Talk:Larries/Archive 1

Archive 1

Edits

Hi Greta! No rush on the edits, I am far from done. It's taking me a lot of time to carefully cite the Tiffany book and other sources.

One thing of note- I think it may be of interest to make this page semi-protected. Harry's own page has been semi-protected since 2012 because of these people, and we are certain to get vandalism as soon as they realize it is here. H-influenzae (talk) 11:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Noting WP:COPYWITHIN

This article was inspired by discussions at Talk:Harry Styles. First added text was a copypaste from Harry Styles. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:43, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Would it be possible for me to note here on the talk page when I am finished adding all of my sources and writing before you edit again, I’m down a pretty intense rabbit hole and currently working in a word document as I communicate with Harry Styles fandom friends who have been around for a long time to try and properly structure everything. If that’s not what you would prefer I understand I am just working pretty hard on this and want to get it right. H-influenzae (talk) 18:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

We'll use WP:BRD as best we are able. Also, you should use WP:ES when you edit articles, so it's easier for other editors to understand what you are doing. Especially important with difficult topics, and there are the WP:AC/DS to consider as well. They mean basically that admins will have a short fuse regarding behaviour, sourcing etc. And if you name your refs with a name that is a bit descriptive, it's easier for other editors to re-use them.

Can we agree that Tiffany (or any other WP:RS currently in the article) does not claim that "secretly married" is a Larrie-universal, she just qoutes a netizen who said so online? Or what text did I miss in her book? Please quote (here on the talkpage).

The WP:LEAD is currently seriously out of whack (earlier version cleverly had no lead and no sections, but it wasn't likely to last. People like writing about CT:s). In short, the lead is meant to be summary of the rest of the article, so everything there that is not that will be moved on some point. If you are planning to add a lot of content, leave adding stuff to the lead until you are done with that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:59, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Also please quote the support for "All Larries believe that one day the conspiracy will someday end and that eventually, Styles and Tomlinson will be free to love one another in the public eye." Sounds doubtful. According to Fanlore, not WP:RS but it sounded reasonable, the scale of beliefs is pretty long. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Btw, my version of Tiffany's book doesn't have pagenumbers per se, and my reader numbers chapters Secrets and Proof a pages 95-119, so we probably won't agree on pagenumbers, but that is a minor problem. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Tiffany spends several pages discussing that Larries believe Harry and Louis are secretly married. I am compiling more resources on Larry but I have to say that I see larries online every day, I know a ton of former larries (though I never have been one myself), and while I know "it's because I said it's true it is" I can affirm that Kaitlyn Tiffany, who has been covering larries in journalism for the last six years, is correct that people believe they are married.

All of these quotes are from the Kindle version btw I don't have the print copy. I can search for them on google books if needed.

Re: fanlore - it's pretty good up through early babygate but it hasn't been kept up to date for newer information for about 5 years. Every so often people go in and clean up grammatical errors or terminology, but it's basically not up to date at all on the way that Twitter and TikTok are operating right now.

Page 173: "If Styles and Tomlinson are secretly married, and have been for years, it stands to reason that powerful forces are preventing them from being publicly in love - the media is certainly implicated, as is anyone who has worked closely with One Direction, particularly in the early years of their career."

Page 198: "They chose the latter and cobbled together evidence that September 28, 2013, was Harry and Louis' wedding day. This was confirmed to them when Styles tweeted a lyric from a Joni Mitchell song: "We don't need no piece of paper from the city hall." To ritualize reminders of this wedding, the number twenty-eight became yet another symbol for Larries. [. . .]Years later, Styles posted a photo on his Instagram of a billboard with the LA zip code 90028. That was a reference to his wedding anniversary, they claimed[. . .] these clues were all that was left after One Direction announced an indefinite hiatus and Tomlinson and Styles stopped appearing together or speaking to each other in public, and after the whole world turned against Larries, who were only telling a love story." - sorry it goes on for a long time so I don't feel like typing out the whole quote but it's quite long.

Page 203: "Louis Tomlinson could not have gotten Briana Jungworth pregnant in 2015 because he was and is in love with Harry Styles. the pregnancy was fake and the resultant "baby" was at first a doll, then replaced with either an actor or a child secretly supplied by a member of Jungwirth's immediate family. Whatever Jungwirth and Tomlinson did was because of a contract drawn up in secret by the people in control of Tomlinson's life. The charade will someday "end," and then Styles and Tomlinson will finally live free. These are the core tenets of belief in the Babygate conspiracy theory."

And here's an interesting section where Tiffany talks about her research process to dissect Larry is Real and Babygate

Page 217: "Now, I know some of the Larries' impulses more intimately than I would like. Hunting for the artifacts they've left, some deliberately obliterated from the public record, available only in clunky cached versions or merely rendered unsearchable by the decay of tumblr, I've sometimes felt the frenzy of a person digging up evidence and connecting the dots."

Also - since you are interested in Larries, you may appreciate one of Tiffany's interviewees YouTube and Podcast, called Shit Larries Say. Here's a playlist of relevant YouTube episodes, here's the podcast, here's ex-larrie testimonials. I don't know if any of these are citeable sources? Since the leading larry scholar at this point is Tiffany, and Tiffany views SLS as a worthy interviewee, are they worthy of being a resource on Wikipedia?

Here's Tiffany on SLS

Page 182: "The most well-known - you could say infamous - Anti goes by Skye. she's a One Direction fan in her midthirties who lives in Houston and runs a small network of media properties called Shit Larries Say - a Tumblr, a YouTube channel with about eighty videos, and a podcast, which started in 2020 and set out ot pick apart a new master post by a well known Big Larrie. [. . .] She told me that she's been interested in misinformation and conspiratorial thinking since the beginning of the 2016 election cycle, and that she considers Larries a valuable case study. years ago, skye identified Larries as an existential threat to online fandom in general, and her opinion of them is that they're even more malicious than most have previously imagined." it goes on but that's SLS! H-influenzae (talk) 19:38, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I asked for it, didn't I? I'll be back. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:43, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

You opened I think a much larger than expected can of worms! I remember when I first learned they were still around in 2019 when I became a Harry fan. I had seen them on Tumblr years before and thought they were a bit weird but that surely they would go away when One Direction ended. Instead they have only proceeded to get weirder and weirder. . .

This twitter thread where someone asks "Still? In 2020? Really?" is my perpetual mood

H-influenzae (talk) 19:52, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Continuing. Yes, like you say there are people who believe they are married. But that is not a universal for the group, per Tiffany (see also her The Verge, in NYT and VF. Doesn't bother to mention it) or any of the good in depth sources, so I'm removing it from the WP:LEAD, it doesn't belong (WP:DUE/WP:PROPORTION), but that some believe this may have a place somewhere else. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I actually think this is fair. After doing a little reading and thinking, I’ve determined that I think I can only confidently say that many people in the Western English-speaking world believe they are married. It seems to be an element of the conspiracy that isn’t as fundamental (iirc there are some larries that go as extreme as claiming Harry and Louis are married in as many countries as gay marriage is legal, and of course, “Larry is real” itself predates gay marriage in both the United Kingdom and the United States.) The “what makes shipping appealing boys romantic” article is written by someone who seems to be a huge fan of One Direction and is based out of the Philippines, and she insinuates in the article that Louis and Harry cannot be married until they are “free.” So it’s possible that in the Philippines, this is actually not an element of the conspiracy. Which would make sense because gay marriage is not legal there.H-influenzae (talk) 00:30, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Note that I'm looking into a ton of other sources as well that have talked about Larries - the Tiffany book is the most thorough but if you do some digging you can find a lot of stuff! H-influenzae (talk) 19:41, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

My advice is don't dig too deep, not for WP-purposes anyway. WP:BLOGS, WP:RSPYT etc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:50, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I actually am not interested in digging too deep into the conspiracy content itself (I think debunking a conspiracy that is so clearly nonsense can turn into an invasive waste of time), rather, I'm trying to find a lot of resources talking about how these people operate, how it has shaped the internet, what its relationship to other conspiracies is, and why people are drawn to it. Ironically, this is much more difficult than all of the articles going "wow, look at larries! What a fun and wacky thing to exist."H-influenzae (talk) 19:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

So don't include blogs, twitter and selfpublished stuff like [1]. The article has several surprisingly good sources, let's not dilute that. Consider making this article WP:GA at some point ;). Seriously though, it could probably be done. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

The Sacha Judd blogpost actually went really viral, and then she went on to write a column about it in an actual publication.https://thespinoff.co.nz/society/26-07-2017/what-we-love-matters-a-unifying-cultural-theory-to-fix-techs-diversity-problem I’ll use this source instead. I have just found it very fascinating for a long time and was exposed to the blog post first. H-influenzae (talk) 00:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

"Shipping" Larry Stylinson: what makes pairing appealing boys romantic?" looks quite interesting. The more in depth doi:s the better. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:12, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

It’s such a find, I was so excited. H-influenzae (talk) 00:50, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

It's actually a little disappointing that so much of the content IS "look it's so fun and wacky" because if you look at people who have actually been talking about larries for years, you can see that much like other conspiracies, it trends into bigotry (misogyny, antisemitism, homophobia, biphobia, etc.) really fast. However, the main resource talking about this that I can find is SLS which obviously is not published in any sort of formal place. H-influenzae (talk) 19:56, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

"Fun and wacky" is what gets the ink. As Wikipedians, our job is to a large extent to kowtow to it, the WP:RS part anyway. We are the tail the dog wags. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:15, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

And also, per my reading of WP:BLPNAME I like to exclude names like Briana Jungwirth, we don't need names of everybody involved. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:36, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

This is fair. I will moving forward refer to her only as "Louis Tomlinson's girlfriend at the time." and other such signifiers. H-influenzae (talk) 19:39, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Always a pleasure to interact with someone who gets WP:INDENT! It may be mostly automatic these days, but still. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:13, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I grew up on forums! H-influenzae (talk) 00:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Using a ref more than once

H-influenzae, before I made these [2] edits, Tiffany's book was 6 of the 25 refs [3] then in the Reference section. That is messy and can be confusing for interested readers, what is wanted is just one ref, but any number of in-text cites. This is avoided by using the same named ref (in Virtual Editor they are found with cite-button > re-use tab) and adding an inline TEMPLATE:RP with the pagenumber. Re-use of long chapters in journals can be treated the same way. There are more ways to skin this particular cat, but this one works as well as any. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:04, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks!H-influenzae (talk) 00:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Olivia Wilde

Since the entire section I wrote for Olivia was removed, what do you suggest we do? Olivia Wilde is a huge aspect of the conspiracy now - she and Harry have been dating for a year and a half and Larries are very enraged by it. The shortcoming of the Tiffany book is that Tiffany completed writing it near the beginning of their relationship, so there's not a whole lot in there about it (though there is a little). The main sources on what is happening are TDB, Input, and Pandora Magazine unfortunately. As to metro UK, there are better sources for that news item, i just chose one at random and wasn't sure if it lived up to standards.

I need to scour some recent Tiffany interviews because perhaps there might be something in there but I'm unsure that I will find much.

I'll be busy tomorrow.H-influenzae (talk) 05:00, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

We can wait for better sources, it's not the purpose of a WP-article to be cutting edge/the latest news (WP:NOTNEWS). Currently sort-of mentioned at "Larries have bullied and harassed Styles' and Tomlinson's girlfriends." I see no problem with mentioning her per se, she is public enough (and was in tv-series I like), but WP:BLP. She was mentioned in Input, that's something, but this [4] doesn't mention Larries, so it fails WP:SYNTH/is off-article-topic. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

A general "problem" here may be that the sources that are interested in writing about this tends to be those WP considers to be crap. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:35, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

It's interesting that you say that! For many years before I was a more-frequent WP editor I did a lot of documenting of fandom conspiracies and bad actors on sites like Fanlore and there's just been this overarching issue that everything that happens in fandom is junk and not worth reporting on, even when it spills over into the "real world." I was honestly really surprised that you floated making a page for Larries because while I never wrote about Larries myself (I never liked the tone of the Fanlore article so I never contributed personally) I'm used to this type of thing being seen as not relevant for Wikipedia. Fascinatingly, the individual members of One Direction themselves were not seen as relevant enough to have their own WP pages up through at least 2014, one year before they broke up. One can't help but think of how most of WP's editors are cis men, and how that bias may have occurred! H-influenzae (talk) 05:42, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

My guess is that part of it came from earlier attempt article-creations, perhaps from 2010 and onwards, that didn't bother with sources very much (and at first there probably wasn't any good ones), fans who try to write WP-articles rarely do. "But he has 20.8 million followers!!!" doesn't work, and probably has an opposite effect if used as argument. These repeated attempts then created a bit of skepticism in the WP-community, like "same crap as last year/month, DELETE.", and that took a little effort to overcome. Larry Stylinson was on WP as early as 2012, and was WP:SALTED (I had to ask an admin to let me use it), you can probably picture the situation. Here is the discussion that "kept" Harry Styles, 2013: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 September 11.

Here's a fun afd-comeback: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meghan Markle. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:02, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Zounds, they're everywhere:[5] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Checking a little more, the RS coverage on Wilde/Larries is practically none. Good for her. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:49, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

What to do with not-fully-accurate journalism

I put a note on this in the history, but I thought I should explain better here about my issues with this source detailing the online harassment of Olivia Wilde.

Essentially, this is the most thorough article on Olivia Wilde's harassment, and it's basically necessary to at least link it as a source for people to read. However, this article is actually very very flawed. The well-meaning author who is (rightfully so) concerned with Wilde's harassment as a whole does not realize she's conflating several groups of people with very distinct motives and beliefs in the article. The groups of people she conflates in the article are:

1. Larries 2. Regular Harry Styles fans (sometimes self-identified as Harries) who are jealous of the relationship, some (but not all) of whom believe that the relationship is fake 3. Bad faith actors preying on both of these two groups for attention who often don't like either Harry or Olivia

Because she censors the names of the Twitter accounts she is citing, she makes it kind of impossible to point out which things Larries specifically are doing. The problem is exacerbated by her calling all of these people "Harries" when I would wager most of the people in the article do not identify that way. I know from personal experience that Larries say and do everything that occurs in the article itself, but I'm just wondering - is her misidentification of this group of people an issue when discussing them in the context of Larries? Basically, I don't want to leave the article out, but her calling all of the Larries "Harries" in the article and wiping away all of their identifying information is a pretty big flaw. H-influenzae (talk) 04:20, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

The solution is simple: It's part of Medium, a blog-hosting site, so we don't use it. WP:BLP applies, so when in doubt, exclude. Same goes for Metro, buzzfeed (WP:BUZZFEEDNEWS is ok though) and TBD, check these sources at WP:RSP, and WP:RSN can be useful for checking as well. WP:SPS like sachajudd.com has to go too. "Went really viral" doesn't change that. And while these were added, the views of Southerton and McCann, the kind of sources that should be used on WP when available, was removed. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:58, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Southerton and McCann are used extensively as sources in the Rainbow Bondage Bear section, and they will come up again in the ideology section but I haven't finished writing it yet.H-influenzae (talk) 05:02, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:06, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I have an alternative quote from them, it's from the conclusion section of their long article:

"Larries have been portrayed largely as a bizarre expression of the wider Directioner fandom, an inexplicable post-truth variation of the hysterical fangirl. ... Larries reveal complex forms of desire that appear to belong more to the collective-the desiring community-than to the individual. Queering the figure of the fangirl, we find that far from simply lusting after their boyband idols, Larries desire desire itself. While fake news framings are concerned with getting to "truth," they often miss the overarching sociopolitical paradigms ... The ultimate lesson from the Larry fandom is not proof of whether Larry is real, but rather, the creation of a space for the queerness of Larry to be real, whether really real, or not."

Their short article thoughts on slashfiction and queerbaiting also needs some coverage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:24, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I want to move at least some of this to the "fanfiction and art" section, some of it to a conversation about demographics and misogyny, some of it to a conversation about fetishization vs queering, and some of it to a conversation about fake news, which is also discussed in both Tiffany and Trinidad. The reason I haven't used that part of the article yet is because I think it's basically four different conversations. I promise its deletion is not a sign that it will not be used! H-influenzae (talk) 16:23, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

If you intend have text on fetishization, make very sure your RS do. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:24, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

It will, I have a lot of sources that are not in the document yet. At this point I think I have read every scholarly essay or long form news article ever written on the topic of Larries. H-influenzae (talk) 22:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

However as a reassurance it will stay, I will keep it as is until all of its parts are satisfactorily relocated. H-influenzae (talk) 16:25, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Don't worry I know you love the Southerton and McCann article, I promise it is not going anywhere! I definitely have already used it and will be using it again!H-influenzae (talk) 05:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Also I was specifically asking - if she was invited to write an OP-ed about what her blog post was about, is that WP:RSP or no? The Spinoff is not listed in WP:RSP. H-influenzae (talk) 05:06, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Where was the op-ed published? It, not the blogpost, may be ok-ish. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:23, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

The Spinoff is where the op-ed was published, I linked it earlier. https://thespinoff.co.nz/society/26-07-2017/what-we-love-matters-a-unifying-cultural-theory-to-fix-techs-diversity-problem H-influenzae (talk) 05:35, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I see no glaring problems with The Spinoff. You can see a couple of earlier discussions on it here:[6][7]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:45, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Of course it doesn't mention Larry, but "epic online conspiracy theory about a secret gay relationship between Harry Styles and Louis Tomlinson" is close enough to make no difference. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:09, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Lou Teasdale Source

Last year, former One Direction hairstylist Lou Teasdale (+ friend of Harry, who is the godfather of one of her children) was interviewed on a podcast and talked about an important element of Larry I haven't seen discussed anywhere else.

https://metro.co.uk/2020/12/15/one-direction-lou-teasdale-on-larry-rumours-crew-losing-job-sleeping-with-band-13756191/

‘Honestly, it’s crazy. We’re 10 years later, sometimes I’ll do an Instagram live… I’ll touch my face and one will write really quickly “touch your face if larry is real” and they’ll screenshot it and then they’ve got their proof'

I think this is very relevant. The problem is that literally only metro.co.uk cared enough to report it. Can we make an exception? Do we source the original podcast where she said this? It's literally words from her own mouth. I don't really think those words should be penalized just because nobody outside of the fandom cared about them. They were a huge deal in the fandom at the time. H-influenzae (talk) 00:28, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

"haven't seen discussed anywhere else" + Metro means in WP-land that's it not relevant/WP:DUE. And the podcast is WP:SPS, so that doesn't improve things. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 1 July 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 07:29, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

---

Larries → Larry Stylinson – It seems to me that the article is (or at least should be) about the theory itself and reasoning behind it, not the group of people believing it. Per WP:CRITERIA, "Larry Stylinson" is more recognizable, more natural (not Twitter lingo), and more precise (there are people named Larrie, but there's no one named Larry Stylinson). As far as I know, there aren't any other ship articles to point to for precedent or to stay consistent with - but for other conspiracy theory articles, the title is always the name of the theory, not the people who believe it. Not to mention that "Larries" is just a derivative form of "Larry Stylinson" anyway. We can obviously include the term "Larries" in the lead as well, but changing the title just makes more sense. ~BappleBusiness^[talk] 23:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 05:21, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support per reasons articulated by in the nominator's comment above. Paintspot Infez (talk) 02:05, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Larries is unambiguously the group of people (what they think, do and what RS say about them), the subject of the article as I started it and think it should be. Twitter lingo maybe (but is it more so than Larry Stylinson?), but well used and covered in RS. Larry Stylinson can be read as the CT itself or the ship, and then it can be argued that stuff like the girl-friend harassment is off-topic, I don't like that. See sources like, Larries is what they write about. I have considered starting Johnlock, it seems to reach WP:GNG. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:43, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

• Even if there is substantial information about believers (their activities, internal psychology, etc.), every other fringe theory article I have seen (WP:CONSISTENT) has been titled after the theory, not the believers. There's no Anti-vaxxers article, but there is a Vaccine hesitancy article, even though there's a "Psychology" section. There's no Flat-earthers article, but there is a Modern flat Earth beliefs article, even though it contains sections like "Sociological explanations for counterfactual beliefs" and "Social and experimental activities of skeptics and believers". So it wouldn't be off-topic if we talk about the harassment since these articles have shown that it's within the scope of the topic. I don't understand what you mean by "Louis Stylinson can be read as the CT itself or the ship" since the ship *is* the CT. In terms of WP:RECOGNIZABILITY, it's not even close in terms of searches, and Larry Stylinson is ubiquitous in source titles, including one you cited (unlike Larries, which isn't in even one of the source titles currently in the article).~BappleBusiness^[talk] 04:21, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I think that Larries should remain with "Larry Stylinson" as perhaps an alternate page or a stub. Currently "Larry Stylinson" redirects to the Larries page. Almost all of the scholarship on Larry Stylinson is specifically about the group of people, called "Larries" by both Twitter and by scholars, not the theory specifically, so the page would be smaller. H-influenzae (talk) 16:10, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

References

• Comment WP:APPNOTEd at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Talk:Larries/Archive 1#Requested_move_1_July_2022. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:30, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.