFPUB source will probably do. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:51, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

They did not appear to celebrate Valentines Day together.

Article: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-10512017/Olivia-Wilde-nails-Valentines-Day-chic-bright-red-trousers.html

He does not mention Olivia Wilde as a current or previous romantic partner in a recent Better Homes and Garden interview according to CNN:

https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/26/entertainment/harry-styles-better-homes-gardens/index.html

He described—categorically—not dating people he worked as a value for him according to a late 2021 Dazed article.

https://www.dazeddigital.com/music/article/54765/1/harry-styles-pleasing-brand-cover-2021-interview

Finally, recent articles have detailed that neither Olivia Wilde nor Harry Styles have confirmed any relationship. There are no relationship photos of the two as anything except coworkers on the set of Don’t Worry Darling.

https://www.distractify.com/p/harry-styles-olivia-wilde-engaged

My feeling is that this is just a “fan theory” as opposed to any actual relationship. He did active joint interviews and photo ops with Kendall Jenner and Taylor Swift when seeing both of him. The optic is just unusually not there re: Olivia.

Could the mention of Olivia Wilde as a romantic partner be removed given that this appears to rumored and speculative and not an actual relationship? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.115.195.52 (talk) 22:54, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is a non-starter as a reliable source. Please see WP:DAILYMAIL.

The CNN article does not discuss relationships or the lack of any relationship.

The Daze Digital goes on & on with rumors that the two are an item. A non-confirmation is not the same as a denial.

The Distractify article states Olivia Wilde, whom Styles began dating during filming, the film isn’t due for release until September 2022. An 11-second clip has been ripped on to fan accounts and cumulatively got over a million views on YouTube. His relationship with Wilde has been a daily feature of celebrity gossip rags, though the privacy around it is closely guarded by Styles and images of them together are scarce. Again, no denial.

Please read the Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth essay, which in a nutshell states: Editors may not add content solely because they believe it is true, nor delete content they believe to be untrue, unless they have verified beforehand with a reliable source.

Please come back when you have a reliable source that definitively indicates that they are not in a relationship Peaceray (talk) 23:56, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Olivia Wilde and Harry Styles Relationship as Rumored, not confirmed

The current Wikipedia article as written indicates that Harry Styles and Olivia Wilde are definitively in a relationship whereas it only appears to be a rumor.

Please update the language of this article accordingly. I made a previous thread that appears to be locked regarding this request. The relationship does not appear to be real, only rumored/fan theory.

Proposed revision: “Styles has been rumored to be dating Olivia Wilde. This relationship has not been confirmed to date.” 129.115.195.52 (talk) 00:44, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I believe that these existing three citations in the current version of the article indicate that Styles is in a relationship with Wilde.

• "Olivia Wilde on Making Sustainability Sexy, Freeing the Nipple, and the Importance of a Social Media Cleanse". Vogue Magazine. 12 October 2021. Archived from the original on 19 October 2021. Retrieved 12 October 2021.
• "What We Know of Olivia Wilde and Harry Styles's Relationship So Far". Harper's Bazaar. 6 September 2021. Archived from the original on 16 October 2021. Retrieved 6 September 2021.
• "Harry Styles & Olivia Wilde's Style Is Still Perfectly In Sync". Vogue UK. 10 August 2021. Archived from the original on 16 August 2021. Retrieved 10 August 2021.

You are welcome to present citations from reliable sources that indicate otherwise. Peaceray (talk) 03:46, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

While I can understand a wish that 13 be available for dating, personally I preferred Dr Cameron. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:18, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

That said, per above sources and MOS:DATED, I don't mind if we write "Since and as of 2021, he is in relationship with..." or just "As of 2021, he..." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:26, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Harry Styles Wikipedia Page Picture

I feel like since the current picture is pretty old (8 years ago in 2014) it would make sense to update it, right?

Here are some that I think would be great:

Harry on the red carpet at the 2020 Brit Awards #1 (Photo by Mike Marsland/WireImage)

Harry on the red carpet at the 2020 Brit Awards #2 (Photo by David M. Benett/Dave Benett/Getty Images)

Harry on the red carpet at the 2021 Grammy Awards #1 (Photo by Kevin Mazur)

Harry performing at Coachella #1 (Photo by Kevin Mazur)

Harry performing at Coachella #2 (Photo by Kevin Mazur) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.65.248.175 (talk) 19:48, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done none of those images are free to use. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 06:28, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

WP has basically 2 ways to get a pic of a living person: 1, the photographer takes a pic at some event like comicon or similar and uploads it to Commons [2] themself, they can do that since they are the copyright holder. 2, the article subject takes a selfie and uploads it themself to Commons, ditto. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:41, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

These [3] are newer, but I'm not sure if there's a good candidate in there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:01, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2022

HeForShe is an initiative of the UN for which Emma Watson is an ambassador. It is not her campaign and the way this is referenced in the article is misleading. 202.72.221.10 (talk) 17:57, 3 June 2022 (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. It follows the source pretty closely, Harry Styles is the latest celeb to show his support for Emma Watson's United Nations campaign. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:41, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Since it's a very short mention, I don't find the mention of HeForShe misleading, but if someone wants to change it to "endorsed the United Nations' HeForShe gender equality campaign", that's fine with me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:02, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

The Larries

@Peaceray, @Lapadite, other interested. I added this to the article:

"A group of shipping One Direction fans were dedicated to proving that Styles and Louis Tomlinson were a couple, name blended as "Larry Stylinson". Academics Clare Southerton and Hannah McCann connects the fan-group to phenomena like queerbaiting and slash fiction, while noting that these fans did not consider "Larry Stylinson" a fiction, instead arguing that the relationship was kept a secret due to homophobic corporate interests."

References

I found the source a while back and thought it too good not to use in a celeb-BLP. The book spends a (not that long) chapter on the Larries, and I think a couple of sentences is WP:DUE/WP:PROPORTIONAL. The chapter can be downloaded from the cite-url, see under "Downloads & Links".

What do editors think, is it reasonable content per source? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:42, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

The larries have been at it for over a decade so technically this is a major part of his public image with (a faction of) his stans. Trillfendi (talk) 14:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps they reach WP:GNG on their own? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

@Trillfendi Apparently they are alive and kicking:[4]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:26, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

You are willing to go out of your way to discount larries but not trashy magazines. When he was on the Howard Stern Show, Howard asked him about Olivia and his response was that she was a great director, not that she was his girlfriend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.227.181.116 (talk) 02:59, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

@Malmmf, I don't know if you saw this discussion before you edited. I'm not saying it's ironclad consensus or anything, but it exists. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:13, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång, no, I didn't check the talk page before editing which I should have done. Thanks for pointing this out to me. I guess I don't personally agree but if consensus says to keep it then all is well. Do you think it's appropriate to add in a source with quotes from Tomlinson denying/shutting down the theory or no? Best, Malmmf (talk) 23:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

No worries. My current thinking is that any denial can be left for the involved BLP's personal life sections as currently written, there's no Stylinson in those atm I write this. "Shutting down"... Well, see talkpage archives and article history. Hard to "prove" a negative (as in "that never happened"). If you want to add it, I'd look for sources on at least the Guardian/CNN level. Here are some in-depth but not WP:RS ones:[5][6][7] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:25, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the source I used in the article again, it says:

In 2017, Styles commented in an interview with GQ magazine that he has “never felt the need to label” his sexuality, 10 though did not address the Larry issue. However, in the same year, Tomlinson denied the Larry relationship outright.11 Despite these “facts” being promoted, the Larry fandom persists in seeking “proof” that Larry is real.

Would adding the Tomlinson denial be an improvement? IMO no. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:36, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Trillfendi, other interested. the Larry section has been rewritten, moved, and the source I used removed. Is it improvement? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:36, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

However, if the newly added Input [8] ref is considered WP:RS, we have a recent source (last month) for Olivia = girlfriend. Vox is generally fine per WP:RSPVOX. The current version, where I reinserted Brennans book, is

"Since One Direction's early years, a group of shipping conspiracy theorist fans has been dedicated to proving that Styles and Louis Tomlinson, name blended as "Larry Stylinson", are secretly a couple that has been closeted by a homophobic music industry. Academics Clare Southerton and Hannah McCann connects the fan-group to phenomena like queerbaiting and slash fiction. The "ship", according to Vox "one of the largest elements of the One Direction fandom, which itself is one of the largest fandoms on the internet", proliferates on social media and has led to online bullying and harassment of their girlfriends and, according to Tomlinson, hurt their friendship."

References

Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:18, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:GNG for the Larries is not far off, I'll say that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:02, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Styles and Tomlinson in 2014

@H-influenzae, hello! You keep finding interesting sources [9]! When you cite books, please include the pagenumbers the cited stuff is on. Sadly, I can't peek in it with gbooks, but that may change with time. You may very well be the only Wikipedian with a copy atm.

Can you please quote the "married" paragraph/whatever here? I removed "married" again [10] since the sources I've seen haven't used it, and a married couple is still a couple. I find it quite probable that there are fans who posited it, probably with tattoos and menstrual cycles to prove it, but in summary, it doesn't seem to be the Larracademic consensus (WP:DUE). Also, Kaitlyn Tiffany doesn't mention it here [11] or here [12], so she doesn't seem wed to the idea.

If you find it interesting, you could consider using some of these Larry-sources to improve Fandom#Negative_potential. Or start One Direction fandom.

Btw, should we add an image to the paragraph? I think there's room for it. More by Tiffany:[13] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Gråbergs Gråa Sång! Sorry for the late (and long) response. I can definitely find page numbers tomorrow. That book in particular is actually a very important source - it's a new and thorough ethnography of One Direction fandom, including interviews with and web crawls of the most famous larries, that was just published this week and is up to date through I believe late 2020. I read it very quickly because I am interested in the topic (though really only interested in Harry myself day-to-day). As to other Wikipedians who might have read it, I think there are actually not that many Harry fans as interested in ethnographic, editing, and archival work as I am.

I continue to cite the word "married" because it's actually quite an important part of the conspiracy. Many people believe that larries exist in the past tense, or that their beliefs are far less extreme than they are. Falsely believing that a vaguely defined relationship in the past occurred is much less severe than the reality, which is that larries believe that Harry and Louis have been married for a decade, and that they don't go for more than a few weeks without seeing each other. They even speculate that Louis is the stunt double for all of the sex scenes in Harry's upcoming films - including the heterosexual sex scenes!

I had mixed emotions about larries being added to the page at all, but I think I agree with you that they are pretty important, and so I feel very strongly about emphasizing how serious the problem is. I am regularly involved with Harry fandom on social media and so I have to see these people existing in my space pretty regularly. Their beliefs are so harmful and are a direct contributor to the semi-protected status of this page, so it's curious that they haven't come up until now.

Is the academic source for queerbaiting necessary? I could read through it if you like, but Styles and Tomlinson have both been repudiating the conspiracy since 2012 (cited in Tiffany), so it seems as though the scholars may not have been acting in good faith while writing the article. I have found many conversations about the queerbaiting of real people seem to be people's emotions dressed up in scholarly language - both when talking about celebrities like Harry who don't label their sexuality and when talking about celebrities who are openly heterosexual, such as Andrew Garfield (who I believe is discussed in that book?)

Whether or not my suspicions are true, I think that claiming larry is queerbaiting suggests that Harry and Louis desire for larries to exist which is simply not the case. Louis openly despises that people think he is gay, and Harry is simply existing as a fluid person with a camp sensibility. I understand if this is not justifiable for removing it, but I feel it should at least be food for thought. Alternatively, we could simply add the information from Tiffany saying that both of them have denied the conspiracy.

That's a great idea to add this to Fandom Negative Potential - when I get a chance I absolutely will! Thank you for the suggestion! And I think adding the photo for illustration is a great idea. H-influenzae (talk) 06:01, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Will reply, but probably not today. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:07, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Ok, in no particular order:

On "how serious the problem is." This has a place on WP, but it is constrained by WP:PROPORTION. Look at for example the Vox and Input refs you added. It's part o the whole, but not all or even most of it, and WP should reflect that. Look at the Tiffany book too, is everything/most she writes about the Larries doom and gloom?

Yes, if we write about this, we should absolutely include the academics (found and added one more of their articles). Per WP-philosophy (WP:V), uni-press and peer-reviewed journals are generally the best sources there is, and to find such sources, in-depth too, on the subject of an on-line fan group is reason for much rejoicing (or perhaps despair, it's a personal choice). They make rather clear that the queerbaiting connection is a complex one, compared to say Sherlock (TV series) (slightly of the topic of Larries, but other RS make the same connection [14][15][16]). I blame you for making me discover Johnlock, toplock and bottomlock, btw ;-). I see no reason to believe these academics lacks "good faith" in their writings, they are doing what sociologists (?) do. But if other sociologists disagree with them, we can include that somewhere too.

Adding to the above, I created a separate Larries article. There is more room for the subject there. But still, WP:PROPORTION per sources is wanted. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:18, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for again the length of time getting back! The Tiffany book spends two chapters on how it is wholly negative and is very very doom and gloom. I should look into what other sociologists have said re: queerbaiting actually, which might take a little time. But perhaps that would be better for the article on Larries itself - what do you think? It would be useful on the Harry Styles page itself certainly to have the quote about fans perceiving it to be queer as what matters, so maybe we should add that here.

Also, do you think an article just for larries is a bit too focused on them specifically? Many articles online exist to talk about how this is part of an overarching conspiracy culture in online communities - it could possibly be folded into an article about celebrity relationship conspiracies and any scholarship related to that. Tiffany talks about them in her book, and she has also covered the Benedict Cumberbatch pregnancy conspiracy in the Atlantic (perhaps she is the current leading expert on these conspiracies?) H-influenzae (talk) 03:01, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Notably in this fanlore article (and its further reading linked at the bottom of the page) believing in celebrity relationship conspiracies are referred to as “tinhatting” though in the press “Celebrity Relationship Conspiracy Theory” has also been seen. It could be really useful to talk about larries in this context - just at a glance here are some other articles on the issue. [17][18] H-influenzae (talk) 03:27, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:THEREISNORUSH. The Tiffany-book is obviously one of the useful sources, but since I don't have access, I haven't used it. The article about Larries/The section on it here is for summarizing WP:RS on the Larries, so if other sociologists write about that, they're good, otherwise they may be useful at queerbaiting, if they talk about that.

It is a bit odd to have Larries without Directioners/One Direction fandom, but the subject meets WP:GNG and it's not unique, squeaky wheel gets the grease and all that (slightly off-topic comparison, Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship is a longer article than Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford). Books can have WP-articles without the author having one, for example. IMO it's fine, topics like fandom, conspiracy theory, Fan (person), Celebrity worship syndrome etc takes or can take a wider view.

Fanlore itself is WP:USERG like Wikipedia, but their sources may be useful. Southerton & McCann and Vox also mentions tinhatting. Something about it can be included at Tin foil hat, Vox kindly makes the connection. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:02, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

All of this is great information! I’ll do some thinking over about how best to integrate information about Larries into Wikipedia as well as flesh out conversations about fandom conspiracy theories - perhaps an even larger conversation integrating topics as The Johnlock Conspiracy would be warranted. I’ve been looking for an excuse to dive into Transformative Works and Cultures![19] H-influenzae (talk) 13:29, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

There's a long chapter on Johnlock in Brennan's book, I could read it via gbooks. Johnlock probably meets WP:GNG too, and could easily be expanded on in related articles, like Sherlock (TV series) and Sherlockian. This podcast [20] is in-depth on Johnlock too (I liked the intro comparison to an older tv-series because that series I had actually seen). There's next to nothing about Johnlock on WP atm:[21]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Johnlock generally is definitely a good idea for an article though not really a topic that is grabbing me at the moment. I'm going to take a look at some scholarship about fan conspiracy theories (including conspiracies about real people) and flesh out the Larries article as well. Something I've been curious about, but don't have the answer to, for a while is if these conspiracy theories are a pipleline to other conspiracy theories like video game fandoms have been for Gamergate. I am quite knowledgeable about how they have functioned in fan communities for about the past 7 years (a negative interaction with some Johnlock conspiracy theorists seven years ago sparked my interest in how this has slowly become embedded in fan spaces) but I'm curious to see if there's any research into how this has potentially affected the world outside of the internet, writers, and celebrities.

Side note, but some of the Tiffany book has been picked up by Google Books it appears! I also really can't recommend it enough if you're interested in these topics - it's only $12 on Kindle and it's worth the money. H-influenzae (talk) 16:23, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

McCann and Southerton

"Academics Clare Southerton and Hannah McCann connects the fan-group to phenomena like queer reading, queerbaiting and slash fiction." - is this sentence necessary to feature in the article as the main descriptor of Larries? I have read basically every article, book chapter, and scholarly paper on Larries that exists, and these are the only two academics who have ever taken the idea that Larry is queerbaiting seriously, and they only did it in literally one paper. Queer reading and slash fiction have been expanded upon in other papers & books but portraying it as though Larry = queerbaiting is the academic consensus, or even a popular idea, is simply wrong. As for conversations about Styles and queerbaiting, the majority of thinkpieces don't think of Larry as relevant. They also don't tend to say very kind things about Harry in general (and frequently misrepresent things he's said) but that's a whole other can of worms that doesn't have much to do with Larries either. H-influenzae (talk) 22:22, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Aja Romano in 2012 discussed why viewing Larry through the lens of simply a slash fiction trend ignores the reality that Larries were novel for their time in their insistence that their pairing was real. https://www.dailydot.com/unclick/one-direction-fans-tinhat-larry-stylinson/ One of many opposing viewpoints. If we keep McCann and Southerton I think it's necessary to at least put an opposing viewpoint, to explain that their opinion is not the consensus. Additionally, I think Trinidad (also cited on the Larries page) is probably a better source on fanfiction. But that's just my opinion it doesn't mean I'm right. H-influenzae (talk) 22:30, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

If you want to remove the word "queerbaiting" from this paragraph I will not stop you, but leave the rest. I think we can agree that queering and slashfiction is more Larrie-mainstream.

I do think queerbaiting may still deserve a mention in the Public image section per sources like [22][23][24], but that is another issue. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I actually think that merits a discussion for inclusion, particularly because the conversation about Harry and queerbaiting has developed over time and has such a presence on the internet (it seems like the answer has landed on no, which it should have landed on imo three years ago when he said he wasn't, but people decided to talk about it for three years after anyway.) I think that in the case of McCann and Southern, that their belief that Larry has to do with queerbaiting is itself kind of toying with a fringe theory and is a much smaller part of the "Is Harry Styles queerbaiting?" conversation. Which I think is a conversation that really couldn't be properly added into the article until I updated the fashion section yesterday (it was like three years out of date) as it mostly has to do with his rise in visibility among the mainstream starting around three years ago.

I plan to do a lot of work on this article over the next few weeks. The work people have done on it over the years is great, but because he doesn't have a dedicated wiki project to make sure everything important is here, there's some pretty glaring oversights. For example, until yesterday his song Medicine redirected here but then was mentioned nowhere in the article. I removed the redirect and then a bot redirected it to Harry Styles discography, which also didn't mention the song (both articles now mention the song, and I've actually pitched its own article as the song has received so much high profile coverage in Rolling Stone, Billboard, NME, The Guardian, Dazed, etc. that I think it warrants it.) H-influenzae (talk) 15:07, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I think rather than only having a discussion on "queerbaiting" having a smaller section under public image that is "relationship to the LGBTQ community" would be a lot better because I think it's a lot more complicated than that conversation - a lot of people think of him as a lesbian icon, a specific and unique element of his concert performances is helping people come out at concerts, the release of his song Medicine inspired conversations about sexual fluidity in music, he's created a lot of conversations about not labeling your sexuality & about leaving celebrities alone (I'm not going to keep citing as I go on and on, just out of not wanting to seem annoying!), he's inspired conversations about gender in fashion, he waves rainbow flags at all of his concerts - I think these are much more elements of image and performance than of queer politics (which I think is closer to like, him being involved in the first snog campaign, him showing support for same-sex marriage, him donating to LGBTQ organizations, etc.) H-influenzae (talk) 17:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Harry's Current Band (2017-Present)

So Harry is definitely a "solo act" but his band is decidedly a rock band, and people who attend the concerts are familiar with his collaborators, two of whom - Pauli Lovejoy (percussion & MD) and Sarah Jones (drummer) - have their own Wikipedia pages. Mitch Rowland, his guitarist, co-wrote: Sign of the Times, Kiwi, Two Ghosts, Watermelon Sugar, Golden, Falling, and Music for a Sushi Restaurant - he definitely needs a page of his own, sometime. The point being - it's very weird that they (and the rest of his backing band) aren't on the page anywhere considering these are such established musicians with such a close working relationship with Harry. Where does this fit? I saw that there was a backing band section in "artistry" that got removed and I just don't think that it's right to name every single member of One Direction in this article and to exclude his current collaborators when for example he's played with both Mitch Rowland and Sarah Jones at this point longer than he was in One Direction (it's actually a joke among many people now that "What Makes You Beautiful - Harry's Version" is now *the* version of a song, because he's the only former member who still plays it and he's been playing it solo longer than he was in One Direction.) H-influenzae (talk) 02:37, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Vogue dress and fair use?

For Styles' section on fashion, is it fair use to provide the photo of the controversial Vogue dress? It was such a huge deal (enough that I still see thinkpieces referring to it to this day - one was just written this week actually) that I'm considering giving it its own article. To just leave it up to the imagination seems a little silly & showing it next to the description of what happened seems under the purview of fair use. H-influenzae (talk) 18:35, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to register it like the Lady Gaga meat dress is here on commons and of course if anyone disagrees with its inclusion in this specific article I won't fight deletion, though I think it falls under fair use personally. H-influenzae (talk) 18:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry not commons I meant regular Wikipedia as a jpg with an appeal to fair use. Still learning my way around with images. H-influenzae (talk) 18:50, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@Lily32241 The Vogue dress has been reviewed and is accepted as fair use in this context. Your recent photo editing to the page including adding your own watermarked photographs borders on vandalism. H-influenzae (talk) 13:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Do you not get that it's not my photo nor is it my flickr account? I kindly asked the girl to make a flickr account and post the photos she took at the concert. Afterwards I uploaded the pic to wiki commons making it clear it's not mine and gave credit to the girl who took them. Lily32241 (talk) 13:59, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

@Lily32241 It does not matter whether or not you asked the girl who so happens to share your name. Watermarks are inappropriate. Promoting your friend by posting a watermarked photo is inappropriate. H-influenzae (talk) 14:08, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I know watermarks are discouraged but it was simply the name of the photographer, not a promotional website or anything like that. The name still appears under the photo so it makes little difference. Lily32241 (talk) 14:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

@Lily32241 as someone who has had experience learning the ropes of Wikipedia to edit constructively rather than disruptively as you have persisted on doing to Harry related content for almost three years, I can fully say it is more fulfilling and helpful and that I recommend doing it. Lots of stuff is missing! H-influenzae (talk) 14:17, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Have decided to not revert, having taken a look at it the CC photo of the V&A is pretty okay and gets the message across okay. I will take a look at the article later to make sure that readers know it's not just the dress that was the problem, but the specific photo that was taken, and I will use that photo in a separate article. H-influenzae (talk) 14:39, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

larries

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång Hi, I'm sorry I removed that but I think an Impact section allows for more diverse things to be included. The novels he inspired didn't make sense in fandom. Could you please find a way to add the larry fandom stuff into the new edit? I spent all day on this. I will remove it from the 1D page once you do it. Lily32241 (talk) 19:27, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Reinserted larries in new impact section. Not sure this is better than previous sectioning, but other editors may have opinions on that. A separate "In fiction" section is a possibility. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:50, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I think attracting that type of rabid fandom is some form of impact so it makes sense in the section. Lily32241 (talk) 19:56, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2022

change "Since January 2021, Styles has been in a relationship with actress and director Olivia Wilde." to "Styles was dating actress Olivia Wilde from January 2021 to November 2022, but they are now broken up."

</ref> Plaidfarie (talk) 23:53, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Well I'll be. I actually added this ref [25] awhile back, but for some reason I didn't read that far. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:36, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Instrument addition

Harry Styles plays guitar live and also uses a guitar for his songwriting. 88.104.216.186 (talk) 03:40, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2022

Partner - Louis Tomlinson Howdy partner 474675 (talk) 00:28, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. RealAspects (talk) 00:37, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2022

Harry styles doesn’t date Olivia Wilde anymore 2001:1C01:4489:A900:3C38:F847:3BEF:2576 (talk) 13:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

https://people.com/music/harry-styles-olivia-wilde-taking-break-after-2-years-together-sources/

https://www.glamourmagazine.co.uk/article/olivia-wilde-difficult-time-after-harry-styles-breakup

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/celebritynews/harry-styles-olivia-wilde-split-relationship-one-direction-people-magazine-b1041253.html

Are these reliable? Scientelensia (talk) 11:09, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

The article has been updated on this issue since November 19. Or are they back together again? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:34, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Oops! I didn’t realise, thanks :) Scientelensia (talk) 13:50, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

We'll have to keep hoping then ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:54, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Haha :D Scientelensia (talk) 13:56, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2023

Harry Styles has been married to Louis Tomlinson since September 28th, 2013. Abe3e79254216 (talk) 17:22, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 17:36, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2023

Guitar should definitely be added to the instrument list as he plays guitar live and he even uses one for his songwriting. Just a suggestion. 92.3.214.187 (talk) 04:37, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:32, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2023

Following his big grammy win so far this year, Harry is touring the Uk with his winning album 'Harry's house' from the 22nd of May beginning in London up until the 21st of June where he will finish in Cardiff. Ellenie.B (talk) 12:58, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Ticketmaster.com Ellenie.B (talk) 13:27, 8 February 2023 (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. GiovanniSidwell (talk) 16:13, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2023

Change the caption under the photo of Harry Styles wearing the blue shirt and pants. It currently identifies the photo as a concert in Little Rock, Arkansas, when in fact the photo is from St. Paul, Minnesota. The performances were smilier, but the source photo date and venue confirm it as the St. Paul show in September 2021, which happened before the Little Rock show. MostRosie (talk) 17:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I would almost say the picture should just be removed, it is not a good quality image. If the caption needs to be changed, we will need something besides your word here. 331dot (talk) 17:47, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

If the photo should be removed I support that! As for confirmation of the information, the photo's original Flickr post says it was taken on 9.22.21 at the Xcel Energy Center [26] and here is the Xcel Energy Center's landing page for the event: https://www.xcelenergycenter.com/events/detail/harry-styles-2 MostRosie (talk) 17:58, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I would agree re the picture being removed, I have rarely seen good articles on Wikipedia which contains lower quality images such as the one described here. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:51, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done I have removed the image after this discussion. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 19:27, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Apology

Im sorry for originally deleting your Fine Line artwork. Please forgive me don’t sue me or nothing. Please forgive me. 🙏🏾 😢 Please 2601:145:600:ADE0:10AF:9A31:FBD3:EAB0 (talk) 23:58, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2023

Harry Styles appeared as Eros in the post credits scene in the Marvel movie Eternals. This is not mentioned in the article and would be a good addition. Swiftliketaylor28 (talk) 19:08, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 20:45, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

RS should nor be a problem, I saw that film. It's more of a WP:PROPORTION thing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:40, 24 December 2023 (UTC)