Talk:JT LeRoy

References

The references would be more useful if they were alphabetized by author or in chronological order.68.81.151.62 (talk) 15:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Archives

• Archive 1
  
• Archive 2 -- Most of the debate can be found here
• Archive 3 -- Continuation of debate regarding controversial identity
• Archive 4 -- Votes and debate over proposal to merge with Laura Albert

What is the "scheme"?

This article refers to a "hoax" and a "scheme". What is it referring to beyond the false story of the authors background? I'm not disputing anything, I'm simply asking that the article be clear. Authors write under pseudonyms all the time, it is an honored tradition. Presumably, if this is a hoax and a scheme, this deceit must have gone beyond the normal and into the realm of fraud where the author is gaining something he/she is not entitled to. I just think the article she be clear and upfront, or not use such strong terms. I came here looking for information and I don't feel I found it. (unsigned comment by 85.250.248.107 09:12, 8 February 2006)

A hoax involves presenting something false as true. In this case the author and several collaborators devised an elaborate scheme by which they led therapists, authors, publishers, agents, journalists, and readers to believe they were helping a real person who had suffered horrible childhood exploitation and was now HIV-positive. Very different than a pseudonym. Jokestress 15:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

It's very simple. if the literary world were based solely on the merits of a good story, there would be nothing gained and thus nothing wrong with this particular hoax. However, getting published, just like everything else, requires more than just being a good writer. One has to make connections, one has to be marketable, and one has to be able to create publicity. Whatever LeRoy's merits as a writer, the fact is that it would have been a great deal harder for "his" stories to get published if "he" had just presented them as imaginative works of fiction. By saying that the stories were based upon "his" life, and by making influential connections by playing on the drama of "his" "true" story, LeRoy get a leg up on other writers and received opportunities he would very probably not have gotten had "he" not committed this fraud. And that's exactly what it is. ChrisStansfield 02:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Surely the "literary world" brings these things upon themselves? If they judged books on merit and not by who wrote them no-one would need to pretend to be someone they're not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.182.74.7 (talk) 22:19, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Fraud is more like it

American Heritage Dictionary, 4th Edition:

Fraud: 1. A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain. 2. A piece of trickery; a trick. 3.

  a. One that defrauds; a cheat.
  b. One who assumes a false pose; an impostor. 

Those who buy the "pseudonym" argument in this dispicable case of a conspiracy to commt outright fraud on the reading public as well as the individual celebrities who donated money directly to "Leroy" to supplement "his" livelihood tell us more about themselves than anyone else. Keep these people away from the Holocaust entries. (unsigned comment by 162.84.146.234 00:32, 10 February 2006)

Please observe WP:CIVIL when commenting on differences of opinion on whether this is a fraud, hoax, or pseudonym. Jokestress 01:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The law is clear: It was "fraud." One cannot be sued for having a pseudonym. This is why we use legal citations when possible in discussion issues such as this: the laws that are violated are named through the use of specific, non-derogatory legal terminology, and can be clearly understood by everyone. So "fraud" is the proper word to use with respect to the trial. cat yronwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 04:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

calling it a 'hoax' in this article is way to friendly. it was fraud. the only purpose of a hoax is to have a good laugh, the purpose of fraud is to make money (or to get something like love, respect, etc). there is nothing wrong or illegal about having a pen-name. it IS wrong and oftentimes illegal to pretend to be a completely different person (fictional or not), especially if you do so for monetary gain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.95.218.241 (talk) 17:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

This article and the hoax

Jokestress, do you or anyone have any examples of precedent for my recent contribution?

I think the fact that Albert, or someone associated with her saw this article as a means of making her public argument is definitely noteworthy and encyclopedic. I think that it may even merit categorization in time as more notable figures come to Wikipedia articles about them. If there isn't a category already, that is.

There was talk of Albert/agent editing the article before GrilledCheese, but I didn't want to research this thing to death until I heard what others thoughts.

Kinda neat.Yeago 19:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

We should use Wikipedia:Avoid self-references as a guide, but there have been several precedents, including the Adam Curry bust and the recent Marty Meehan incident which in part led Wikipedia to block the entire US Congress IP address block temporarily. It would be better if we had a published report from a source outside Wikipedia for this kind of thing, but sometimes the stories emerge from here, then get reported. Jokestress 19:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I read 'Avoid self-ref' and did notice the Congress IP issue, but I'm drawn to think that this instance somehow misses the criteria, because the source evidence itself was spawned from a wikipedia discussion page, and therefore an 'outside' source is not a viable secondary option. Hmmm... I'll ask around. Thanks!Yeago 20:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Removed "grifters" comment

Remover this 14 February addition by User:195.224.10.234 and readded by Sir Paul on 25 February:

However, Silverberg has refuted any belief in the existence of Leroy as of January, 2006, and in February of 2006 called both Albert and her partner Geoffrey Knoop "grifters". [1] +

The cited article does not include Silverberg calling them "grifters." Jokestress 05:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Recent anon edits.

Its revert-fodder for sure, but there are one or two interesting tidbits. I'll go through it sometime tonight or tomorrow. FYI.Yeago 00:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Salon.com article by Jack Boulware about Laura Albert Called "She is JT Leroy"

I copied and pasted the entire Salon.com article here:

http://qwhip.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=52141#52141

The article is written by Jack Boulware (former editor of the defunct The Nose magazine) and is all about Laura Albert's life and disguises that she did. It's really excellent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.100.79 (talk • contribs)

Winona Ryder/Argento stuff should go

I'm not going do this unilaterally, but the section on Ryder and Argento should be cut. A) It's totally supposition, with no citation to back it up. B) The only possible "source" for this bit of editorializing is an unsourced item in Page Six of the NY Post -- hardly definitive. C) As someone with first-hand knowledge of much of the hoax, I can tell you neither Ryder nor Argento were in on it. It is true that Argento and the distributor of the film "The Heart is Deceitful ..." are using the news of the hoax as a means of promoting their film, but this is only a last minute adjustment, not a long-running plot by Argento.

At any rate, back Ryder/Argento stuff up with credible sources (impossible, by the way) or it should go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarginWalker (talk • contribs)

The citation for Ryder's participation in the hoax was from Vanity Fair. However, the whole celebrity supporter section appears to be a copyvio. It sould be cleanedup and cited properly, not removed. Jokestress 18:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I cut out most of that information since it was an obvious copyvio, but cited to the Page Six item it was based on. --Metropolitan90 07:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Much of the text on this page is copied

A significant portion of the text on this page is copied verbatim from the New York story of the JT Leroy controversy by Stephen Beachy[[2]]. All of the content under "Literary Supporters" is copied from that article, as well as the paragraph under "Similar Cases." --Julan777 21:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia and the hoax

I removed this as a violation of self-reference:

Before the New York Times article had diminished doubts over Albert's role in the LeRoy hoax it became apparent that LeRoy's Wikipedia article had become a front for the author, or an agent of the author, to make the public case that LeRoy was not a hoax.

On December 15 2005 editor Grilledcheese, after numerous contributions to the article and discussion, claimed that he or she was LeRoy's assistant [3]. Additionally, the editor claimed "I have worked with him for over three years, logged hundreds of phone hours with him and several days in person," and that he or she had spoken about the LeRoy issue with Emily Nussbaum, an editor for New York Magazine. The user claimed to receive no pay from the author.

While Grilledcheese took careful measures to abide by NPOV, and went so far as to ask for third party review, the editor did espouse "there is no need for [LeRoy] to prove anything. His writing, which is pure, says all there needs to be said." This line of reasoning has occurred in the JT LeRoy blog.

Unless this has been documented in a publication somewhere, it's original research and self-reference, both of which are no-nos. Please cite an independent source for this if we are going to include it. Jokestress 17:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Well thats a joke - how are you supposed to show that a wikipedia editor was complicit in helping spread this hoax unless you are able to reference wiki logs? Are wikipedia contributors then completely anonymous, even when helping drum up publicity for shite fiction? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.56.218.173 (talk • contribs)

If the Wikipedia angle of the story is important, it will have been covered in the press, and we can cite that published source. If it's not been covered in the press, it is self-referential original research and should not be in the article. Jokestress 22:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, well isn't that a convenient catch-22? What exactly determines what is 'press'? One could argue that wikipedia has a greater readership then many print magazines. It's very disappointing to have editors purporting to be neutral saying "LeRoy is not merely a pseudonym, but an entire persona with a history and biography all his own." Where's the evidence? It would seem to me that since the charade is over, we should not be perpetuating the myth of this individual's existence. Further, since sock puppetry is afoot - with GrilledCheese even claiming to be the assistant of JT LeRoy at one point - I certainly think it's noteworthy to mention the role wikipedia played - and continues to - in deceiving people. Unless this is to become the norm, and wikipedia wishes for massive amounts of sock puppet self-aggrandizing promotional articles, I suggest that the article be given a more skeptical tone. Why, for instance, does the article not mention the other two contributing authors to the fiasco, instead focusing on Laura Albert? In addition, since this article is not about a Living Person, there is no need to have the published works et al. ahead of the controversy - the controversy surrounding LeRoy's identity is the reason that most readers will be looking at the article to begin with. The article needs a complete overhaul. "If the Wikipedia angle of the story is important, it will have been covered in the press." - I'm afraid this is simply untrue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.56.218.173 (talk • contribs)

The relevant policies are WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:ASR, and WP:V. If you feel the article is unbalanced (and I am inclined to agree), please feel free to revise it, keeping the policies in mind. I would not be surprised if some of the IP edits made in recent months are by Laura Albert, since they frequently put a very POV spin on things. I'm happy to work with you on making this more balanced, but we can't use Wikipedia as a reference. If someone else does, we are good to go. Jokestress 23:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

This what I was mentioning elsewhere in other posts. It is clear that there is sock puppetry going on. I found this odd as well and the above makes a valid point, "In addition, since this article is not about a Living Person, there is no need to have the published works et al. ahead of the controversy - the controversy surrounding LeRoy's identity is the reason that most readers will be looking at the article to begin with." Is Wikipedia's role really suppose to be a launching ground/promotional vehicle for someone who was convicted of fraud for her actions. Msturm 8 (talk) 06:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

update the sarah movie info

i checked antidote films website, and they no longer have anything related to the Sarah movie. I think they stopped producing it, i'm not sure. and yes, i know that the Sarah movie info is about a sentence long, but people on IMDB (me) wanted to know about it.

so, uh, now that it's relatively died down

can we finally fix this thing? the opening sentence should be 100x clearer in that this was a writers character, that writer being laura albert. we certainly can't do any OR on whether this was intentionally hurtful, a self-serving scheme, a new form of fiction or blah blah blah..., but the facts need to be made far more clear.

From Wikipedia talk:JT LeRoy (deleted)

I am very concerned that this article lacks objectivity. Specifically, it exaggerates positive information and denigrates those who have criticized Laura Albert and her fictional creation JT Leroy.

In addition, this article takes on face value the information in the Paris Review article titled "Being JT Leroy," when there is no outside confirmation, besides that of Laura Albert, that the assertions Albert makes in the article are truthful.

I recommend that this article be reviewed and that unsupported assertions and value judgments be carefully scrutinized, labeled as such, or deleted.

Kjm914a 21:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)User:Kjm914a

I would like to change the use of 'hoax'

in the opening sentence. While there is a strong argument to be made for the appearances and such being a hoax, She published as LeRoy for a decade before the appearances and other issues that led to the hoax accusations and the recent fraud case. As such, the name is properly a pen name, that was subsequently used in the 'hoax' (note that very few sites being used as references refer to it as a 'hoax', which is a loaded word with POV issues. They discuss it as possible fraud, or in light of the fraud charge in the civil suit, but hoax is not the term used for it).

In the meantime, it is properly a pen name, with a 'hoax' attached to it, not a hoax in and of itself. --Thespian 03:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

As I stated a few paragraphs up, the writing business is about more than just writing. This was not just an example of someone using an assumed name- it was an example of someone purposefully lying to people in order to receive money from them. In the modern day, authors who work under a pseudonym are :out" to their publishers and other creditors- this was not simply a "pen name," it was fraud. A "hoax," if you will. ChrisStansfield 02:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Not really; this has been done by dozens of authors in the past; go read up on James Tiptree, Jr. The only difference here is that, in this high pressure, media oriented time, Albert was caught. Tiptree was never out to anyone until the end of her life, after about 40 years of publication, and intentionally 'lied' about identity, location, experiences, etc. The problem is that Albert allowed it to go too far, and that Antidote has proven that the contents of the book aren't nearly as important as the 'persona' of the author (which should be irrelevant) for film-makers. --Thespian 15:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

You cannot call it a "pen name" when the entire article is full of statements like "LeRoy, citing extreme shyness, refused to appear in public without being disguised in a wig, hat, and sunglasses." The article is written on the assumption that LeRoy is an independant persona and that's how it needs to be identified from the start, or the article simply becomes impossible to understand. You can either revise the article to reflect your 'pen name' thesis, or you can revise the first sentence to reflect what is actually there in the article. Bickering over semantics does not help people like me who just want to know what the "JT Leroy" incident was all about. 75.56.142.106 17:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I can indeed call it a pen name; did you click through to read more about pen names? It's not a 'thesis'; the name was used for several years as such before the persona was engendered around the time of the book. It is proper to actually refer to how the name was used; this page, while partly about the incident, is also about the author, and whether or not it simplifies it for you is irrelevant to what actually transpired. The name started as a mere pen name that grew into a persona and grew out of control, and your edits simplify a complex story, they don't clarify it. --Thespian 21:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

JT Leroy was not just a pen name; it was a entire fraudulent identity, i.e., a hoax.

174.91.158.113 (talk) 04:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

LOL, JT was just a "pen name"? Is Laura editing this page? It may have started out as one, but it became a full blown hoax. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.93.24.28 (talk) 06:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

References

Anyone have any idea why the page has two reference sections? Shouldn't they just be merged? Sassf (talk) 13:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Claim of "original research"

While i was in the process of editing the page, an OR tage was added and the following message was left on my talk page. This hapened just as i was correcting an error and adding sources to this article. I have carried the discussion over here, where it belongs. My response is interlineated:

This [what i added about the claims of HIV-positive status of JT LeRoy being changed over the years] may be true but don't add original research to articles. You need to provide reliable sources.

I have added reliable sources: The New York Times and the Village Voice interview with Savannah Knoop, as well as my own personal recollections -- i being a published author myself, as it so happens, and this being in the way of my own memoir, so to speak. cat ywonwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 04:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, your comment above [at my secondary user talk page the one i use when i am not logged in, where i say i don;t wish to use user talk pages] is somewhat misunderstanding the purpose of user discussion pages.

I have been here many years. I do not wish to talk to folks except in regard to articles. Therefore my talk pages (two of them, one under my user name catherineyronwode and the other my non-logged-in IP number "64" -- contain primarily words by OTHER people. I am here to write. This is not a social venue for me. Anything you wish to address to me should be addressed in the relevant talk pages of the articles on which i work. cat yronwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 04:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The talk pages of articles are designed to discuss the articles. User talk pages are to help users improve their coheence to wikipedia policy and collaborate to improve articles by improving our own ways of editing. If other editors can't expect you to communicate, how can you improve your editing, as all of us need to do unless we are Jimbo?:)

Improving my editing skills through volunteering at Wikipedia is not of prime importance to me. I have been a professional editor for more than 40 years and am fairly confident that i am competent.

If your own personal ways of editing were discussed on article talk pages, it would usually be off-topic in a way, this is the better venue for it as it's about your editing in general, (not saying your points aren't valid, but concerns about you are best put in one place for ease of reference and to make it easier for you to notice one arriving. We are all supposed to mainly be focussed on writing and editing- WP:AGF about your fellow editors, it is also not in a collegial spirit and somewhat lacking in civility in a way IMHO, despite the apologies given for being dismissive of comments written here. The purpose of talk pages is to discuss our personal editing and how we can improve it. Or do you have papal infallibility, unlike all other humans except perhaps one?:) Sticky Parkin 04:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Assuming good faith and being civil are easy and simple. If you think i have violated those rules, please explain why. I simply corrected errors of fact and of text coding. If you have legitimate objections to my editing on the JT LeRoy page, please discuss them here were other editors can see them, not on my user pages, where they will only devolve into personal, time-wasting social interactions. Thank you. cat yronwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 04:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Having linked everything up, and being both a notable Wikipedian and a published author on the subject of folk magic, i think it is not "original research" to quote my own online book about folk magical amulets in support of the claim that Laura Albert did say that "JT LeRoy" was HIV positive during the late 1990s, when she contacted me. The New York Times and Village Voice articles back this up, as well, so my ref is only one of three, but i thought it interesting enough to include. If others think otherwise, i will not be offended. I have, in any case, removed the OR claim, as i do not think it valid in this case. cat yronwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 05:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

If the content is sourced to both The New York Times and Village Voice articles it should be fine. -- Banjeboi 23:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight

The article has too much detail on the unfolding of the discovery of the hoax - every interview and article does not have to be repeated.--Parkwells (talk) 01:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

i disagree. an important part of the leroy phenomenon has been being unmasked as a fraud. to understand how the whole thing unfolded a complete 'timeline' is nice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.95.218.241 (talk) 17:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Savannah Knoop - worthy of her own page?

I would like to suggest that Savannah Knoop have her own page, and not redirect to this page. She has had a career in her own right, of which this was one episode. Totorotroll (talk) 21:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Confusing "supporters" section

Some parts of the "supporters" section is very confusing, since it treats JT LeRoy as a real person. LeRoy "got in touch with" and "struck up a telephone friendship" with Dennis Cooper and "became friends" with Shirley Manson. Since LeRoy does not exist as a person, who was it these people became friends with? I think it should be more like "Albert, acting as LeRoy, struck up a telephone friendship with..." or something like that. /Marxmax (talk) 20:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.nowpublic.com/node/24880

  Triggered by \bnowpublic\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 17:03, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Contributions removed

My comments and contributions are being taken down despite the fact that they are being cited. There is a mention of Jeff Feurereig's documentary in the opening paragraphs. I tried to include "The Cult of JT LeRoy" there as well with a source cite from KQED. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msturm 8 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Msturm 8's so-called "comments and contributions" are simply attempts to shamelessly promote their own film and to defame the entry subject. Under multiple identities -- "Itzat94118," "Earthyperson," "Truthlovepeace," "174.119.2.166," etc -- the same personal agenda, in defiance of Wikipedia standards, keeps recurring. It has to stop.NVG13DAO (talk) 15:41, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

You are attempting to remove material cited to reliable sources and to insert uncited material. This is not acceptable. If you have evidence of sockpuppetry, WP:SPI is the place for the evidence. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:49, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

The evidence of sockpuppetry is right there in the repeated additions made, reinserting the same promotional texts under various editors' names throughout January. Now the same agenda reoccurs, as "Msturm 8" tries to add vanity posts for a film by Marjorie Sturm -- which is already cited in the text. If Wikipedia editors consider unnecessary the mention of the Jeff Feuerzeig film at the top of the article -- in an overview of post-reveal pop-cultural interest in JT LeRoy -- then it can be dropped, the film is mentioned elsewhere along with other documentaries on the subject. But no citation is needed to point out that a film that is right now in US and European theatrical release is being released right now. What is needed is to make sure that this page and all other Wikipedia entries remain objective and informative.NVG13DAO (talk) 20:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I have been reviewing this Talk Page and it seems that there is already been discussion around sock puppetry, and JT's secretary even chiming. I have found my cited contributions being eliminated. As well, I see discussion that others have found this page very one-sided and dominated by a certain angle that makes light of the fraud that took place. I am trying to revise it. There will be no way at all to go about this with Laura Albert or her aliases and get some form of balance. So it will have to be watched by other editors. Particularly looking and noting citations. I will do my best to not revert but just add contributions. Msturm 8 (talk) 18:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msturm 8 (talk • contribs) 08:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 27 September 2016

But many of JT's early literacy supporters did not have such a light attitude regarding the fraud. "But some who were sucked in to LeRoy's 2 a.m. phone calls and pleas for emotional and artistic support have expressed outrage since the hoax was revealed. "It's not cute. It's not irrelevant. It's a cruel con, straight up, and the whole writers' community suffered for it," wrote Susie Bright, the San Francisco author and feminist "sex-positive" crusader, on her blog. "I'm sure there are examples of hoaxes that don't leave such a trail of used people."

Msturm 8 (talk) 05:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC) Msturm 8 (talk) 05:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I was trying to edit the above in the JT LeRoy section of "Literary Supporters." As of now, that sections appears as if it is all fun and games. Msturm 8 (talk) 05:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

References

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. I will do that. I got confused because the page was closed to editing so I thought that was how it was being done. Msturm 8 (talk) 06:37, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 26 September 2016

Under Controversy it was re-edited and now states, "After many years of relative silence, Asia Argento criticized "JT"/Savannah Knoop . . ." It should read as "After many years of relative silence, Asia Argento criticized JT"/Laura Albert and Savannah Knoop . . ."

It seems (again) Laura Albert is dodging responsibility. The cited article indicates the manipulation wasn't just by "JT"/Savannah and was also by Laura Albert. The following paragraph states, "Events keep replaying in Argento’s mind: the long, intimate telephone conversations with JT, which were actually with Albert (she would often switch between “JT” and “Speedie” mid-conversation). JT explaining that he had a multiple personality disorder, and asking Argento to call him “Savannah” when they were together. “Imagine you are married and you come home one day and your husband is putting a mask on and underneath he’s a reptile, he’s a fuckin’ snake. It’s like a cheap TV movie from the 80s.”

Msturm 8 (talk) 05:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. No changes will be made to the article unless they are supported by other editors — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Like I noted above, I thought because the page was closed to editing changes that 'edit protected' was the process to move forward. Thanks for clearing up. Msturm 8 (talk) 06:38, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

JT LeRoy/Laura Albert pages

This post on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents is being shared with you: I protest most strenuously the interference with my October 15 edit of the JT LeRoy page. I replaced properly cited, pertinent information, and for Aloha27 to pull it down claiming "unreliably cited information" is completely unfair -- and suggests a different agenda is at work here, one that seeks to advance the argument of the original vandalism that I undid. Aloha27 needs to explain in what way the original text had "unreliably cited information", or else undo what they did. Now a brand-new editor -- 2601:646:4000:5076:d464:a479:a51b:ddc6 -- makes their first edit on the page for Laura Albert (the actual author behind the JT LeRoy books), adding something shamelessly judgmental and biased: After a quote of Argento praising Albert in 2013, this editor added the following commentary: "However in July of 2016, Asia Argento came further forward and break her silence on her real thoughts about the scandal." Ignoring the grammatical failings, who on earth is this person to say what Argento's or anyone else's "real thoughts" are? It was quite right that a vandalism warning accompanied that edit. It was totally unacceptable editing and I have repaired it; in the spirit of balance, however, I have not removed the 2016 quote.

The Wikipedia editors have to ask themselves a very simple question about the JT LeRoy and Laura Albert pages: Do they want an unbiased article with cited and accurate information, which leaves readers free to make up their own minds -- like we do for everyone else, from Britney Spears to Joseph Stalin -- or do they want a page that continuously seeks to judge and denounce its subject? A page rewritten to legitimize the hate-filled screed "The Cult of JT LeRoy" by Marjorie Sturm. It's no accident that "Msturm 8" and her previous sock puppets -- Itzat94118," "Earthyperson," "Truthlovepeace," "174.119.2.166" -- keep putting up the same judgmental, slanted language that currently distorts the JT LeRoy page.

I urge all the editors I have cited to stop moralizing and slanting information, stop distorting the record. The JT LeRoy and Laura Albert pages have to be as legitimate as all the other Wikipedia pages. I am adding this post to the Talk pages for JT LeRoy, Laura Albert, and all the editors involved in or cited in this thread.NVG13DAO (talk) 16:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

As I understand it, the citation of the information you're trying to add is written by Laura herself and is therefore not acceptable as an independent third-party source. I may be wrong, but not all the time. I'd be very hesitant about throwing sockpuppet accusations around lest you find yourself WP:BOOMERANGed. Regards,   Aloha27  talk  17:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

The whole point is to show how the author understood the creation of their avatar. This is valuable information for the topic, and to remove it is absurd.NVG13DAO (talk) 20:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Please delete accusatory paragraph

INTRO, PARAGRAPH 4 The question of whether a traumatic childhood, abuse and sexual assault, justifies the "JT LeRoy" scandal is controversial. “I think the tension of this story has to do with the ethics around what Laura Albert and company did to get ahead,” writes Marjorie Sturm, maker of 'The Cult Of JT LeRoy.' “First off, the JT LeRoy enterprise was not just Laura Albert. It involved her mother, her sister, her sister-in-spirit [Savannah Knoop], and her partner/mate of many years [Geoff Knoop]. Were they all mentally ill? Or were they profiting and living off it? Was JT LeRoy just ‘bubbling out of her consciousness’ when she formed a corporation to hide JT’s money? When she actively promoted JT and drew in celebrities? Even if we give Laura Albert the benefit of the doubt and say JT was a coping mechanism, does that give her the right to abuse, lie, and exploit others?”[9]

This paragraph has to be completely deleted, all of it. explanation: Wikipedia is not an ethical-discussion panel -- and even if it was, this paragraph does not discuss ethics but make accusations. If the ethics are controversial, this paragraph does not explore multiple sides of the controversy; it just legitimizes Marjorie Sturm's campaign of hatred against Laura Albert.

PacificOcean (talk) 03:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

 Not done. Looking at this talk page, these edits would be contentious. Please get a consensus to make these changes first. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:29, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Please help clarify a citation

PUBLISHED WORKS, SUBSECTION "FILM", PARAGRAPH 1 currently reads: LeRoy was listed as the associate producer of Gus Van Sant's 2003 film Elephant.

should read: Filmmaker Gus Van Sant commissioned JT LeRoy to write a screenplay about a school shooting, a text that became the basis for Van Sant's 2003 film Elephant. LeRoy received a credit on the film as Associate Producer.

here's the citation: Gus Van Sant bought the film rights to Sarah and commissioned J.T. to write a screenplay about a school shooting that provided the seed for the 2003 film Elephant (for which J.T. received an associate-producer credit). http://www.vanityfair.com/style/2006/04/jtleroy200604

explanation for fix: Added sourced information about JT LeRoy's role in the making of Elephant.

PacificOcean (talk) 03:08, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Done. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 22:31, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Please delete accusatory section that is not substantiated

SUPPORTERS, SUBSECTION LITERARY SUPPORTERS, PARAGRAPH 5 But many of JT's early literary supporters did not have such a light attitude regarding the fraud such as Susie Bright. "But some who were sucked in to LeRoy's 2 a.m. phone calls and pleas for emotional and artistic support have expressed outrage since the hoax was revealed. "It's not cute. It's not irrelevant. It's a cruel con, straight up, and the whole writers' community suffered for it," wrote Susie Bright, the San Francisco author and feminist "sex-positive" crusader, on her blog. "I'm sure there are examples of hoaxes that don't leave such a trail of used people." As well, Another San Francisco author and activist, Michelle Tea ("Rent Girl"), a former sex worker, has said: "Laura Albert is a traitor to writing itself, specifically to memoir. ... It's such a slap to the artists who really are toiling away to create meaning from the hardships of their live," Tea said. "It turns the redemptive quality of a lot of writing into a total farce."[19]

This paragraph should be deleted entirely. What authority do these people have to make these accusations? Which in fact are extremely personal and vicious, not at all a matter of literary commentary -- they make legalistic judgments and moralistic attacks ("cruel," "traitor") that are legally unsubstantiated, which is libel. This paragraph has no source for Bright at all and no citations of Bright or Tea ever having been literary supporters, which is the topic of this section.

PacificOcean (talk) 03:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I would like to add, in the spirit of transparency and what can be deduced anyways from the writing above, I am in conversation with User:NVG13DAO, who has studied the topic for many years and in doing so has become very attached to perfecting the Wiki pages. I have volunteered to assist this person with posting, simply because I am younger (less intimidated by complicated computer stuff) and also because I am not as affected by the outcome of the postings/edits thereof. NVG3DAO has pointed out to me that edits they've created have been overturned and the subject seems to be controversial, which is fine but not appropriate on Wikipedia unless it's scholarly. So, I do agree with the postings and explanations of NVG3DAO. As I learn more about Wikipedia in Live Chat support, it seems that in assisting NVG3DAO I am not able to provide lasting, protected posts. I appreciate this forum, and in advance would like to thank any volunteers for their consideration of the requested edits.

PacificOcean (talk) 07:39, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Done. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 22:25, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Both Bright and Tea were public supporters of JT LeRoy's work. They are both well know writers who have discussed their relationship with "JT LeRoy" publicly. They have discussed their early support for Jt at bookstore readings and their feelings of betrayal and sense of being conned once they found out the identity. I think it is highly likely that User:NVG13DAO is sock puppet of Laura Albert/JT Leroy here.2601:646:4000:5076:3CBD:EA0D:E7D:ED0F (talk) 07:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me that User:NVG13DAO is in fact Laura Albert/JT LeRoy (getting someone to 'help' her or work for free) just like she has always done with Pacific Ocean on board. I think the site managers should be very careful and aware. Just a suggestion.Msturm 8 (talk) 06:55, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

References

Discuss with User: 76.21.32.54

Hello, I would like to discuss the most recent edit made by this user. I have made a note on their Talk page. I believe that their most recent edit regarding Asia Argento is accusatory without appropriate significance for the article, and gets into a he-said-she-said tabloid-like description that is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Thank you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=JT_LeRoy&type=revision&diff=750986619&oldid=750558515

PacificOcean (talk) 21:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

PacificOcean Hello again, I see the article's history shows no recent changes including from any IPs so I would like to at least think that as a good sign. I'll still be watching and see if anything happens. SwisterTwister talk 17:10, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I would like to call a quick attention to editors of this site that Pacific Ocean has made a lot of edits. She pointed out in all 'transparency' that she is working with NVG3DAO who I believe is JT LeRoy/Laura Albert, who as the page points out is a masterful manipulator and was convicted of fraud for conning people on a massive scale. Please make note of all of the edits and whether they are appropriate. There have been a lot of major revisions. For starters Director Asia Argento's recent evaluation of the hoax is relevant as she worked closely with Laura Albert and Savannah Knoop, adapting the screenplay of a book. For a long time this page has not represented the scandal/fraud and it was obviously being controlled by NVG3DAO or other sock puppets. The history here refers to that. I think we need to watch Pacific Ocean's edit. Thank you so much for your time. Msturm 8 (talk) 07:56, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

The whole page seems to be completely revised and all of the controversial subject matter has been eliminated. It had been edited quite well recently by somebody. Msturm 8 (talk) 08:01, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I just read the definition of Wikipedia's terms of vandalism, and it seems what has just happened here falls under that. I'm not sure how to go about flagging it. Or reverting it. Msturm 8 (talk) 08:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Msturm 8, Happy to discuss. No I have no agenda but to make the pages more objective. I don't think NVG3DAO is Laura Albert/JT Leroy, but someone who has studied the subject in length (and seems to have a different personal opinion than you). I saw that the debate was becoming overcomplicated, and as you'll see on the Talk page, I made many edit requests and went on Live Chat before making the changes.

Yes I met Laura Albert in person in 2007 and have known her, which unfortunately has made me noted as having a conflict of interest; I don't believe having met someone means an automatic conflict of interest (have you met her?) but I could be wrong. Anyways, I did my best to clean up the pages. I agree with you that much controversial material was eliminated, and that was not because I disagree with you- I actually have a lot of respect for you and your work on Wiki- it's because it was in the wrong place and vague. Please see discussions on the Talk pages and please feel free to discuss with me before making any more personal accusations.

By the way, the part you copied and pasted with SwisterTwister.. SwisterTwister is a volunteer editor. I spoke with SwisterTwister (as an objective third party) who reviewed the pages and made edits per their expertise. When you or someone kept reverting them, it wasn't personal, it was simply because those edits had been made by a jury of sorts and shouldn't have been so quickly reverted. Thanks! PacificOcean (talk) 04:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Also! And perhaps someone more knowledgable with Wikipedia procedures can guide us.. From what I've seen, the best way to propose an edit is to make an edit request. If you're not sure how to do it then there are probably instructions somewhere on Wikipedia.. then we can discuss it! Or maybe there's another more efficient way to discuss proposed changes. I hope we can find an efficient way as I've already spent more time working on this subject than I wanted to and I'm sure you have to! PacificOcean (talk) 04:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Are you implying that you don't know who NVG3DAO is but they asked you to edit the page? Am I understanding correctly? And you met Laura Albert previously? Yes, I have met Laura Albert. I am in fact the maker of documentary "The Cult of JT LeRoy." So I, too have been following the story a long time. NVG3DAO has implied it is 'hate-filled' and she is the first to describe the film that way in its' many mentions in the press or reviews. It is, and I stand by this, TRUTH-filled, and for people who get caught in courts for fraud because they have lied and stolen and hurt others, the turnaround is that it is 'hate-filled.' I am not trying to accuse you but I find it disingenuous for you to claim that you aren't aware that the page reads as a homage to a 'pseudonym' (something the court and jury in Manhattan proved it not to be) as opposed to a fraud. This page has had continual problem for years. I have noted it and never put it on my 'to-do' list until fairly recently. People are coming to this page and have been getting misinformation for years. It seems like it has been an edit war after after edit war because 'somebody' is very concerned about their public image (as a fraud) and has been 'following this topic a long time' (but according to Pacific Ocean it's not Laura Albert and she doesn't know who it is?). I really don't care about my documentary being promoted. I care that this site reflects an adequate reflection of the truth on this topic. And that does exist, and for STARTERS I will lay out that "JT LeRoy" is NOT just a pseudonym so all of those headings and references are misleading. Thank you for your time. Msturm 8 (talk) 04:27, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

To clarify further, I am not 'taking things personally." This isn't matter of of someone coming to a different 'personal opinion." There are actual FACTS that exist and should be included on this page. That is the point. Facts are facts. They exist and are important. They should be included. The fact that people felt deeply victimized by "JT LeRoy"/Laura Albert's action is a fact that is citable by every major newspaper that exist and is what I have attempted to include at times and now has just vanished. All of it has been removed. This page needs serious revising. I am willing to put the time in to help whomever. I'm in no rush because the truth matters. Msturm 8 (talk) 05:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Msturm 8, at the very least you are providing a one-sided description of events. Assuming this was also you, at times your contributions veered into the outright untrue and arguably libelous (no, Albert was not "convicted of fraud", and her activity was not found to be criminal). Since you have a conflict of interest when writing about the subject of your documentary, I strongly suggest you follow PacificOcean's example, do not edit the article directly but rather propose changes on the article's talk page (ie here). Let uninvolved editors decide whether the changes you propose improve the article. You can add the code {{requested edit}} (including the curly brackets) to raise awareness of your proposals. Huon (talk) 18:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

There is clearly one side being presented if there is no mention of how people were victimized by the fraud. The other side (Laura Albert's) is already very well documented here. Pacific Ocean, a simple google search should show that a trial of over 10 days proved Laura Albert's use of "JT LeRoy" was not a pseudonym and was considered a fraud. So, you are simply wrong about that. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/23/nyregion/23writer.html The trial which I attended showed, for starters, pseudonyms sign certain paperwork and make full disclosures to those that they are working with that they are who they are, and not in fact homeless, 18 or 20 (when a middle-aged adult), suffering from an illness like HIV positive. Pseudonyms don't talk on the phone in a different voice or enlist there sister-in-law to play a character in public furthering the reality that the "Pseudonym" is an actual human being and not a fictional character. Pseudonyms don't ask for money, time, and resources from people. Those actions constitute fraud- a misrepresentation that involved people's money and credibility. These actions are all facts. These aren't "sides of a story". The only 'side of the story' that exists is whether one chooses to have sympathy for someone who treated lots of people badly because they claimed that they had been treated badly in their childhood. Damaged people can be damaging to others. Whether or not you were hurt "personally' by the action may shape your point of view. In other words, every criminal or con-artist might have had a bad childhood and it is perfectly fine to feel sympathy for them, if you choose. That is where 'personal opinion' comes in to the story. But otherwise FACTS remain about this story. That is what I want this page to distinguish and what I will be working on. I want the controversy and scandal to be represented and not look like promo page for JT LeRoy. There is tons of what I consider absolutely irrelevant information or minutia on this page, while simultaneously not addressing the issues around "JT LeRoy" that people are seeking out Wikipedia to explain. Msturm 8 (talk) 20:45, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I hear that you think Laura Albert is a fraud all-round, but the pseudonym is real- she wrote a book published as fiction under a pen name. I don't think there is any argument about that. You can't be sued and called a fraud for using a pseudonym to publish a book. Whatever emotional arguments people have around that, is not necessarily appropriate for the Wiki page. Her lawsuit convicted her in a very specific instance that was not related to the pseudonym for the book- basically that she shouldn't have signed a contract under a pen name, according to the lawsuit. Fine.

Like Huon said that's civil, not criminal, and it's not right to post everyone's emotional feelings about the fact that she wrote the books on Wikipedia. I hear that you and others felt upset to know a woman in her 40s wrote the books, but that isn't relevant here; and doesn't warrant her to be charged as a fraud all-round. Then you point to the public spectacle created and the celebrities opinions- there are public spectacles happening all the time and that wasn't what she was sued for either. Sue her for whatever you feel betrayed about, but posting people's allegations on Wikipedia is only slander/libel/defamation, and celebrities say negative/positive things about each other all the time. There are quotes in top-notch publications with Asia Argento speaking positively after the fact, others where she speaks negatively. The ex-husband's opinion is also very controversial. To rail too much on the premise that some people had negative feelings about knowing about this spectacle is to give undue weight to one side.

So far the most concrete allegations I've heard from you are that Laura Albert stole computers. Do you have citations for the allegation? Is it relevant to the Wiki page? By the way, the Elena Ferrante article written by Laura Albert was actually cited to show your commentary in the Comments section, to show how it seems you've debated your POV in the past. Also, I could've sworn I posted DRN notice on Msturm 8's wikipedia page. That's so strange I don't know where my DRN post went...

Fact versus Truth, as you say. There's a difference in focusing on Fact versus Truth about public opinion about a person, versus Fact versus Truth about the concrete details about what a person did without judgment. What are changes you want to see to the current page with regards to that? PacificOcean (talk) 03:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Pacific Ocean, the fact that you are somehow not quite understanding is "Yes, Laura Albert wrote under a 'pseudonym'" but she presented that work as 'autobiographical fiction' to the public. So the context the public received the JT LeRoy work was in the context of a young child who was severely ill, prostituted out and abused by his mother, from West Virginia, a drug addict, and a series of victimizations that do NOT overlap in any way, shape, or form with Laura Albert's biography. As well, a child's writing is judged through a different lens than a grown and educated adult. Art isn't created in a vacuum. So yes, Laura Albert wrote the books and she actively marketed the books as 'real' with a character who paraded around. This manipulated a lot of people sympathies and people had a lot of empathy for an actual person. If you want to enjoy the books post-facto that is not a problem because people have an understanding of the scandal. The JT LeRoy books will always be in the context of a scandal and a literary deception that occurred. The problem is that this page should reflect that scandal and the truth of the situation. What occurred. How it occurred. People's reactions to it, however loaded that might be, because it was loaded. (btw- not sure where I mentioned that she stole computers? Makes me wonder who you are and where you are getting your information. But yes, one person did give a computer on a false pretenses.There were tons of gifts given.) As of the present moment, this page far from does that because of all the changes that you made and the fact that you chose to eliminate all of my contributions. Note, I never tried to eliminate all of the ones that I had a problem with, I just tried to even out an understanding of the situation.

Clearly, this page has had problems for many years because Laura Albert, or those who are working for or with her, are trying to protect her image and slant an already confusing and complicated story. There is a lot of media from large publications like the New York Times, The Guardian, San Francisco Chronice, Variety, Vanity Fair who validate my point of view. Msturm 8 (talk) 04:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Even though the trial was a civil case, it is easily arguable that Laura Albert's actions were DEFINITIVELY criminal. Just stealing a computer under a false pretense, alone, constitutes a crime. However, whether something is 'criminal' or not is not the only issue at hand. There is a controversy around the ethics and morals that went down to get ahead whether it was legal or not. Asia Argento's quote speaks to that. She worked with them for longer and closer than anybody. She stated, “A way I thought I could get rid of the resentment was to just not talk about it. It is something I cannot forgive. Believe me it’s hard to carry this burden. I would be very grateful if one day this stops in me. I couldn’t do movies as a director for 10 years. Because I’ve been fooled. I’m a fool! How could I not see it? It made me feel worthless to be honest. I didn’t have a lot of self esteem after that. It took me a long time to rebuild it. I was lost. So forgiveness … it’s a beautiful thing, of saints and martyrs, but I can’t let it go. I was fucking manipulated, it’s time for me to say that.”

This speaks to the very real emotional fallout of "JT LeRoy." Just because something isn't against the law (and in this case it was but Asia didn't press charges) doesn't make it wrong. Again, maybe this page should close down on this topic altogether? Does that ever happen? I think that is preferable than a source of misinformation and something that misrepresents what occurred, and is slanted to the POV that it was a 'pseudonym' like all other pseudonyms. If it was just a pseudonym, there would be no controversy. And there is one. Why is that? No one has a problem with a pseudonym, but there is much ire directed towards Laura Albert. Pacific Ocean, perhaps you can reflect if some of that ire is justified. Msturm 8 (talk) 05:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Lawsuit

I have removed parts of the lawsuit section that weren't particularly relevant to LeRoy and were duplicating content in the article on Albert. From a LeRoy point of view, the important issue there is that the use of the pseudonym to sign contracts was considered fraud by the jury. The damages, the settlement, and whether Albert maintains her copyrights are of no relevance to LeRoy. Huon (talk) 19:09, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Huon. I agree. Msturm 8 (talk) 20:47, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you both. I agree as well. PacificOcean (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Huon, quite frankly the big problem that stands is that in the very first paragraph the reader should get an understanding that Laura Albert posed as a little boy for over ten years on the phone and in emails. The term that is popularly used nowadays is 'catfished' as it isn't the only occurrence of a person working this way. Laura Albert pretended be an on the street homeless sick child and she was aided by her partner (husband) Geoffrey Knoop, his sister Savannah Knoop, her mother Caroline Albert (CEO of their corporation), and her sister, The reasonings and justification for her behavior can be included. I have never omitted anyone else's writing. What needs to be included is why JT LeRoy was considered fraudulent and why there was a public reaction. The first paragraph mentions that the person acting in public was Savannah Knoop but the rest is left unclear and in the dust. You have to scroll all the way down to get a brief mention during 'exposure' and the whole topic jettisons into talks about supporters, celebrity supporters, pseudonyms. Fraud is only briefly mentioned on the page, in the line that you included. Historically, JT LeRoy" is one of the largest scale literary frauds ever. This page does not read as such. To repeat, JT LeRoy was proven in a court of law to be a fraud. Laura Albert can try to prove to the public in interviews or videos why "JT LeRoy" was a pseudonym but it was proven to be not that. All of those headings need to be changed back to how they were up to fairly recently. Thanks. Msturm 8 (talk) 05:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Please refer to my comments above. She was convicted of fraud for a film option contract. Not for writing the books, using the name JT, talking on the phone with different voices, or introducing Savannah Knoop as JT/author. People may have negative opinions of the latter, but that belongs in a lawsuit and not on Wikipedia, especially not in a way that gives undue weight to opinions or moral argument. PacificOcean (talk) 06:45, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

"Laura Albert About Her Pseudonym[edit source] Over the next decade, without the pseudonym, Laura Albert gradually became more publicly expressive. Writing for The New York Times in 2016, Albert noted, "I meet a lot of young people and they're shocked that it was an issue to even have an avatar. Because they've grown up where you have multiple fully formed avatars."[32]"

Pacific Ocean, the lawsuit covered all of the things that you mentioned. Yes, the fraud lawsuit was all about her having someone play a character in public pretending to be a real person. It contributed to the reality of the fraud! Yes, Laura Albert talking on the phone in a different voice contributed to the fraud and was part of the lawsuit! With all due respect, you don't know what you are talking about. You are swallowing the lies that Laura continues to present (if I'm not in fact in dialogue with her now). The above line is a good example for everyone following along of the disingenuousness and the way this Wikipedia is presenting. That having 'an avatar" is no big deal. It is a big deal. It is a fraud and was proven so as far as a legal contract goes. So she got caught legally for starters, but that doesn't make the emotional abuse that she conducted ethical as well (even if it is legal to play with people's hearts and souls). That is what this case proved, amongst other things. And which part about deception to profit do you not understand? Her entire family was living off of a deception. She was NOT homeless. Or sick and dying--that is part of why the film option contract was null and void. The contract was based on a large number of biographical LIES. Msturm 8 (talk) 17:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

"Not for writing the books, using the name JT, talking on the phone with different voices, or introducing Savannah Knoop as JT/author." Just to reiterate, this is all simply wrong. The contract was also based on the 'likeness' being able to be marketed for the movie contract which would then include a picture of Savannah Knoop-- who was playing the public role. Every part of your statement is factually incorrect. Even if we take out all of the emotional abuse that Asia Argento, who worked intimately with the fraudsters out of the equation and has spoken publicly, you are wrong on all aspects here. Pacific Ocean, facts are facts. Lies are lies. This Wikipedia has a choice to represent this story with credibility to the public. It is the first thing that comes up in a Google search. Msturm 8 (talk) 18:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Huon Are you able to weigh in? Wondering what your thoughts are. PacificOcean (talk) 19:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

"I agree". Somehow I didn't expect agreement would look like this. Msturm 8, would you please explain why you reverted edits that you said you agree with? Fun fact: You were so eager to revert that you also reverted your own correction of a typo. This is no way to discuss the improvement of the article (or to improve the article, for that matter).

I might agree that the lead may need to be expanded (and to me "agree" doesn't mean "revert") to cover that JT LeRoy served as more than just a literary device but an alter ego under whose guise Albert interacted with other people. That, however, is totally unrelated to Msturm 8's most recent revert, and I find it difficult to see that it serves any other purpose but to roll the article back to a version Msturm 8 likes, no matter whether she "agrees" that the deviations from her favourite version actually improve it.

Msturm 8, if you want to propose specific changes to the article, you're welcome to do so. Then we can discuss your proposal and cooperate to write a better article. Of course you're also welcome to point out specific problems with my edits, if you see any. If your words and actions don't, heh, agree, that's not possible. Huon (talk) 02:41, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Huon, the "I agree" was only referring to your note: "The damages, the settlement, and whether Albert maintains her copyrights are of no relevance to LeRoy." I wasn't speaking to all of the edits that were made of my contributions. I am just learning to navigate Wikipedia and often find myself making mistakes, so bear with me on that. I AM trying to revert this page so that it reflects an understanding of the topic. I think we might need to bring in some other editors at this point considering you and Pacific Ocean have managed to turn the page around to something that needs A LOT of re-doing. The history of this page reflects the same controversy over and over. Aloha has mentioned it as well. As have many others. Msturm 8 (talk) 04:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Huon, when I said Laura Albert was 'convicted of a fraud,' I am basing it on this from the New York Times: "JT LeRoy, the authorial “other” whom the writer Laura Albert employed as her alter ego and self-protective proxy in the world, was found yesterday by a jury in Manhattan to be not just a fictional creation, but a fraud." Maybe my writing is awkward, but I am correct. Msturm 8 (talk) 05:10, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Since you agree that the damages, the settlement etc. don't belong, I'll again remove that content. If there's anything else in that edit you disagree with, please point out what exactly you disagree with, and why. Please also note that blanket-reverting all other editors' contributions often is not a good idea; if some of those contributions were helpful, there's no reason to revert those, too. (And again, as someone with a conflict of interest I'd strongly advise you not to edit the content of the page itself at all.)

On the other issue, see conviction (law): "In law, a conviction is the verdict that results when a court of law finds a defendant guilty of a crime." That hasn't happened. It was a civil suit, not a criminal case. Claiming someone is a criminal when there's no conviction is arguably libel. I'm also unhappy with much of your other recent edits, but I'll address those in greater detail at another time. Huon (talk) 01:31, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Laura Albert was "liable for fraud.' That's the precise and definitive term for it. So excuse the word choice of 'convicted'. She was originally asked to pay damages of $350,000. Msturm 8 (talk) 05:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit request: removal of line that veers into libelous

Can this line be removed from the article? User:Huon pointed it out above.

Many others have felt differently,"When Albert’s fraud was finally exposed (after she wrecked the credibility of several publications, book companies, a film studio—plus many gullible readers) the reaction was justifiably angry and strong."[42]

Many others = Vague The claim that she wrecked credibility of several publications... seems like a fairly serious allegation that doesn't seem backed up. "Reaction was justifiably angry and strong" = seems to be a moral judgment

Policy references: WP:GRAPEVINE WP:BLPREMOVE

PacificOcean (talk) 19:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

There are problems here, but libel isn't one of them. The content in question is a quote from Out Magazine. If it were libelous, Out Magazine's contributor Armond White would be the one to libel Albert, not us quoting White. The problems, from Wikipedia's point of view, are:

• That's obviously an opinion piece. Opinion pieces can (with great care) be used, but opinions must be attributed to the person holding them.
• It's too much of a quote with too little real content. We should summarize in our own words what the source reports; short quotes might be necessary when the author's exact words are important, but this is too much. There are issues of copyright.
• If we strip away the hyperbole, all this shows is that people were angry when they realized Albert had deceived them. I expect there are better sources out there that will allow us to make the same point without the obvious bias of White ("sluttish leather"? "fame whore"? "irresponsible enablers"?).

I'll try some cleanup later. Huon (talk) 02:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Huon, you explain things well. Enjoying learning from you. PacificOcean (talk) 06:41, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Huon just wanted to note that line is currently appearing in the article. PacificOcean (talk) 22:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Here is a recent article of a couple days ago. There is a popular understanding of the phenomenon that is occurring. Wikipedia can remain both neutral AND factual. https://lasvegasweekly.com/ae/2016/dec/14/pop-culture-hoax-films/ Msturm 8 (talk) 19:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit request declined due to no consensus - the edit request template should not be used during a content dispute. Regards, VB00 (talk) 14:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Edits during Dispute Resolution

Hello, we are involved in a pending DRN that was created on 12/11/2016. Recent edits seem relevant and disputable.

Among the edits Msturm 8 made on 12/13/2016:

• Msturm 8 removed a paragraph, Reason: It was inappropriate because it quoted Laura Albert... However that is inaccurate, Laura Albert was not quoted in that paragraph.
• Msturm 8 removed a significant amount of content, Reason: "pseudonym was a lie." This doesn't make sense; author published with a pseudonym.. also removes content that was up for 3 weeks in an edit request without objection. Definitely welcome changes to this section, but would appreciate the oversight of a more experienced editor.
• Msturm 8 added a line about Albert on phone calls. Starts out fine but then seems to conflict with WP:BLPStyle.

Huon,Dragonfly6-7, JustBerry, or User:KrakatoaKatie perhaps you can advise?

PacificOcean (talk) 07:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that a court of law in New York City determined that JT LeRoy was not 'an authorial other' (or a Pseudonym) but a fraud. There are certain definitions that constitute legally what is a Pseudonym, and if Laura Albert and those who support her, decide to ignore the law, and people over and over and over again hear that JT LeRoy IS a pseudonym, doesn't simply make it so. Of course, if people hear a lie over and over and over, people will start to believe it, we live in that era for sure.

The JT LeRoy page should not be page that gives voice to Laura Albert and her excuses for perpetuating an elaborate fraud without hearing quotes from the people who felt victimized by her actions. It's one or the other. We don't hear from her or anybody else (brevity) or the page reveals the complexity of the situation. But just to have a page that goes on and on about a Pseudonym, after a trial took place, is historically inaccurate. Just because someone continues to lie doesn't make what they say true. Again "pseudonyms' do not get on the phone pretending to be someone else in real time. To claim otherwise, is misleading. Msturm 8 (talk) 15:44, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

The Elena Ferrante is a from Laura Albert's point of view, or those who know no better than to take it at face value. I had posted the following quote from probably one of the most renowned literary magazines, The New Yorker, and it was edited out of "Comparisons to the Pseudonyms"regarding Elena Ferrante. Again, this is from The New Yorker. MOST of my quotes from credible sources have been eliminated.

" . . . that Ferrante’s anonymity is a publicity play of sorts; as her popularity and acclaim have grown, it has brought her special attention, and, as he points out, Edizione E/O has encouraged her over the past few years to give interviews, which she was initially not at all inclined to do. But it is not, as he seems to think, a trick, as the false identity of the writer JT LeRoy was a trick, a performance consciously created to fool readers and to drum up interest in LeRoy’s supposedly autobiographical books."  Msturm 8 (talk) 15:44, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Msturm 8, yes I was the one who took out the quote, because we are supposed to paraphrase when possible, and I decided to rephrase it so that the tone was less judgmental, per WP:BLPStyle. PacificOcean (talk) 21:30, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I know you are referring to all the public spectacle surrounding Laura Albert pretending JT Leroy was a real person, but those sections are meant to be strictly about the books themselves; and it is clear that a novel, published as fiction under the name of an authorial other, is legal and not fraud. To say that someone publishing a novel under a pseudonym and someone signing a contract under a fictitious name is indistinguishable is wrong; the latter may be illegal, but the former should not be cause to call them a fraud.PacificOcean (talk) 21:38, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

The books had a fake biography on them when they were published. JT LeRoy does not exist. It said that "he' was from West Virginia and born in 1980. They were created and marketed in a fraudulent way. You really can't argue with facts. As I mentioned, if you have sympathy for someone who created a fraud because of their backstory, that is your choice. Or one's choice. However, that doesn't negate the fact that a fraud took place. Understanding that Laura had a harsh life might give us an understanding of why she acted the way that she did, but it doesn't change the fact of what she did. The fact that people felt betrayed and angered and hurt is part of the fall-out of Albert's actions. Again, this is a fact and can't be debated (as much as you'd like to relentlessly). Msturm 8 (talk) 02:25, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

So to clarify, Pacific Ocean, I am talking about both the spectacle around Laura Albert which still doesn't exist on this page and has been deleted (by you?), as well as the books. The books are consistently ranked amongst other historical 'literary frauds.' That is where they are being filed away historically. If people enjoy them still, that is their choice (and help the fledgling publishing industry). However, the books will be always be seen through the lens of a scandal because, to reiterate, of Laura Albert's own actions. She gave hundreds of interviews and phone calls in the voice of a little boy who was impoverished, and beaten by his prostitute mother and was sick and on and on. (It is precisely like the Anthony Godby Johnson scenario with the exception that they didn't have someone impersonate the character in public.) Again, I am big believer in reality and facts. Msturm 8 (talk) 02:38, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

→Making up an author bio.. looks like you'll have to take on Virginia Woolf, Nabokov, JM Coetzee, and J.K. Rowling. PacificOcean (talk) 03:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not taking them on. I don't recall any of them milking people's sympathies with a biography-- asking for time, money, and resources. Nothing wrong with a pseudonym. Nothing controversial about a pseudonym. Msturm 8 (talk) 03:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Woolf, Nabokov, JM Coetzee, and J.K. Rowling all published books with fake author biographies on them when they were published.PacificOcean (talk) 23:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

This line of thinking that you want to walk down is spurious. (And in any case, Virginia Woolf did not get on the phone pretending to be Ms. Dalloway. Etc. Etc. ETc. To repeat-- Pseudonyms don't talk on the phone and milk sympathies. That's the scandal and controversy. The fact that the fake biography was marketed in real time with an actual parading person and phone calls eliciting sympathy and pretending to be dying from being HIV positive. You can not rip out this CONTEXT that took place for over ten years. You can keep trying but truth isn't on your side. The books are in that context.) Msturm 8 (talk) 04:25, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

One thing this page also has never touched on is that after Laura Albert spoke on the phone with people, she would enlist notable people to read "JT LeRoy's" work at large public events. The people she enlisted were often celebrities, musicians, and other well known writers. She would have them read "JT LeRoy's" work and before speak about "how they met" and their relationship. So she marketed the books under false pretenses, branding the books by association with Rufus Wainwright or Lou Reed and on and on. Again, they thought the writer was too shy and sickly to read his work publicly. Susie Bright and Michelle Tea were among the early writers that were enlisted to help "JT LeRoy." I included their reaction with a citation from the San Francisco Chronicle, but it too was taken down. All of this is a large common understanding about the history of "JT LeRoy" but this page does not touch on it or reflect on it. Again, pseudonyms don't call celebrities and dupe them into vouching for them in public spaces. This is also why there was a lot of public shame and embarrassment after the fact. Again, these are facts. They are not arguable or debatable. Msturm 8 (talk) 16:40, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Huon, why are you taking out the part of being a damaged boy from West Virginia? How else would you choose to write it that is factual? Was JT LeRoy not a damaged boy? Supposedly, prostituted by his mother and HIV positive and drug addicted and homeless and on and on? That is the voice that spoke on the phone. Msturm 8 (talk) 19:45, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

That was me that removed it. Sorry if it was factual, I simply saw "taking calls +[in the voice of a damaged boy from West Virginia]" and immediately assumed it was NPOV vandalism. – 🐈? (talk) ^{(ping me!)} 20:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Just included a citation from the New York Times. It had previously been pulled for no reason other than Pacific Ocean and Laura Albert don't want this page to represent the outrage that many people did in fact feel. Why is a rock star's Magic Kingdom appropriate and not the actual literary agent who worked with JT LeRoy appropriate? I resent that all of my work was pulled out because this page is being spun. Interestedly enough, Pacific Ocean, is claiming that I did that. I took out the Pseudonym stuff that was recently put in because it is not factual, and that was after nearly ALL of my contributions were pulled. Why was this literary agent quote pulled? Msturm 8 (talk) 20:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi there. I just wish to note that edit request templates should not be used during a content dispute. I have declined both the requests (the first one per no consensus, the second one did not talk about a specific edit request). Regards, VB00 (talk) 14:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

References

BLPN pending

{{BLP noticeboard}} PacificOcean (talk) 03:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

HIV is Not Unsubstantiated

Laura Albert continually claimed that "JT LeRoy" was HIV positive. Her own therapist Dr. Terrance Owens mentions under oath in a trial video deposition that "he" told him that 'he' was. The citation I included was of Ira Silverberg, the literary agent of JT LeRoy, claiming the same thing. Google JT LeRoy and HIV positive and you will see a ton of references.

This is what dealing with a pathological liar looks like. I know that I am suppose to assume 'good faith' to contribute to Wikipedia, and I have that for the site or I wouldn't be bothering. But I don't have that for Laura Albert because I am aware she will say what she feels she needs to say. The interesting thing for me is if in fact Pacific Ocean is a different person, why she would enable this behavior and promote falsity.

Here is the writer Susie Bright's blog where she mention "JT" having HIV-- http://susiebright.blogs.com/susie_brights_journal_/2006/01/my_name_is_susi.html Here is a clip and at the end of it the other literary agent Henry Dunow mention the same thing-- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIRTb6vKCaI In this other clip the writer Dennis Cooper mentions the same thing, the using of HIV positive-- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nye1Zk_Mcps&t=2s

Meanwhile, besides HIV positive, she was also NOT a host of other identifications that she appropriated. Msturm 8 (talk) 07:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Again, to clarify, Laura Albert claims as to why she was HIV positive does not make sense in a context with her therapist or straight men and women. We can't keep quoting Laura Albert's lies. I don't what other word to use. Falsehoods? Untruths? Msturm 8 (talk) 08:11, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually as synchronicity would have it, I just stumbled upon the word-- "post-truth". It's the word of the year! Thankful for it. "After much discussion, debate, and research, the Oxford Dictionaries Word of the Year 2016 is post-truth – an adjective defined as ‘relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief’."Msturm 8 (talk) 08:42, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Here is the article that mentions Savannah Knoop talking about HIV positive. http://www.villagevoice.com/arts/interview-with-a-confidence-woman-savannah-knoop-on-being-jt-leroy-7133230 "There were inconsistencies. In the late '90s, HIV was part of JT's story. But that got dropped. Were you ever challenged about that? No. I think that HIV was dropped right around the time I started impersonating him. HIV wasn't part of the story that I was playing, but there were little details. I would wear long sleeves, and there were scars. HIV was part of the trajectory, and then it was just dropped."

Again, not sure why Pacific Ocean is trying to make this page non-factual (except for the obvious reason that she is working with Laura Albert). Msturm 8 (talk) 20:22, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Section break

@PacificOcean and Msturm 8: I just have a few thoughts. The BLP policy demands that we only pull content from the highest quality sources when we write about living persons. The Susie Bright blog is unreliable because it is a self published blog, the Village Voice is unsuitable for encyclopedic information about living persons because it is tabloid journalism (see WP:BLPSOURCES), and the YouTube videos look like copies of a film called The Cult of JT LeRoy, which may be reliable (not sure), but we have to be extra careful we aren't drawing conclusions not explicitly stated in the source. (It looks like those YouTube videos are copyright violations of the film, so do not cite them in the article if we're going to use them, instead cite the film.)

Regarding the pseudonym issue presented at WP:BLPN, remember, Wikipedia's job is to explain what the sources say, not what we believe. The Guardian source states: Albert herself admitted to the ruse - or "veil" as she prefers to call it - in a Paris Review interview in autumn 2006. Albert had testified that she objected to people calling LeRoy a hoax, saying she did telephone interviews with reporters under that name because she believed he was inside her. We can include Albert's point of view—and we already do in the "Circumstances of JT LeRoy's creation" section—but we also have to include the point of view of others in order to remain neutral. There were indeed a number of people who felt angry after it was revealed that JT LeRoy wasn't a real person (per The New York Times). Presenting both of these viewpoints fairly and proportionately to their weight in reliable sources is what neutral point of view is all about.

Finally, there's no need to claim that a fellow editor is engaging in bad faith conduct without serious evidence. (For example, claiming that a fellow editor is purposely trying to make a non-factual article.) This is a collaborative project, and I understand that this subject is controversial, but the goal should be to work together to find common ground.

In the meantime, I have removed a quote because the citation given seems have nothing to do with JT LeRoy (unless I'm missing something, the source appears to be about a lawsuit concerning buildings in San Fransisco). Mz7 (talk) 04:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and weighing in. I agree heavily. We clearly can have Laura Albert's point of view expressed, and what I have been actively attempting is to just give balance to the page by allowing the voice of the many people who felt betrayed or angered. The history of the page speaks for the fact that this hasn't been a part of it. Quite frankly, that's where my bad faith has developed because it has been continually edited out. All attempts to put it in.

Again, thank you for taking the time. I put the proper San Francisco Chronicle article in for reference instead of that real estate one. (Sorry about that.) Also, The Cult of JT LeRoy isn't cited on the page. Just in the Talk area to show the HIV positive assertion is substantiated. It's also not a copy infrigement those videos. They are outakes of the film, put up myself from the documentary. Msturm 8 (talk) 02:02, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

References

This article is now under "extended confirmed" protection

A number of concerns and complaints have been made about the neutrality of this article over the last several months, both on-wiki and through OTRS. On reviewing the edit history, it is apparent that there have been significant problems with giving undue weight, as well as some genuine indications of editing despite conflict of interest on the part of more than one account. There are also several accounts that are completely focused on this article, with all edits either to the article or discussing the article. The effect of all of this has resulted in an article that was, at times, violating our biography of living persons policy. (Yes, BLP applies to the pseudonyms and nom-de-plumes of known persons.)

Some long-experienced Wikipedians have carefully reviewed the content of this article and have edited to a more neutral and balanced version. I have added extended-confirmed protection to the article, so that it can continue to be edited by experienced, knowledgeable editors, but will also prevent the repeated inappropriate editing that has been happening over the last several months. Others who wish to request an edit to the content of the article may post on this page with their request, using the {{edit extended-protected}} template to request that the proposed content be reviewed and an experienced editor will determine whether or not it is edited. Risker (talk) 04:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

After so much discussion on this page, you have now edited out the entire controversy around JT LeRoy. This isn't an issue of jus a pseudonym. There was issues around it being a fraud and emotional damaging. That is now one hundred percent removed. All of the information was cited. I think the page should be removed altogether if if it isn't going to accurately reflect the topic. Msturm 8 (talk) 16:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 February 2017

In order to maintain a neutral point of view, I think the following should be removed from the Popular Culture section: "Filmmaker Michael Arias claimed JT LeRoy for his inspiration in translating Taiyo Matsumoto's manga Sunny.[20] At a 2013 symposium with filmmaker J. J. Abrams in New York, actress and writer Lena Dunham said that JT LeRoy "co-opted my imagination for a full year of my life. [...] It was pretty remarkable. And then you also go, 'This person isn't who they claim to be, but they still wrote this book that captured all of our imaginations, so then why does the identity of the author even matter when you're reading fiction and engaging with it in a really personal way?'"[21] That same year, Laura Albert told Interview magazine, “You know, JT LeRoy does not exist. But he lives. That’s what a famous film historian once said about Bugs Bunny."[22] Another interviewer insisted, "Albert had ingeniously hacked the literary establishment."[23] In March 2014 the San Francisco Chronicle reported that the Academy of Friends Oscar Party in San Francisco invited JT LeRoy – played by gender fluid fashion model Rain Dove Dubilewski – to walk the runway as part of its HIV/AIDS fundraiser.[24] "

This makes light of the fraud and considering the page still doesn't reflect the emotional fall out that occurred, there shouldn't be comments like 'remarkable' or "Bugs Bunny." Also, there is a lot of outrage about the fact that Laura Albert pretended to be HIV positive. So to not mention that, but this comment isn't neutral but a form of spin.

Thank you.Msturm 8 (talk) 20:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC) Msturm 8 (talk) 20:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Once again, in case I didn't comply with format correctly: Please remove the non-neutral contributions from Popular Culture: "Filmmaker Michael Arias claimed JT LeRoy for his inspiration in translating Taiyo Matsumoto's manga Sunny.[20] At a 2013 symposium with filmmaker J. J. Abrams in New York, actress and writer Lena Dunham said that JT LeRoy "co-opted my imagination for a full year of my life. [...] It was pretty remarkable. And then you also go, 'This person isn't who they claim to be, but they still wrote this book that captured all of our imaginations, so then why does the identity of the author even matter when you're reading fiction and engaging with it in a really personal way?'"[21] That same year, Laura Albert told Interview magazine, “You know, JT LeRoy does not exist. But he lives. That’s what a famous film historian once said about Bugs Bunny."[22] Another interviewer insisted, "Albert had ingeniously hacked the literary establishment."[23] In March 2014 the San Francisco Chronicle reported that the Academy of Friends Oscar Party in San Francisco invited JT LeRoy – played by gender fluid fashion model Rain Dove Dubilewski – to walk the runway as part of its HIV/AIDS fundraiser.[24]"

Replace with nothing. Should read: "Documentaries about JT LeRoy include Author: The JT LeRoy Story (2016) directed by Jeff Feuerzeig, The Cult of JT LeRoy (2015) directed by Marjorie Sturm, and The Ballad of JT LeRoy (2014) directed by Lynn Hershman Leeson.

Armistead Maupin's The Night Listener features the case of Anthony Godby Johnson, which is similar to that of LeRoy.[25]"

ThankyouMsturm 8 (talk) 18:50, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: The quote (and the "remarkable"/"Bugs Bunny" comments you cited) is cited from sources. Please seek consensus on this talk page if you still think it should be removed. — Train2104 (t • c) 15:24, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

How do I seek consensus? The point is that I have included a lot of cited material that has been eliminated. This is a controversial topic and these comments are not neutral. If you want me to start giving cited negative opinions of the affair it is quite easy to do. I will put in another edit request. Msturm 8 (talk) 19:15, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 February 2017

Please remove the non-neutral contributions from Popular Culture: "Filmmaker Michael Arias claimed JT LeRoy for his inspiration in translating Taiyo Matsumoto's manga Sunny.[20] At a 2013 symposium with filmmaker J. J. Abrams in New York, actress and writer Lena Dunham said that JT LeRoy "co-opted my imagination for a full year of my life. [...] It was pretty remarkable. And then you also go, 'This person isn't who they claim to be, but they still wrote this book that captured all of our imaginations, so then why does the identity of the author even matter when you're reading fiction and engaging with it in a really personal way?'"[21] That same year, Laura Albert told Interview magazine, “You know, JT LeRoy does not exist. But he lives. That’s what a famous film historian once said about Bugs Bunny."[22] Another interviewer insisted, "Albert had ingeniously hacked the literary establishment."[23] In March 2014 the San Francisco Chronicle reported that the Academy of Friends Oscar Party in San Francisco invited JT LeRoy – played by gender fluid fashion model Rain Dove Dubilewski – to walk the runway as part of its HIV/AIDS fundraiser.[24]"

Replace with nothing. Should read: "Documentaries about JT LeRoy include Author: The JT LeRoy Story (2016) directed by Jeff Feuerzeig, The Cult of JT LeRoy (2015) directed by Marjorie Sturm, and The Ballad of JT LeRoy (2014) directed by Lynn Hershman Leeson.

I am seeking more opinions on this. The edit request was not done because of 'cited material.' The point being, and the history on this page surely shows, is that there is a lot of material to cite was removed because it wasn't 'neutral.' The only quotes are now positive and if they are to remain, I would then start to make edit requests that balance out this page with people who were horrified about the use of someone pretending to be HIV positive and dying and being conned for their time and money and on and on.

Or we eliminate what I'm asking above that is not neutral.

Thank you. Msturm 8 (talk) 19:20, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template on this talk page. Morphdog (t - c) 16:23, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Consensus for Alteration

I am hoping to reach some consensus around my thoughts on the last paragraph in Pop Culture. I understand that Wikipedia wants to remain neutral. This history of this page has had a lot of problems in regards to NOT being neutral. There's been a lot of back and forth on the page, and for the most part a lot material just eliminated, even if it was cited.

The last paragraph however remains "not neutral." It was added quite a long time ago I believe.

In popular culture, I think the following should be eliminated: "Filmmaker Michael Arias claimed JT LeRoy for his inspiration in translating Taiyo Matsumoto's manga Sunny.[20] At a 2013 symposium with filmmaker J. J. Abrams in New York, actress and writer Lena Dunham said that JT LeRoy "co-opted my imagination for a full year of my life. [...] It was pretty remarkable. And then you also go, 'This person isn't who they claim to be, but they still wrote this book that captured all of our imaginations, so then why does the identity of the author even matter when you're reading fiction and engaging with it in a really personal way?'"[21] That same year, Laura Albert told Interview, "You know, JT LeRoy does not exist. But he lives. That's what a famous film historian once said about Bugs Bunny."[22] Another interviewer insisted, "Albert had ingeniously hacked the literary establishment."[23] In March 2014 the San Francisco Chronicle reported that the Academy of Friends Oscar Party in San Francisco invited JT LeRoy – played by gender fluid fashion model Rain Dove Dubilewski – to walk the runway as part of its HIV/AIDS fundraiser.[24]"

Even if it is cited material.

Or we could include a lot of cited material like the following "It's not cute. It's not irrelevant. It's a cruel con, straight up, and the whole writers' community suffered for it," wrote Susie Bright, the San Francisco author and feminist "sex-positive" crusader, on her blog. "I'm sure there are examples of hoaxes that don't leave such a trail of used people."

Or "To present yourself as a person who is dying of AIDS in a culture which has lost so many writers and voices of great meaning, to take advantage of that sympathy and empathy, is the most unfortunate part of all of this," Mr. Silverberg said. "A lot of people believed they were supporting not only a good and innovative and adventurous voice, but that we were supporting a person."

Or "When the truth about Albert/LeRoy/Frasier emerged, I simply assumed that Argento had been in on the whole charade when we had met in 2005, but she wasn’t. “It’s the most shocking thing that’s happened to me in my life, and believe me I’m the queen of shock,” . . . ”A way I thought I could get rid of the resentment was to just not talk about it. It is something I cannot forgive. Believe me it’s hard to carry this burden. I would be very grateful if one day this stops in me. I couldn’t do movies as a director for 10 years. Because I’ve been fooled. I’m a fool! How could I not see it? It made me feel worthless to be honest. I didn’t have a lot of self esteem after that. It took me a long time to rebuild it. I was lost. So forgiveness … it’s a beautiful thing, of saints and martyrs, but I can’t let it go. I was fucking manipulated, it’s time for me to say that.”

I would love to get others input on this. It seems the way it stands now isn't neutral and only includes those who thinks it's all Bugs Bunny and inspiration, which isn't credible.

Thanks so much. Msturm 8 (talk) 01:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the proposed citations are appropriate, but I'm not opposed to deleting the items you mentioned under Popular Culture. However, I think this should be an edit request for an admin to look at, and not for us. Fuerzig's film was at Sundance and is distributed on Netflix so I think that it's the most noteworthy, the doc by you (Sturm) shouldn't be on the page since it's personal, and the other also doesn't seem widely distributed.PacificOcean (talk) 20:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

References

Well, thanks for responding. If we agree to deleting the items that is all that I'm discussing. (I wasn't the person to list my film on this page in the first place. Amazon is the prime distributor of the other film not Netflix. My film actually has quite a large distribution going (SundanceNow, Fandor, Kanopy-the largest educational, Amazon, iTunes) but that is irrelevant to this discussion, (where a film that was produced by five corporations gets distributed compared to an independent is a different discussion . . . what is entertainment and propaganda versus real learning). Anyways, that's great we can agree on the deletions. Msturm 8 (talk) 04:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Consensus Discussion

Any thoughts, input, feedback? Can we eliminate in Popular Culture the last quotes that are not neutral?Msturm 8 (talk) 15:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Pacific Ocean agrees that the not neutral quotes in the Popular Culture section should be eliminated. Could someone please pull them? The Lena Dunham quote in particular is clearly 'not neutral',and considering the number of people who felt victimized and are NOT quoted. It is spurious to have a celebrity's comment (who wasn't involved in the scandal). Not sure how this could possibly fall under Wikipedia's guidelines.

Corrections

I I thought I would point out Vanity Fair definitely wasn't the one to point out that Geoffrey Knoop was involved. That occurred in the January 2006 and February 2006 New York Times Articles. Not sure why or how that got edited incorrectly.

Also, the way this site reads, with Dr. Terrance Owens is 'credited' with encouraging JT's writing, makes it appear as a 'good thing' as opposed to something that he feels embarrassed, betrayed and humiliated by. He was taped illegally after all. Laura Albert went on to dupe and catfish and mislead everyone who would possible listen- many notable writers.

It seems that no one is interested in making the Popular Culture section unbiased either. Bringing up celebrities who weren't personally humiliated in this context is irrelevant, especially if there isn't going to be a mention of all of the aftermath and bad feelings of others.

People do seek out Wikipedia as source for information. It's a shame that it is misleading and has errors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msturm 8 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

References

I had to make this correction again, about the Vanity Fair article. Matuko 00:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Lede

The lede doesn't do a good job of introducing and summarizing the article, instead reading as if it was hacked together by edit wars over NPOV etc. To someone coming upon the article without knowing anything about the subject, it's a confusing list of events without any context: you'd have to read the rest of the article or follow the links to have any understanding of what it's talking about. I'd suggest rewriting it as follows:

Jeremiah "Terminator" LeRoy is a literary persona created in the 1990s by American writer Laura Albert. "JT" was presented as the author of several narrative works, most of which were purportedly autobiographical accounts by an HIV-positive teenage boy about his experiences of poverty, drug use, and emotional and sexual abuse in his childhood and adolescence in rural West Virginia. Albert wrote these works, and communicated with people in the persona of "JT" via phone and e-mail. Following the release of the first novel Sarah, Albert's sister-in-law Savannah Knoop began to make public appearances as the supposed writer. The works attracted considerable literary and celebrity attention, and the authenticity of "LeRoy" has been a subject of debate, even as details of the creation came to light in the 2000s.

There might be better ways to phrase some of that, but I think it does a better job of answering the who/what/when/where/how that the lede is supposed to summarize. Magic9Ball (talk) 14:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

References

OK, since no one has objected, I'll do it. Magic9Ball (talk) 12:44, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I am requesting to edit the lede for the JT LeRoy article. Magic9Ball's July 2017 request to rewrite the lede apparently never received a response, and so the change was made without permission, despite this page having been under Extended-Confirmation Protection. As a result, two serious inaccuracies have been introduced by a new sentence in the lede:

"JT" was presented as the author of several narrative works, most of which were purportedly autobiographical accounts by an HIV-positive teenage boy about his experiences of poverty, drug use, and emotional and sexual abuse in his childhood and adolescence in rural West Virginia.

This change misrepresents the JT LeRoy books, all of which were published as fiction; and it describes the JT LeRoy persona as "HIV-positive", which is inaccurate.

As for the first error, the publication history speaks for itself. The lede of an article on a writer who published fiction should discuss fiction, and not be vague and misleading, as the current description is.

The second error has already been dealt with by Wikipedia: This Talk page has investigated the lack of documentation regarding the HIV status of the JT LeRoy persona, and the desire to keep the article accurate was the reason it was put under Extended-Confirmation Protection in a version that did not reference HIV. The research into JT LeRoy's career has shown that discussion of his HIV status arose after The New York Times revealed Laura Albert as the author in 2006. To say that there was any recognition or understanding of JT LeRoy as being an HIV+ writer, as there was of such authors as David Wojnarovich or Derek Jarman, is not factual; it also does a profound disservice to those writers and others who have been open about their HIV status.

Magic9Ball's Talk page mentions four sources as legitimizing this addition, and none are sufficient: Savannah Knoop, quoted by The Village Voice in 2008, specifically says HIV was not part of the persona she represented; Vanity Fair, writing in 2016, says nothing about JT LeRoy's HIV status; and The Irish Times and The Stranger, also writing in 2016, are in error with their passing references to JT LeRoy as HIV+. Just because some contemporary sources can be found making this claim, that does not mean the claim is accurate.

Therefore I am requesting permission to modify that sentence in the lede to read:

JT was presented as the author of three books of fiction, which were purportedly semi-autobiographical accounts by a teenage boy of his experiences of poverty, drug use, and emotional and sexual abuse in his childhood and adolescence, from rural West Virginia to California.

Portofcallhttp (talk) 19:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit request: Small typo to fix

Would fix this myself but discovered this page is protected. In the following text: "The following month Vanity Fair identified an additional participant in the hoax: Savannah Koop's half-brother Geoffrey (aka Astor), 39. As TJ's career took off in the wake of all this publicity, Savannah continued to play him in public.[15]" it seems to refer to the article's subject as "TJ" rather than "JT" just this once. Maridiem (talk) 07:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Vanity Fair wasn't who identified the additional participant Geoffrey Knoop. It was the New York Times. I don't think think Wikipedia cares all that much about things being factually correct.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 March 2018

In the "Exposure" section the name "Koop" is used twice, but it should be "Knoop" which you can see in the rest of the article. MyssK (talk) 21:29, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done Regards,   Aloha27  talk  00:04, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 May 2018

hi, missing ling for "The Night Listener" in "Armistead Maupin's The Night Listener" greetings Rafftrix (talk) 16:59, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done (If a "ling" is a link, it's done.) Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 17:42, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 June 2018

I am requesting the correction of inaccurate changes made to the lede in the JT LeRoy article. Please see my explanation of this correction, which I have posted in the "Lede" section, above on this page. Portofcallhttp (talk) 19:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Vanity Fair Correction (again)

The article contended that Bruce Handy in Vanity Fair first revealed Savannah Knoop's role in the hoax, but it was Warren St John. St John wrote two articles in 2006, the first breaking the info that S. Knoop was playing LeRoy in public, and then a second article in which G. Knoop confirms that info and admits that Albert wrote the book. So, I have made the appropriate edits. Matuko 00:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

When to remove the template at the top?

The COI template was added to the article in December 2016, when the article was 39,705 bytes long: [4]. Nearly six years later, the article is now 17,154 bytes, less than half the size it was when the template was added. Although it can still use some work, it seems neutral, accurate, and balanced. Stophorus (talk) 04:28, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

No one has objected to this, or responded, so I am going to go ahead and remove the template, as it is fairly clearly no longer needed. Stophorus (talk) 00:00, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Argento Film

The revisions of the article over the past several years have removed all mention of the fact that a film adaptation was made of "The Heart Is Deceitful...", by Asia Argento. That seems relevant here, even if relegated to the "Art and Popular Culture" section, though I think it would deserve higher billing than that. To be clear, I'm talking about its existence (and the desirability of providing a link to the Wikipedia article about the film), not its contribution or lack thereof to the myth of LeRoy's existence. Ajericn (talk) 22:14, 12 November 2022 (UTC)