Talk:Larry Correia/Archive 1

Archive 1

Sad Puppies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Writing career

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

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

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

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

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

@2A02:FE0:C900:1:F969:D028:146:4BDA: Okay, it's been whitelisted. Feel free to add it. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, perhaps with a skeptical eye to the author's own account of their origin story. Pinkbeast (talk) 19:19, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Please take your blatant bias elsewhere. If you don't have anything useful to contribute to the conversation, go bother others. We're trying to create a neutral article here, not a flaming liberal hatefest. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that frothing. That aside, however, it is generally best to be sceptical about content sourced to the subject of an article. Was Correira privy to the conversation between another forum poster's old employer and someone at Baen, or is "strongly recommended" in fact reliably sourced at all? Pinkbeast (talk) 03:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

No problem. Perhaps ask the author of the article. The link is there now. Have at it. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Not really how it works. Absent a RS who (somehow) was privy to that conversation, for all we know it went "Jim, this is dreadful trash, but I know you sell a lot of that sort of thing, so maybe give it a bash?"

As part of my "flaming liberal hatefest" I've eliminated some duplication; in particular the first para read rather as if the first novel was Dead Six not MHI. I'd talk more but I'm off to hate America, or something. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, added it (so this part of the Talk section is probably no longer required).2A02:FE0:C900:1:F969:D028:146:4BDA (talk) 20:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Audie Awards notability

@Pinkbeast: I have reverted your edit which removed the Audie Award listings on this page. Your claim that they are "industry selfpromotion with no independent indication of notability" is provably false with only the tiniest effort. They have been covered by Locus (2016, 2015, 2013, 2012, 2011, for example), Publisher's Weekly, and many others. They are often mentioned in articles about the winners. They are more than notable, so please do not remove them again. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Granted. It is unfortunate that that section was first entirely cited to "we award you this award". Pinkbeast (talk) 20:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Pinkbeast: What do you mean by "we award you this award"? ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:07, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

More refs to use

These are refs that can be used in the article:

• Werris, Wendy (June 5, 2012). "BEA 2012: A Monster Success". Publisher's Weekly. Retrieved September 13, 2016. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
• Patrick, Diane (May 28, 2015). "BEA 2015: Larry Correia: The Saga of the Prolific Writer". Publisher's Weekly. Retrieved September 13, 2016. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
• Reynolds, Glenn Harlan (April 28, 2014). "Politics don't belong in science fiction: Column". USA Today. Retrieved September 13, 2016. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
• Braid, James (April 25, 2015). "The Men Who Started the Hugo Awards Controversy". The Washington Free Beacon. Retrieved September 13, 2016. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

I'll add more later. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad to see your commitment to "trying to create a neutral article here" extends to... an op-ed in USA Today taking everything Corriera claims at face value, and the Washington Free Beacon singing the praises of vandals? What next, Breitbart? Pinkbeast (talk) 20:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

These are just articles I ran across while finding additional sources for the awards section. I placed them here so they could be reviewed and used as needed. You are welcome to add other potentially useful articles to this section. I find it useful to have a few articles in a list when trying to expand an article or provided citations for content within the article. If you can't contribute in a helpful way, or without leaving backhanded comments, get out. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

"alt-right" writers?

I notice Corriera has been added to this newly created category. Now, I don't have a lot of time for petulant vandals, obviously, but I'm not really aware that he's recognisably part of the "alt-right"; AFAICT he's a sort of ordinary American gun nut. To me (and perhaps a difficulty with this category is its subjective nature) the "alt-right" tag is reserved for crazy conspiracy theories, badly concealed racism (or indeed unconcealed), and the like.

I submit he should be removed unless a solid citation is forthcoming. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Removed until it can be verified in a RS. Meatsgains (talk) 18:45, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Ashmoo (talk) 08:55, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

"Longlisted" for the Hugos

Recent edits have inserted, removed, and re-inserted the fact that Corriera failed to become a Hugo finalist in 2013. The edit summary on the re-insertion was "it was reported by the Hugo committee, so take it up with them. Also, it's an option available for these tables, and this is the perfect use for it".

What the Hugos have to say on the subject is here. The only official terms are "finalist" and "winner"; there is no title for those who fail to become a finalist. "sometimes thousands of different works/people are in fact nominated each year"; Corriera is one of those thousands. I don't think it would be remotely sensible to edit into thousands of pages all the Hugos that anyone has failed to become a finalist for. Literally anyone could fail to become a finalist; I could write a paragraph of criticism and nominate it for Best Related Work, thus joining the august body of those who have failed to become a finalist.

That the Hugo administrators enumerate those who didn't make the cut doesn't mean much. Did any independent source report this failure as if it were a success?

A longlisting is meaningful where the longlist itself is curated, as for the Man Booker. It's not in this case where anyone with the price of a supporting membership can "longlist" anything they feel like, and it would not be remotely sensible to document the enormous numbers of "longlistings". Pinkbeast (talk) 18:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Corriera's "longlisting" is non-notable outside of the fact that his campaign for it was the first Sad Puppy campaign. I completely agree with Pinkbeast: the Hugos don't have a "longlist", the admins just sometimes publish a list of the works that got some nominations. If enough people also nominate you can get on the shortlist, and have that fact reported in RSs, but the act of getting 1+ nominations is not a noteworthy achievement. --PresN 18:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@Pinkbeast: You're exaggerating things quite a bit. I'm not suggesting that anyone who receives a nomination should have that listed. That would, indeed, be ridiculous. However, the Hugo committee releases an extended list (see the official one here, page 19) including a number of people "below the cutoff" of the final ballot entries. That's what is being termed the "longlist" in this case. This extended list is perfectly reasonable to include, as it is covered by any number of reliable sources (including the one I linked, above). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, the fact that he was longlisted was discussed by Mike Glyer on File 770 as well as other places, so that makes this particular longlisting notable. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:45, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

So, in this one case (not arguing for including everyone who makes the longlist, even the reasonable longlist I described), I think it is acceptable to mention it since it was discussed by multiple reliable sources, and specifically left-leaning reliable sources. This is clearly not setting a precedent to open a floodgate of longlist entries, and it is not intended to be such. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I think it's perfectly sensible to mention his failure to be a finalist in the body of the article. It's entirely relevant to the Puppies campaigns. I just don't think it's sensible to mention failure to be a finalist for an award in "awards and recognition". That is not a section for failing to get awards. Pinkbeast (talk) 22:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Then you'll have to convince all of Wikipedia that nominations should never be in that section. I find that unlikely to happen. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Come off it. We're not talking about every award, we're talking about the Hugos and their specific nomination process. I've mentioned this thread on the talk page for the Hugos, so interested editors can comment.

Including even only the extended list would in fact mean thousands of pages. There are well over a hundred from 2013 alone (including a princely 8 nominations for The Unwritten: Volume 5, so not that far off the scenario where I nominate myself). So why this one? Yes, Corriera threw a tantrum and rounded up some vandals, which was widely reported; that merits inclusion in the article body. But I don't see why a failure to make the cut for an award goes in "awards", nor why this _particular_ failure merits inclusion. Pinkbeast (talk) 22:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I already explained that, and (as I wrote above) I am not arguing that everyone who made the longlist should have it mentioned. I'm arguing that this particular one should be mentioned in the list of awards because it's been discussed specifically in multiple reliable sources. I completely agree with you that listing longlist nominations for everyone would be ridiculous, mainly because none of those other ones has been discussed in multiple different reliable sources. This particular one is a special case because of all the controversy surrounding it. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:00, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

What I don't agree with is that this particular failure to be shortlisted should be mentioned _in the list of awards_. In the article body? Yes, obviously. It is well cited and entirely relevant. But failure to get an award is not "awards and recognition". Pinkbeast (talk) 00:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, difference of opinion. However, since I've rewritten the career section, I've removed it from the list of awards. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 02:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate your willingness to make an edit you don't like. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:54, 12 April 2017 (UTC)