Talk:Larry Is Real

From Fanlore
Jump to: navigation, search


So I may have taken the "be bold" advice and ran with it. I added a lot of content to Larry Is Real and also in the process reorganized and divided it to multiple different pages.

I did this for two reasons.

1 - There had been a lot of POV missing from the articles related to Larry Stylinson, namely that of the fans themselves.

2 - "Larry" has not just been massive in an unprecedented way (and frequently misunderstood) but it's also historically relevant as representing a turning point in the complex new interplay between fans and the Fourth Wall in the age of social media.

I did my best to keep the content I added focused on the story of the fandom, rather than the "canon" and I didn't delete any of the existing content, though I may have moved it around and rephrased some of it to include PPOV.

(I knew these were big changes to make for someone brand new as an editor, so I read through all the content and editing pages carefully. Please let me know, though, if some of my changes don't follow Fanlore's norms.) --Rougeandtonic (talk) 03:35, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


I don't think the terms "Tinhat" or "conspiracy theorist" are appropriate to use as a straight synonyms for fans who think Larry is real, since they're derogatory terms that haven't been reclaimed in any meaningful way by the fans themselves. I left in instances that were discussing Tinhats and Tinhatting as a fandom phenomenon, but reworded it in other places.

Not all fans who believe Larry is real identify as Larries, so I tried to reserve using the word "Larrie" for things that seemed particularly relevant to fans who do.

I also tried to use the term non-Larries for fans who don't think Larry is real but aren't necessarily Antis. As far as things specific to the Anti-Larry community, I did use "Anti-Larrie"/"Anti" as pronouns since I've often seen them refer to themselves that way.

This may need some correction and fine-tuning for inclusivity, though. --Rougeandtonic (talk) 03:35, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think there's an issue with using the term anti-larrie/anti. However, I think some changes have introduced a new POV issue. 1. It should not be derogatory to label Larry as a conspiracy theory when fans are theorizing that there is a conspiracy by the record label, friends, family, whoever to keep Harry/Louis in the closet. This is a conspiracy theory. By definition. A theory of conspiracy. Most conspiracy theories turn out not to be true, but occasionally there is some reality to it. The Johnlock Conspiracy is an example of a fannish conspiracy theory that was actually labeled a conspiracy by the people who started it. One case of a couple that was tinhatted and later turned out to be an item in real life was Dan Howell/Phil Lester. 2. As far as I am aware, only 1D fans who have been labeled as tinhats object to the term tinhats. Non-believing 1D fans who have been in other fandoms frequently use the term tinhat to describe them. J2 tinhats in Supernatural fandom apparently embrace the term tinhat as well. So it is incorrect to state categorically that the terms tinhat and conspiracy theorist are offensive--it is only that 1D fans who believe Larry Is Real find them offensive. I know there are a lot of people who believe(d) that Larry is real, but they are not All Of Fandom (not even all of 1D fandom) and everyone outside this group is going to be weirded out by such universal claims about What Is Offensive. It's probably just a phrasing issue that a neutral third party could fix easily enough.--aethel (talk) 23:13, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm not really sure what point you're making? I'm only editing the 1D pages so that's all I'm talking about. I'm very well aware of the argument that it's a conspiracy theory but many Larries argue against that nomenclature and find it offensive. I thought I included a diversity of POVs on whether it's a conspiracy theory in the text? Certainly more could be added if it's necessary, but I don't think things like "tinhat" and "conspiracy theory" should be used in place of words like "fan" and "theory" in the context of 1D when the fans themselves generally find them derogatory. (Isn't that what fanlore's PPOV policy is for, to protect fans in these cases?) --Rougeandtonic (talk) 23:39, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Ok, I just looked at it again. Was it because I wrote "a derogatory fannish term"? I understand your point (though I had apparently falsely(?) assumed it was intended as derogatory given that it originated from "Asshat", per the tinhat page). I edited it to clarify that it's many Larries who consider it derogatory. --Rougeandtonic (talk) 23:48, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Undoing Edits

New user Chlorineandink, who just made an account, is undoing Rougeandtonic's edits without discussing it. —caes (talk) 16:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh, genuinely do not understand why conspiracy theorist views are being treated as equal to reality. Therefore, undo. A discussion is needed for that? -User:Chlorineandink
There are ways of describing a community and its traditions without promoting its beliefs. I think this page needs a more delicate retooling.--aethel (talk) 17:16, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleting large portions of pages is considered Hostile Editing according to Fanlore policy. If it seems conspiracy views are written about as it they're true, then the framing of the subject should be edited to make it clear who holds these beliefs and what the opposing view is. —caes (talk) 17:23, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Conspiracy theorists write as though their beliefs about events hold equal weight in fandom with events that actually happened. Their goal in editing these articles is to portray their actions and beliefs as valid interpretations of reality. That's dishonest. —User:Chlorineandink
Again, deleting chunks of pages is against Fanlore policy. I've reverted the edits and added PPOV. —caes (talk) 18:22, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

This page has been marked for the attention of Fanlore Gardeners.

Which of my edits specifically violate PPOV? I'm open to feedback. I'm also not sure which sections were written as if the fan theories were true? I tried to be careful to use "some fans think" style language as described on the PPOV page. (And I rephrased a few statements I felt were biased to use the "some people think" language but didn't delete anything that was on here.) The specific examples I included were either (1) ones that had already been mentioned on these pages but didn't include Larries' POV, (2) major events that transformed the fandom, or (3) frequently discussed topics within the fandom. It's not my intention at all to convince anyone of the truthfulness of the theory. My motivation in editing this was to ensure that all POVs are treated with respect, because regardless of the veracity of the theories all the fans involved are humans and their experiences have been real and valid. --Rougeandtonic (talk) 21:44, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
I think it's noteworthy that your purpose here is to edit Fanlore so it's not an "anti masterpost," which to you, a self-described larrie (and thus actual conspiracy theorist) means "information given by people who know that larry isn't real" since everyone who isn't a larrie is an anti, in your view. It's dishonest. Your belief system isn't protected speech and absolutely does not warrant being put on equal footing with reality. --Chlorineandink

Plan to fix the page?

This page is such a mess of conspiracy theory beliefs and so much of the essential context was removed or rewritten that it might be easier to revert the page to before Rougeandtonic started editing and then pull in later edits that we can verify.Here's the page history comparison. Here's the old version of the page. Alternatively, we're going to have to rewrite it all over again. The current intro paragraph is wildly misleading and I would at the very least add a sentence like

It is generally regarded as a conspiracy theory and its fans are labeled by other fans as tinhats.

That is essential context for understanding what Larry is. It's not just that Larry is a tinhat theory; it's one of the most widely known examples of tinhatting in fandom. Fans in other fandoms know about Larry.

Speaking of POV issues, the current section addressing the fact that this page is about a conspiracy theory is a subsection under "Fan Theories", implying that labeling this as conspiracy theory is a fringe idea rather than a straightforward description. I do find the explanation of why larries don't think Larry is a conspiracy theory very helpful though. They're wrong, but that's useful context I didn't have before.

The history section might be ok once it has been revised to avoid truth claims asserting Larry is real or plausible. The intro to the history section is questionable at best--the "alternate explanations" are in many cases what actually happened. It might work if it's framed as these are the theories that larries discussed/are important to larries' understanding of the Larry theory in chronological order of precipitating event.

The transformative works section is also fine, but please rename it to Fanworks.

"Anti-Fandom" section name is highly misleading. One Direction fans who are not larries are not "anti-fans", and no one has called us this. If larries actually use the term anti-fan, that's an interesting linguistic note to add, but it doesn't say that now. Instead we should have: a dedicated section explaining why the majority of the fandom doesn't like larries and why people consider it to be damaging or dangerous and that anti-larry blogs are a thing. Maybe "Controversy" if it's not too vague. The content on bullying that was removed could go as a subsection here.

The entire Fan Theories section is a mess. Some subsections are about conspiracy theories and some are not.

I am deeply disturbed by the positive vibes coming off this page. The entire fandom was forced to experience this conspiracy theory, and the majority of people had a negative experience. I understand that many larries had a positive experience and that experience was formerly missing from the page, but that doesn't make it ok to rewrite the entire page as if the Larry phenomenon was just a happy fun place with a few malcontents in the footnotes.

Anyway, I was a domlijah tinhat for a hot minute. It's not as if I don't understand the appeal.--aethel (talk) 01:04, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi aethel, the gardeners and staff are fine with reverting the page to its previous state and pulling in later edits that seem justified. I think that would be much more feasible than rewriting the page the way it is currently. I'll go ahead and do that, and then we can work out how to proceed. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 10:56, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks!--aethel (talk) 00:27, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposing Theories Sub-Page

To address the issues with the excessive fan theories and the deep Larry lore. There’s also Larry Stylinson Terms, Tropes & Memes, a page which which was created by a Larry who is currently banned, is unconventional, used to be the glossary on this page, and reads like a primer for Larries – it literally says “It is intended as a reference for new fans and outsiders.” I think it should be deleted. The “Other Moments” section on this page is also pretty deep Larry lore. While much of this isn’t relevant to people who aren’t already tinhats, arguably it should still be documented, just with clearer context.

I propose making a new sub-page for the smaller Larry theories – Larry Is Real/Theories. The Fan Theories section with the general background (which should be retitled Basics of Larry Is Real) and the sections involving interaction with the band, like the Bullshits and Babygate, will remain, but the Other Moments section and parts of the Larry Stylinson Terms, Tropes & Memes will be combined on the theories page. When the info is in one place it can be edited down and clarified as needed. The theories page will also clarify that these bits of Larry lore didn’t really lead anywhere outside of the tinhat community. —caes (talk) 01:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I like the idea of the sub-page for the theories. It keeps them together for ease of reading and understanding. I vote for this plan. --MPH (talk) 13:24, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Me too. I saved the content from the old version of this page (before it was reverted) so I can move the sections that caes has discussed across to the new Theories subpage. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 13:47, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

fanworks section?

i checked all the fanart and while rougeandtonic says on tumblr that they were uploaded with permission, they're not marked as such on the file pages so i'm hesitant to include fanart that was not clearly marked with "larry is real" or something similar on this page. the same goes with the videos - as i understand it "freddieismyqueen" is known for making videos related to this topic so those are probably fine? but tbqh many of the videos are just . . . regular shipping videos? and they aren't marked with anything that would directly qualify them for this page so i think while the fanworks section is fine, in general, i'm uncertain on whether or not much of it can't be moved to the regular Larry Stylinson page or perhaps fan pages for the fans in question? i haven't checked the fic, but i don't necessarily have as much of a concern about the fic because it's easier to incorporate this theory with fic. the call on tumblr for art was merely for "canon-inspired" art, which is where my concerns stem from. Flyingthesky (talk) 23:58, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

We could mark them 'Fair Use' and then add a qualifying note that these are examples of "Larry Is Real" art and videos that some Larry fans believe support their vision/belief system. And that the creators of these fanworks may not necessarily agree with this interpretation and that this lack of clarity is another example of the different approaches to the how fans relate to the artists and other fans. The fact that rougeandtonic (and possibly others) believes these are Larry Is Real fanworks is in itself a POV. MeeDee (talk) 00:19, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi, new member here. I'm still getting my bearings so apologies for any mistakes I make-- please tell me if I'm not following typical etiquette or anything --but I've been following this discussion and wanted to add something. I'm a larrie, and hoping to help edit these pages to strengthen the PPOV. I can't speak to every piece of art added, but I can say that for the fan vids, the creator identifies as a larrie and believes that Larry is real, hence the reason rougeandtonic included them here. So I can make sure we're on the same page, does that affect the idea that including them is in itself a POV? Homosociallyyours (talk) 01:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
I like MD's suggestion - or perhaps we could include some kind of note on the page about how the fanart was sourced (in response to a post requesting "canon-inspired" art) and a note that the vidder (is this just freddieismyqueen, or all of them?) identifies as a Larrie and makes vids for an audience who also believe that Larry is real. If these are fanworks that have been adopted by the fandom for one reason or another I also think that says something, but we do need a bit of context on the page itself for why these are Larry is Real fanworks and not just regular Larry Stylinson fanworks. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 13:24, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
afaik it's mainly freddieismyqueen, which is why i (personally) am confused by some of these other videos. they just seem like regular shipping videos to me. i also think this page is a good candidate for using Template:AnnotatedFanwork because the crux of the issue is that, without explanation of how these fanworks fit into the theory, they genuinely just seem like regular larry stylinson fanworks and while i don't doubt that some people may see them as promoting that theory, it's hard to ascertain why they do for someone who's potentially coming to this page as an outsider. Flyingthesky (talk) 15:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

miscellaneous links

I spotted a few tumblr posts that may or may not be helpful. These are examples of non-larries responding angrily in the strongest terms to larrie posts. I don't know if larries are calling this sort of thing harassment or labeling these fans anti-larries, but I can see that comments like these would have a negative effect on one's perception of non-believers. It also shows the level of frustration non-larries had with larries IMHO. [1][2][3][4]--aethel (talk) 00:27, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to include a quote from one of these posts to the section. It would read: "Beliefs and speculation aside, the level of hostility between the two groups is real. In response to the 2014 Larries' call for an album boycott based on the belief that Larry's tweets were internalized homophobia, one anti-Larry responded:
I am not certain I have the details correct so can someone give this a lookover?MeeDee (talk) 02:50, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
update belief that Larry's tweets were internalized homophobia to something like belief that Louis's tweets were written by a homophobic management. The OP's post is titled Since the only thing they seem to listen to is money indicating OP thought management had tweeted and not Louis.--aethel (talk) 03:30, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

More links, to be used or not:


Added note that the phrase tinhat is objectionable to many members of the community along with for and against links. Also replaced a few of the tinhats with 'believers' to make it less one-sided. Will try to look through a few more pages. MeeDee (talk) 02:37, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

messed up cite coding

Does someone know how to fix the reference coding problem at the bottom of this page? --MPH (talk) 23:26, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Add above References section: ==Notes== <references group=note/> —caes (talk) 23:41, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
I just fixed it. But I think the 2 Notes should be in the main text - and they need cites or examples.MeeDee (talk) 23:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
This page also has a lot of references that should be notes. —caes (talk) 00:36, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

In-Article Notating

Looks like a few parts of this article have what appear to be in-article notes by an editor(s). There are a few sentences with arrows next to them disagreeing with the content of the sentence. Though the in-article notes do have good points about the wording of some of the info presented (such as saying something was "romantic" when that would be subjective but is being stated as if it is objective), it's probably best to just edit the article's wording or put those comments here on the talk page. I do agree some wording in the article is written as if it's objective, rather than it just being a matter of how fans have perceived things. Patchlamb (talk) 01:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I removed the arrows and tried to make the explanations as unbias as possible and in cases added what the arrows were pointing out as an alternative interpretation of events. However the section is about why Larries believe in Larry Stylinson so the parts I thought may have been only slightly bias toward Larry I put a variation on "Some Larries believe that"StringQuartets&ChiaPets(talk) 02:08, 9 March 2021 (UTC)