Talk:Larries

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be bloc

Talk:Larries

Requested move 23 November 2024

Latest comment: 1 year ago13 comments6 people in discussion
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: not moved. (non-admin closure) Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 05:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Larries → Larry StylinsonLarry Stylinson – Since it's been almost two and a half years since the no consensus close of the previous move request, I thought it might be time to bring this discussion back up again.

A good article title is consistent, and all the conspiracy theory articles that I have examined (see Category:Conspiracy theories) use the title of the theory, not the believers. For example, there is no anti-vaxxer article; there is only a Anti-vaccine activism article. There is no Flat-earther article; there is only a Modern flat Earth beliefs article. Other ships (see Category:Slash fiction) also use the name of the ship, not the fandom, albeit this is a unique topic in that it is about real people. In the last discussion, I heard that this article is somehow different in that the scholarship is more about the believers than the theory, but that isn't exactly true. For one, there is also scholarship documenting the actual theory. But also, the psychology of the believers is also central to other conspiracy theory articles (e.g. Modern flat Earth beliefs § Sociological explanations for counterfactual beliefs), which all still use the name of the theory.

Additionally, "Larry Stylinson" is certainly more precise. "Larries" could potentially refer to multiple "Larry"s or "Larrie"s, or, as the ngram viewer shows, industrial/mining equipment. Although one could argue that the ship is the more common interpretation, it certainly hasn't been historically (and we aim to avoid WP:RECENTISM), and changing the title to "Larry Stylinson" would remove all possible ambiguity. BappleBusiness[talk] 22:40, 23 November 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 15:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

  • Oppose. It seems to me that Larries are the group of people this article is about, which of course is mostly about their CT. Larry Stylinson is the coupling that group invented or the CT about it, if there is a difference. "Larry Stylinson are shipping conspiracy theorists who believe..." looks weird. For disclosure, I started this article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:25, 24 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • As stated in the article, there has not been a documented phenomenon of shipping the pair fictionally, so I don't think there is an issue with ambiguity. We would obviously have to reword part of the lead to read something roughly like "Larry Stylinson is a fandom ship and conspiracy theory that former One Direction bandmates Harry Styles and Louis Tomlinson had or still have a long-term and secret romantic relationship. Proponents of the conspiracy theory are called Larries (sing. Larry or Larrie)." Also, I don't think this is what you meant to insinuate, but please note that it is Wikipedia policy that no one has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular article. BappleBusiness[talk] 19:26, 24 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      "There’s no real space in fandom for people who ship Harry/Louis in the fictional sense." (from the article) sounds to me like there was/is fiction, but that's my reading. And of course there is fiction like Euphoria. You are not just suggesting a change of title here, you are suggesting a change of topic (a bit) and that is a bigger issue.
      Me noting that I started this article was meant as a "warning" that I might be attached to my own work (though most of the current article is written by @Computer-ergonomics), kind of the opposite of WP:OWN if you will. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:12, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      I see what you're saying about the fictional ship. Although in the article, the lead sentence insinuates that all Larries assert that the ship is real, while in "History", it only says "most". If we are going with the broader definition, we still have to reword the lead to specify that "Larries" also refers to those who ship the pair fictionally. I would imagine the best way to deal with these ambiguities is to make the topic the most broad possible, and I think "Larry Stylinson" is that, encompassing the fans, conspiracy theory, and fictional pairing.
      I don't think the content of the article would have to change much, if at all. We'd simply be framing the topic in a fashion that is more consistent with other similar Wikipedia articles (also found Paul is dead, which focuses on the theory rather than its proponents). All the content we'd have to change is the lead, which could read something like "Larry Stylinson is a popular fandom ship between former One Direction bandmates Harry Styles and Louis Tomlinson. The belief that the two bandmates truly had or still have a long-term and secret romantic relationship (also referred to as Larry Stylinson or as Larry is Real) has been consistently rejected by Styles and Tomlinson, and has been labeled a conspiracy theory. Proponents of the theory, as well as those who ship the two fictionally, are called Larries (sg. Larry or Larrie)."
      And I see what you were getting at with the disclosure -- my apologies. BappleBusiness[talk] 23:40, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Oppose Good morning, everybody! What a blast from the past. @BappleBusiness I recognize the argument that there are no "anti-vax" pages, however the majority of the scholarship on this conspiracy theory is specifically about the conspiracy theorists themselves. "Stylinson" is also quite frankly not used that often in this day and age. You can see that on fanlore, the theory is actually commonly known as "Larry is Real." That is why Larry is Real redirects to Larries. I'm not sure as of the time of writing why I didn't specify that in the header but it's likely because WP:RS didn't explicitly say it anywhere, even though it is anecdotally very well known.
I think there's plenty to be said about why this conspiracy theory is most commonly referred to in reference to its proponents rather than the theory itself (my money is on the fact that people simply don't take young women seriously) but that is beyond the scope of this move request. Best. Computer-ergonomics (he/him; talk; please ping me in replies ) 15:28, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Computer-ergonomics, sorry for not responding until now. Since Fanlore is a wiki, I don't think we can use it as a reliable source to determine what is the most common term. But if you look on Google Trends, it isn't close: "Larry Stylinson" is searched much more often. BappleBusiness[talk] 21:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don't see the relevance of Google Trends when I am citing both the literature and the fan scholarship that the professional literature is based on as the reason the article is named this way and merely using anecdotal evidence that "Larry is Real" is more common to support that reliable source-based argument.
Regardless, both Larry is Real and Larry Stylinson automatically direct you to the Larries article on Google and within Wikipedia itself, so the argument needs to be stronger than what is found by doing a quick Google Trends search.
I would encourage a thorough look at the literature and news articles used within the article to determine how it should be framed. In my opinion, since the reliable sources talk for the most part about the fans, then it is wrong to re-create the article to be exclusively about the theory.Computer-ergonomics (he/him; talk; please ping me in replies ) 21:58, 16 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yeah. Sources like [1] focus on Larries/Larry fandom, that has weight in this context. Changing the article subject is not a good idea. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Strong support with Larries redirecting to Larry Stylinson. Larries are only secondary to the main theory, Larry Stylinson, which is the most commonly recognized phrase when talking about the conspiracy. Even Styles' and Tomlinson's official Twitter accounts have tweets regarding Larry Stylinson. Per WP:COMMONNAME, as Larry Stylinson is the most recognizable name, it should be the title. Wikipedia prioritizes the broader concept rather than individuals or communities involved hence why Shipping is titled Shipping (fandom) and not Shippers. jolielover♥talk 06:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Seems to me Larries are a broader concept than their idea. Also with this change of topic, it can be argued that content like
"Larries have bullied and harassed Styles' and Tomlinson's girlfriends.[8][2][1] The harassment extended to include the mother of Tomlinson's child, the family of one of his girlfriends, as well as an unrelated family with the same surname.[2][27]"
should be removed, because that's not about Larry and off-topic. While the Larrie CT is not off-topic on the subject of Larries, it's why they exist as a group. The more I think of this, it seems to me that "Larries" and "Larry Stylinson" don't overlap quite enough for this to be considered a title change only, it's a change of topic, like Christians and Christianity. That was some WP:OTHERCONTENT I just did there, and the WP:OTHERCONTENT essay is an essay. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
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.

WP:BLPNAME

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

@Jolielover, hi! I removed Briana Jungwirth's name from the article, I think it's good WP-style per WP:BLPNAME. We can have her name in this article, there are decent sources, but per WP:BLPNAME there is no good reason we should, it does not add "significant value". I think it's more motivated in the Tomlinson article, so I won't argue for removing it there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:29, 26 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Alright, that is fine. Thanks! jolielover♥talk 09:42, 26 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

GA review

Latest comment: 1 year ago26 comments4 people in discussion
Passed. MidnightAlarm (talk) 20:24, 12 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

The following discussion 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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Larries/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Jolielover (talk · contribs) 15:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Reviewer: MidnightAlarm (talk · contribs) 21:05, 8 July 2025 (UTC)Reply


Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Hey, I'll tackle this review. So far, can confirm that the article is stable and all images are relevant, captioned, and under suitable licenses.

If I have any questions or concerns as I review, I'll bring them up here; feel free to answer while I'm still reviewing or wait until I'm done, whatever works for you. MidnightAlarm (talk) 21:05, 8 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Earwig copyvio results are yellow, but what the tool is catching are direct quotes that are properly cited in the article. No issues identified with external links. MidnightAlarm (talk) 21:17, 8 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Reviewer comments

Prose

This doesn't include MOS compliance or (except for #3) anything related to sources, but I took a pass through the article to review the prose and noted some issues. First, though, I made some edits as I went; I focused on minor changes for grammar and clarity, but please do take a look to ensure I didn't make any changes you object to.

Lead:

1. A fundamental part of this conspiracy theory is that the two [...] have been closeted by their management company

I don't think "closet" can be used as a verb in this sense; see Merriam-Webster and Wiktionary. Can you rephrase?

Not the nominator, but I'll reply anyway. Fwiw, closeted is on Wiktionary, and in scholarly literature:[2]. That may be more in adjective form, but does it matter that much? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:00, 9 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, that was my point: in the sense of non-disclosure of sexual identity, it's an adjective, not a verb. I do think it matters in the context of a GAN because using it as a verb is non-grammatical, and correct grammar is explicitly part of the first GA criterion. MidnightAlarm (talk) 13:32, 10 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
We can change it to "are closeted"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:30, 10 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

History:

2. As early as 2012, Tomlinson admitted that the popularity of the theory was negatively affecting the way he and Styles behaved in public

I think "admitted" creates a (minor) POV issue here, and MOS:CLAIM recommends against using it. "Said" or "stated" would be more neutral.

Good point, fixed. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:03, 9 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

3. The most notable manifestation of this belief came in the form of "Rainbow Bondage Bears"

I can imagine someone contesting the "most notable" part of this. Something like "One notable manifestation..." would be better, and also better-supported by the sources. The Southerton & McCann source says the rainbow bears are "one of the central stories in the Larry canon that operates as 'proof'" (bolding mine).

Fixed. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:14, 9 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Btw, @MidnightAlarm, do you want us to strike through the "done" stuff? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:49, 9 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Nah, I can strike through them when I double-check the fixes. Thanks for asking, though! (Also, just as an FYI, I'm not ignoring the replies for the ones I haven't struck through yet; I need to come back and look at those later. I've been unexpectedly busy for the last couple of days.) MidnightAlarm (talk) 13:37, 10 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
And I'm expecting nominator @Jolielover to deal with/comment on anything I haven't. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:10, 10 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

4. Notably, the faked suicides were constructed both in response to the film and in response to anti-Larries using the documentary as an excuse to criticize Larry behaviors.

Rephrasing is needed here to clarify the following:

  • Did the rumours say that the alleged suicides occurred because of both the film and the response, or did people invent the rumours in response to both the film and the response?
  • Were there really faked suicides (suggesting someone staged a death in some way), or only false rumours of suicides?

5. To explain Styles behaving this way while Tomlinson has explicitly stated he is straight, some Larries have constructed a martyrdom narrative for Tomlinson.

I think this should be rephrased, or context should be added, to make it clearer why Larries would feel the need to find a justification for this. (I know it's because Styles's behaviour contradicts the conspiracy theory tenet that Styles and Tomlinson are both being forced to stay closeted...but for the sake of clear and understandable prose, it would be good to make that explicit. Especially since we're in WP:FRINGE territory with this article.)

Does [4] help? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:53, 9 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Content:

6. The core evidence of the conspiracy is often introduced through video clips that frame glances, touches, or other interpersonal interactions as romantic gestures.

For the sake of clarity, this should be rephrased to emphasize that these are things that the conspiracy theorists point to as evidence of their claims, not actual evidence of a romantic relationship. The preceding section (history) does a great job laying that out, but as this is a new major section, I think it bears repeating.

7. including femslash, which depicts Larry as gender-bent lesbians.

"Gender-bent" means something different in the context of fanfiction than what is described in the linked article (Gender bender), and not everyone who reads this article will understand what it means. This should be rephrased. Honestly, I think just "...depicts Larry as lesbians" would provide all the information needed.

Fixed. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:54, 9 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

8. One former Larry, when interviewed about this type of censorship,

I don't think the word "censorship" is appropriate here. It's not really censorship, just very pointed content curation. MidnightAlarm (talk) 01:33, 9 July 2025 (UTC)4Reply

MOS, POV, broadness, focus

I'm happy with the MOS compliance, broadness, and focus of the article, and it maintains NPOV throughout. Like Rusalkii, I'd ideally like to see the lead expanded, but I think the current lead is acceptable for a GA; it's a brief, accessible, adequately cited summary of the most important points in the article, and nothing in it is given undue weight. As such, I'm not requiring that it be expanded, just noting that that would a way to further improve the article going forward. Similarly, the article layout conforms to MOS:LAYOUT as it stands and I won't require any changes there for this GA, but for future improvements I'd suggest trying to merge the Content and Ideology sections as I'm not sure they need to be two separate major sections. MidnightAlarm (talk) 19:23, 12 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Verifiability

Article has reflist, suitable inline citations, and no OR. I completed a spot-check of the following sources against the text, all of which checked out: 2, 5, 17, 21, 30, 39, 46, 59.

For the sake of other reviewers who may be look at this article in the future, I want to note that there are a few citations to the Daily Dot, which is iffy for WP:RS. WP:DAILYDOT indicates there's no current consensus as to the Daily Dot's reliability as a source and recommends caution when using it to support claims that could be challenged. Many of the claims cited to the Daily Dot are unobjectionable (e.g., places where it's used as an example of what critics have said about Larries). There are two claims cited to the Daily Dot that are more contentious (By 2014, Larries believed that Tomlinson and Styles were sending secret messages directly to them and Since the conception of the conspiracy theory, Larries have harassed Styles and Tomlinson, their friends and family, and journalists covering Larries), but as both claims also have citations to more reliable sources either in the same spot or elsewhere in the article, I'm not concerned about them.

And with that the review is complete. I'll go ahead and pass it. Great work, @Jolielover and @Gråbergs Gråa Sång! MidnightAlarm (talk) 20:20, 12 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Drive by meddling

Gråbergs Gråa Sång let me know this review was happening because I was working on Johnlock a few months ago. I've made some tweaks to the text you should change back if you like, and have a few comments (which obviously should not be considered part of the GA review, so feel free to ignore or deprioritize). Rusalkii (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

  • "Tomlinson and Styles are closeted mainly because of their management company, Modest Management, who controlled their social media. Modest promoted masculine pictures of the pair, and made Styles the "womanizer". The pair were contractually prevented to be gay, and were provided fake girlfriends" -> I assume this requires some kind of "Larries believe that" or "In fanfiction," introduction.
  • "Harassment" seems like a weird fit under the "Ideology" heading
  • The lead is very short, can it be expanded? (I hate writing leads too :) )

@MidnightAlarm: hey, sorry for the delay. Some personal issues. Thank you @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: for your work so far - is it possible for you to get some co-nom credit? I nominated this article when I was quite new and not fully aware of all GA norms and procedures (yes, quite dumb, but oh well). Anyway, addressing everything else:

  • censorship -> content filtering
  • core evidence paragraph: rephrased it to be clearer that it is their belief, not actual evidence
  • closeted -> "sexual identities deliberately concealed"; I suppose this is clearer and gets rid of the metaphor, which international readers may not understand.
  • crazy about one direction: at the time of the nom, the film did not have its own page. seeing as it now does (i created it a few months ago), i've trimmed down the excessive context and background of the film and focus just on Larries. I've rephrased the sentence you brought up - I hope that's fine now

Let me know if it's all good or if I've missed something, thanks! jolielover♥talk 17:25, 11 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I started the article, if it gets a GA-stamp I will certainly consider that credit. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:53, 11 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Jolielover No worries at all! As you can see, I've been a bit delayed coming back to this too. Thank you and @Gråbergs Gråa Sång both for the edits made so far, and @Rusalkii for the helpful input. I'm happy with the prose as it stands now and I'll get to tackling the rest of this review ASAP. :) MidnightAlarm (talk) 18:53, 12 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
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.

Did you know nomination

Latest comment: 11 months ago36 comments11 people in discussion
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by AirshipJungleman29 talk 13:10, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

(
)
Styles and Tomlinson in 2012
Styles and Tomlinson in 2012
  • Source: Vox McCann, Hannah; Southerton, Clare (1 March 2019). "Repetitions of Desire: Queering the One Direction Fangirl". Girlhood Studies. 12 (1): 49–65. doi:10.3167/ghs.2019.120106. hdl:1959.4/unsworks_62301. S2CID 150794748. Archived from the original on 20 September 2022. Retrieved 17 June 2022.McCann, Hannah; Southerton, Clare (1 June 2021). "Boy crazy, but not in a straight way: The 'truth' about Larry in the One Direction fandom". Journal of Fandom Studies. 9 (2): 143–159. doi:10.1386/jfs_00038_1. ISSN 2046-6692.
Improved to Good Article status by Jolielover (talk) and Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 22 past nominations.

jolielover♥talk 06:31, 13 July 2025 (UTC).Reply

  • QPQ is done. Page was promoted to GA recently enough and is long enough. Hook checks out and is interesting. I think that this would be good for July 23. I think it's good to go! ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 12:34, 13 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • I'm not sure if or is the right thing, but one way or another there is clear consensus at WP:ERRORS that we shouldn't run this hook. RoySmith (talk) 20:43, 11 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • RoySmith So take ALT1 instead. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:19, 11 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      • @Fram, Jlwoodwa, Muboshgu, and Alanscottwalker: it was not clear from the discussion at WP:ERRORS if the objections were to the specific hook wording or to running this article at all. I'll leave that to other folks to figure out. RoySmith (talk) 22:48, 11 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
        I took issue with the specific hook wording. I think it would have come across as repeating the rumor with only a weasel phrase of "some people think" – not that that was the intent, of course. jlwoodwa (talk) 23:06, 11 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
        I only agree with the pull in the sense that for a BLP claim live on the Main Page, erring on the side of caution is almost never a bad move. But on the merits, I think this could have stayed. This is a conspiracy theory so notable that it has a well-documented article, and I don't know why the ERRORS complaints seem to imply that there's something unduly negative about being a closeted gay man. We would be very, very far from the first publication to speculate on Styles and Tomlinsons' sexualities. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:08, 12 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
        I understand a wish to be careful in the BLP-area, but to me this appears similar to stating "Flat-earthers believe that..." and not that big a deal. This belief is well documented, even in scholarly literature. The CT-objects may very well find the attention caused by publishing the DYK annoying, but that doesn't depend on the choice of hook. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:53, 12 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
        That lots of publications have posted speculations doesn't really concern us, we also don't (or shouldn't) post the name of crime suspects even when they are mentioned in many sources. There are conspiracy theories about Michelle Obama or Brigitte Macron being closeted transsexuals, we don't post such things on the main page despite there being absolutely nothing wrong with being either trans or being closeted about it (for all clarity, the claims about those two are pure nonsense of course). See Transvestigation. BLPs shouldn't be named on the Main Page in relation to conspiracy theories about their sexuality or gender. Find a hook without this angle, or don't run it at all. I am rather offended by your "I don't know why the ERRORS complaints seem to imply that there's something unduly negative about being a closeted gay man." No, there is something unduly negative about trying to forcibly out supposedly closeted gay men, or to give extra prominence to such efforts. There is something unduly negative about inisting that two people have a relationship when they have repeatedly denied this: even if one or both of them are gay (or bi or whatever), that doesn't mean that they are or have been involved with each other. To quote from the Harry Styles article: The theory, mainly proliferated on social media, has led to online bullying and harassment of Styles's and Tomlinson's friends, family, and girlfriends. But sure, put it on the Main Page, and imply that the one opposing this is homophobic. Fram (talk) 09:40, 12 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
        What about WP:NOTCENSORED? Recently there was bit of a discussion on Main Page talk about the FA, a person who murdered a king. There was overwhelming consensus that despite the OP's concerns that Wikipedia was glorifying the person, the article was there simply because it was of FA quality, and Wikipedia is not one to shy away from controversial subject matters. Anyways, that being said, I do get the distinction between the page of a guy who is now dead, and the page about a theory about two very much living people - I'm fine with the first hook not running (and not bring undue attention to the contents of the theory), but I still think ALT1 is fine as the page is mostly about the people who believe in the theories (I mean, it's called Larries, not Larry Stylinson). jolielover♥talk 09:50, 12 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
        What about ALT1 then? Doesn't explicitly mention the relationship in the hook and explicitly calls it a conspiracy theory. jolielover♥talk 09:46, 12 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • Leeky caldron's "imply" argument is disgusting and baseless. Leeky's argument is not only a breach of good faith, but it is of a piece with this subject, where accusations of homophobia are trot out to defend the conspiracy theory. The article fails NPOV especially in the lead, where you have no idea there is intense opposition and even more, it has involved a campaign of harassment of living people. The article should be reworked to focus on the the fan-base, and the consequences. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:28, 12 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • @Alanscottwalker: I personally saw the lead as concise and adequate (it does mention repeated denials), but nevertheless added what you mentioned. I don't really know what more of "consequences" to add - there's quite a bit on the harassment, denials from both of them, and further media impact (Euphoria episode). I'm fairly certain all sources talking about the theory in depth are in the article and I don't think there's any more juice you can squeeze from those oranges. jolielover♥talk 10:43, 12 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • The lead says "conspiracy theory", IMO that indicates a certain degree of opposition. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:48, 12 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
      • No, that lead implied there was no opposition. And even with the changes after my comment, the lead still does not mention the opposition, the "antiLarries". Again it should be reworked to focus on the fan-base. Also, the denial was presented more like an afterthought, in a minimizing clause and while that's somewhat better, now, the denial should be given more prominence. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:02, 12 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
          • Although there are anti-Larries (known as antis), I haven't seen any coverage on them as a group. Adding that would be WP:OR. jolielover♥talk 11:22, 12 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
            • Whatever you "as a group" means, you can't be serious that the opposition is not also covered. (And you just said they exist, so they are covered.)-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:28, 12 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
              • ...I said they exist since I've seen them on Twitter. "Antis" are prominent in Tomlinson's solo fanbase, you'll find them often calling out Larries and they have their own little community. I've observed this as a fan of Tomlinson. That's not coverage you can put in an article. And like Gråbergs Gråa Sång said, coverage about the people against Larries isn't frequent since, quite frankly, they're not as obnoxiously vocal as Larries are. This is the internet we're talking about, of course the people proposing an outlandish conspiracy theory will get more interactions and people writing about them. The main opposition covered is from band members and their friends, which is reasonable. But hey: If a researcher is reading this, interviewing prominent "antis" would also be interesting. Re the lead: A NEUTRAL summary means neutral on both sides, meaning a middle ground between the people who believe it and the people who don't. Writing "falsely believe" isn't neutral; shipping conspiracy theorists is more so. I hate to say it, but I suppose you can't definitely prove that what they're saying is not true. Yes, theories about the management and SC closeting them well over a decade after 1D ended is... ludicrous, putting is mildly, but there's always that 0.000000001% chance of it being true. The true neutral is to revert back to simply "shipping conspiracy theorists". E.g., Paul is dead and the numerous other dead celebrity hoaxes are very obviously not true to most people, but the lead doesn't say it's false, it simply says that it's an urban legend and conspiracy theory - whatever you interpret from those words are up to you. jolielover♥talk 13:50, 12 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
              • People not believing in a CT doesn't generally get a lot of coverage, since they are boring and uninteresting to write about. Who reads an article dedicated to people who think the moon landings happened? The CT people is what gets the coverage. "Larries are shipping conspiracy theorists" does not imply to me there is no opposition, it implies these people are cuckoo. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:58, 12 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
                • Come on. We are not talking non-belief, we are talking controversy. A controversy involves sides, dissecting it involves, examining them. You can and do find the opposition in the sources that talk about the conspiracy theorists. As for your personal take, I have no idea, but we should not leave such a thing to implication, especially not for living people. As a separate point on denial, while denial is evidence for the conspiracy, because that's how conspiracies theories work, we don't treat and should not treat them as evidence for the conspiracy. 'And the Picture! The Picture Proves it!' We need to tread much more carefully under the BLP policy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:10, 12 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
                  • Well, when I edited the article I tried to summarize the WP:RS I had found, and I think the others who edited a lot tried the same. But we are Wikipedians, we are imperfect. If you want to emphasize somehow for example that Tomlinson absolutely not had a fake baby, you can. I wonder if we have wandered off from the purpose of this discussion page, though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:53, 12 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Well, my objections I think are made, and if you have taken them personally, well don't. They are critiques of the article. (and by the way, I was not saying boost coverage of living people in any way, I explicitly said, focus on the fandom in its complexity, and what the consequences have been). Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:02, 12 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I assumed earlier that the objections were based on WP:DYKBLP, which prohibits unduly negative hooks – I thought that'd be ridiculous, and it was and the objections aren't actually based on that. My bad, Fram, Alan, and others. I'm sympathetic to wanting to protect Styles and Tomlinson's privacy, but I don't see simply acknowledging the conspiracy theory in a hook as inherently and unduly negative; if the existence of a hook were undue, the existence of an article would also be undue, unless the hook were slanted relative to the article, which it isn't. I don't see a purely privacy-based reason BLP would prohibit running any hook of this kind, either. If the article and hook just need to be reworked to stress the baselessness of the allegations, I'm fine with that, but that's not an argument for never running some variation on the hook, which is where the discussion started. If we want to not run this IAR, it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world to me – I've always been a little queasy on NOTCENSORED – but if I had to pick a controlling policy here, it'd be that one, because I don't see the BLP objections as firmly supported by text. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:35, 12 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
In the encyclopedia, we cover all kinds of topics, without censoring. On the main page, and especially by picking DYK hooks, we use our own editorial judgment which elements we want to highlight (a FA summary is an overview of the main aspects of the article, a DYK hook is a random fact from the article). Not highlighting aspects which have e.g. caused major distress to BLPs (without them being the cause of their own distress) is being responsible with the power you get to put such tidbits before millions of people. To illustrate it with an extreme: "did you know that recent murder victim X was raped and partially eaten alive before her death" may be 100% correct and included in the article, but it would be IMO a blockable offense to put it on the main page, as it is not the kind of thing you would want any relatives or friends of the victim to confront with on our main page. Obviously this one here is less extreme, but it is clear that "notcensored" doesn't mean that we shouldn't use some restraint when picking a hook or even an article to highlight. Fram (talk) 07:21, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
So how about using ALT1 then, sans picture? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:33, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Fram has twice made a more convincing statement on policy, here. I suggest you re-read them both especially the categorical rejection, which will happen under policy if something like this is tried again. Also, you must take context and lack thereof even under DYKBLP, you can't present a lie or fantasy involving BLP on the front page, even with with 'some people believe'. or even with 'this is a lie' but we are passing it along anyway. 'Did you know, this is a false or questionable story that some people believe about Ms. BLP'? will never work for the front page. You must know that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:50, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
So what's going on here? a) The article by its very nature is unsuitable for dyk? b) ALT1 is fine but people just prefer to argue for no reason about ALT0 that already got pulled by wp:errors and is DOA? or c) There's some hitherto unmentioned problem with ALT1 and we just need some new hook that emphasizes that this group of people exist and sometimes harass these pop stars but shouldn't talk about why they do that, since we don't want to mention it on the front page? — LlywelynII 20:37, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Approving the following trimmed hook only: ALT1a: ... that a 2011 tweet became a cornerstone of the Larry Stylinson conspiracy theory?--Launchballer 10:58, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Fram, Alanscottwalker, Jlwoodwa, and RoySmith: any pre-promotion concerns with this hook? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:55, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
TBH, I'd be happier if we didn't run this at all, but it seems inevitable that we will, so to answer your question ALT1a is certainly much better than what we had before and I can't really object to it. RoySmith (talk) 15:59, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
The concerns I have raised about the article have not been fully addressed, so no I can't recommend it for the front page. And no, I don't think any hook should highlight supposed "evidence" for similar reasons. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:25, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Moving back to WP:DYKN until consensus is firmly in favour of running the article/hook, as it is clear it is currently not. I will start a discussion at WT:DYK. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:10, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Personally I can't see the problem with running a hook as innocuous as 'adherents of a fringe belief justify themselves with a tweet', but as there's clear consensus at WT:DYK that this shouldn't run, I'm rejecting this.--Launchballer 13:00, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

A project that might be a huge waste of time

Latest comment: 9 months ago5 comments3 people in discussion

@Jolielover and other watchers. You may or may not have heard of Grokipedia. @Apaugasma had an interesting idea, check "your" WP-article against the Grokipedia version, because AI isn't always wrong and might find a useful source etc. Larries, is different, I'll say that much, and it really likes sourcing reddit. So, if someone wants to spend some time on that, feel free. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:15, 28 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

I am surprised at how much longer Grokipedia's article is (actually, I'm surprised it's even there). I don't know how exactly this information is generated. That being said, looking at the references for anything useful and I can't find anything useful that's not already in the article. Most new ones not in this are social media, like Tumblr. jolielover♥talk 17:13, 28 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Definitely a lot of social media. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:23, 28 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Well, I just checked Mean (song), and Grokipedia states, "In a review for Country Universe, the song received a D grade", when the source clearly indicates that it received an A grade. The analysis of the critic's review has even more hallucinations... Medxvo (talk) 17:55, 28 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
More discussion over at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Grokipedia_has_launched. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:50, 28 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

Latest comment: 7 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:21, 26 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Content Disclaimer

Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.

  1. The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
  2. There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
  3. It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
  4. Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
  5. Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.