Talk:JT LeRoy/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Hoax?

It appears that IslandGyrl is a sock puppet for the woman behind the Leroy hoax. She continually edits this page to limit or remove evidence concerning this hoax and continually returns to the party line taken by leroy that this is all the result of jealous writers, an ad hominem argument which ignores the evidence. It would be simple for Leroy to present himself if he existed by simply providing a newspaper his social security number, which we are all used to doing when turning in materials we expect to be paid for. Please take an interst in this as the public has a diffuse interest in mainting the truth and ms albert has a specific and intense interest in mainting this hoax. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 83.249.212.92 (talk • contribs)

I've moved your last edit to the bottom of the page (where it should customarily be in a talk page), and added a note to identify your edit. Please remember to sign your comment with ~~~~ at the end. Also, in your edit, you added the Hoax section back at the top, not in its original location, and removed the {{cleanup-since}} tag. Please try to first resolve the issue with the other party(-ies) regarding the dispute before reverting or deleting those changes; also, please be sure not to affect other changes not related to the revision you are contesting. Thank you. --Animated Cascade ^talk 02:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Because of the controversy surrounding the hoax issue, I've marked the article as {{Disputeabout}}. It's clear that there's definitely a dispute here, and a very quick inspection shows that there might be a violation of the Three Revert Rule. The dispute should be discussed, and a solution reached; if one cannot be reached, a Request for Comments and/or Arbitration will have to filed. Please don't continue to revert or delete previous revisions, or to add unverified information or original research to the article. See the Dispute Resolution page for more information. Thank you. --Animated Cascade ^talk 02:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

This is not true. I edited the page, not IslandGryl. I am new to Wikipedia and am learning as I go. I didn't realize that one needed to sign the entry to prove authenticity. I will certainly do so from now on. Although I am confused if this is indeed necessary, as the most recent editor is known as "Unsigned."

Signing your changes applies only to the talk page, not the article itself. I'm sorry for the miscommunication there. I'll remove the signatures in the article (as I'm also going to do a bit of Wikifying), but the general rule is to sign everything on a talk page, but never sign an article itself. It's not required to prove authenticity, but it helps other readers of the talk page to follow threads and know who says what in discussion, without having to search through the history of the page. --Animated Cascade ^talk 01:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I must take exception to the to phrase "maintaining the truth" and "remove evidence" in regards to this article. In my last update, I included information about the hoax, as it is newsworthy and is a part of LeRoy's history. In reading the Wikipedia guidelines, I see that:

'Editors are encouraged to uphold a policy of "neutral point of view" under which notable perspectives are summarized without an attempt to determine an objective truth. But Wikipedia's status as a reference work has been controversial. Its open nature allows vandalism, inaccuracy, and opinion."  

I see that the latter part of the quote is indeed what is happening here. By putting the Hoax section above the author's bio, by saying a psychologist, by following his profession's mandated confidentiality agreement as proof that he "refuses to confirm that he even exists" is certainly feeding into the "vandalism, inaccuracy" of the above quote.

People will believe what they want to believe, with or without evidence to support their view. While one might argue that claims that JT LeRoy exist and is the author of his books is well documented in his blog by people who know him, have seen him & spent time with him, people that follow "unsigned" views feel that one's giving of a social security number is the only valid evidence that a person exists feel otherwise. It seems that never the twain shall meet, regardless of what evidence is presented.

I'm not quite sure I agree or disagree there. My position is that JT LeRoy may indeed be a pseudonym of another writer (who is actually named "JT LeRoy" on a birth certificate anyway?), and the relevant information about that controversy should be included in the article, in a way that's both neutral point of view and verifiable. That is, appropriately citing sources of the controversy and writing in a neutral tone, which I believe (on a quick glance of the article) you have done with your latest revision. Other well-known authors write under pseudonyms as well (George Eliot, Richard Bachman, Anne Rampling, et. al.), but the controversy arises here only because JT LeRoy (or whoever calls him/herself that) has not confirmed nor denied it as a pseudonym. Regardless, the facts of the article -- written works, official (cited) biographical information, etc. -- should remain intact and most prominent on the page.--Animated Cascade ^talk 01:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

As a result, I suggest that we try to have "neutral points of view" in covering this entry.

Completely agreed. --Animated Cascade ^talk 01:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

As with all authors, let us have the Bio and Career Headings first and, under a term that is not as condemning as "Hoax" (maybe under "Additional" as it is truly just another piece of LeRoy's history, no more or less important than the other information), copy that we can all agree upon, that does not incriminate and condemn or accept JT LeRoy's existence as gospel.

Again, I couldn't agree with you more. --Animated Cascade ^talk 01:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I suggest this one, which has been posted before & presents both points of view:

 An article in New York magazine suggested that LeRoy and Speedie are both personas adopted by a woman named Laura Albert. Stephen Beachy, like several commentators since 1999, speculates on parallels to the case of Anthony Godby Johnson. Unlike that case, however, here many persons have had direct personal dealings with LeRoy and consider themselves close friends and associates. These tend to dismiss the article as a "hatchet job" by a magazine seeking to create publicity for itself using LeRoy's name.

I will make the changes that allow this entry to revert to a neutral point of view and welcome any discussion about the best way to present this neutral point of view, as recommended in the wikipedia FAQ. Grilledcheese 22:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)GrilledCheese

Thanks for the comments and the revision to the article. I looked over it briefly, and other than the comments above about wikifying and the signatures (which I'll do now), it looks good to go as far as I'm concerned. --Animated Cascade ^talk 01:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Animated Cascades. I appreciate your input. Grilledcheese 05:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)Grilled Cheese

Major cleanup

I've just completed a major cleanup of the article (based on Grilledcheese's changes), hopefully in a NPOV way that everyone can agree is acceptable. Please look at my changes and discuss them here, including any potential revisions you'd like to make, before we start hacking away chaotically at the article again. Thanks. --Animated Cascade ^talk 05:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

In reading this new version, it appears as though JT Leroy is a real person with the only suggestion otherwise being a single magazine cite dismissed as a hack job. I have changed to put a notice in the top that it could be a hoax so a reader knows the early information may not be correct regarding leroy's history. It is important to note that the psychologist has refused to confirm leroy's existence as that is the one credible source that leroy refers to as evidence of his existence. There is no reason to cut out the other sources I included that deal with this controversy as they include important papers besides just ny magazine. i am doing this without a log in so you can see my ip number, it cleary shows where in the world i am. perhaps the proleroy camp could do the same so we could see if they are located in san francisco. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 83.249.212.92 (talk • contribs)

As the editors of this article can't seem to reach an agree on appropriate wording, and it seems that no compromise regarding appropriate, encyclopedic content can be reached, I'm asking a member of the Mediation Cabal to offer guidance in this issue. --Animated Cascade ^talk 11:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Animated Cascade. That action seems appropriate at this juncture.

Coincidentally, I was posting at the same time as you were. Here is that discussion:

Animated Cascade: Thank you for your changes. I think this version is fine. The only thing I might take exception with is "cult writer" as it is is an oblique genre that tends to limit an audience. But it's a small point. I would concur that discussions take place here about the hoax situation before changes occur. Therefore, I have changed it back to the neutral passage that was there prior to this new edit.

Anonymous sender: If you read the quotes on LeRoy's blog and website, you will see that there are an equal number of people who believe JT LeRoy is the writer of his books. That is primarily why the tone of this entry should be neutral. Indeed, many of the people who testify to his existence appeared in the Beachy article, explaining that their words were taken out of context or twisted to suit a purpose and denouncing the veracity of the article. Why are these people's testimonies not as credible as a psychologist who is bound by a professional mandate to refrain from talking about his clients?

As I've said before, however, it is clear that there are two groups of people that whole-heartedly believe what they choose to believe. That is why democracy is such a good thing. :) Based upon this, I again posit that a neutral and informational entry is important to maintain.

To anyone: Does wikipedia require you to identify your location in order to edit pages? As I've stated before, I am new at this and want to ensure I follow protocol. Grilledcheese 11:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)Grilled Cheese

Animated Cascade: Is there a way to easily revert to the previous neutral edit until this is settled? Grilledcheese 11:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)Grilled Cheese

A version that takes all but one references to sources disputing the subject of this page's existence is hardly neutral. It assumed his existence as a fact throughout and then contained one buried reference to a single article and then dismissed that article as a hack job. There are numerous cited sources I included that deal with the strong possibility of this being a hoax. We should include a reference to JT Leroy's website in which "he" contests this charge and references others who allegedly do as well. There is no reason not to highlight this as a major issue. There is also no reason to cut out the materials I included that all have verifiable sources. I agree that mediation and guidance would be welcome indeed. I am now writing a version that highlights this dispute and issue while including any materials that JT Leroy's possible sock puppet has posted in his defense. In other words, include all verifiable material, no need to delete the materials I posted, simply add a response with citations setting forth the argument that Leroy does exist. I would ask that any mediator look at the entirety of the version I have just posted so as to see all the sources on this issue. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 83.249.212.92 (talk • contribs)

And no, Wikipedia does not require revealing IP addresses. It allows users to create a login name of their choice and thereby concel their IP number. I think this is inadvisable except in the case of someone using their real name with a verifiable identity as we otherwise have no way of know whether a poster who keeps trying to downplay evidence that LeRoy is a fraud may in fact be a sock puppet used by the perpetrator of that fraud. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 83.249.212.92 (talk • contribs)

This is Grilled Cheese, not logging in so you can see by my IP address that I don't live in SF, though that city does have many inhabitants. An IP address shouldn't be held of proof of anything more than the residence of the computer in use or an that an individual is spoofing an IP address to post irresponsibly.

I retierate that putting hoax information in the entry is important. Putting up a disclaimer that factual information is under dispute, quoting specific phrases from articles that put forth one point of view, quoting blogs (of which there are many) is not neutral reportage, as Wikipedia requires. It is selective reporting, highly weighted on one side of the issue. If we were both to cite every pro and con argument and article available on every blog and in all press, this entry would cease to be effective. In the version that Animated Cascade reviewed, the original article is linked, as is JT LeRoy's web site that offers opinions that are contrary to this issue. There are just a couple of sentences in that paragraph that succinctly explain both sides of the issue. It seems fair and balanced, as these entries should be.

As Animated Cascade asked that this entry not be changed until arbitration has taken place, I will once again change it back to the version that he last edited. 24.60.177.101 21:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I have, however, changed the text on Elephant as it inaccurately showed the progression of original script and final production. I added a link to the movie's official production notes, and pulled a line that described the progression of written script to mprovisational work to use in the description. 21:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Weighing in on POV

To both sides of the debate: I'm not especially close to either camp, but I do believe the entire article is turning into a nightmare. In all the versions we've bandied about for the past several days, this issue isn't with whether there is a balance of information, but with how much importance to give to the controversial issue within the article. 83.249.212.92's version makes out the issue to be fundamental to the article, whereas Grilledcheese's (and others) takes the opposite approach of mentioning it only in passing.

Here's what I propose: POV issues concern not only a balance of information, but the tone of the wording and the weight that information carries within the overall article. I believe that the issue regarding his identity should be included in the article, and prominently, but with appropriate wording, i.e., avoiding the word hoax and choosing more neutral wording. Please see my proposed changes at User:Animated Cascade/jtleroy and let me know your opinions. I'm interested in hearing from both sides. The quotation from the article at NowPublic.com has been cut, as the article can't be considered a reliable source; it was posted by someone known only as hewhocannotbenamed on a quasi-news website that even calls itself "Beta 2." Please post your comments either at that draft's talk page or here in this section. It's my sincere hope that we can produce an article that is acceptable to both sides and avoids POV issues as well. --Animated Cascade ^talk 23:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The Nowpublic.com article is simply a way for users who do not have an account at the original source to read articles. IF you look at the article, it has posted "Originally seen in WWD Article" if you click on WWD, you get http://www.wwd.com/notavailable/archive?target=/article/print/102563&articleId=102563&articleType=A which is that same article but a paid service to read it in its entirety. the sources i cited reveal this to be a hoax, to be neutral i included the words potential hoax. the cites re this being a hoax were all to newspaper articles or magazine articles with the sole exception of dennis cooper as he was the famous writer who first championed leroy so his reaction is important. the only proleroy stuff i could find was on leroy's blog so that is why i referenced his blog twice. I will leave it as it is for now, but include the warning as this is a disputed subject.

Response from Grilled Cheese

Thank you for all the time and attention you are giving to this discussion.

I disagree that "balance" of information isn't important. Rhetorically speaking, If there is a debate about an issue and one side is permitted to select specific quotes that support that perspective and the other side is not given that opportunity, it does effect the weight that the information carries.

For this reason, I disagree with carrying the Cooper quotes. His opinion on the theory should carry no more weight than any other people weighing in. If it were to remain, I would like to then see the Mary Gaitskill, Bruce Benderson and/or Shirley Manson quotes included. NB: I just read the reason for including Cooper in the article. Following this reasoning, it wold make sense to include Gaitskill and Benderson as they follow the same criteria, should the Cooper quote remain (with which I disagree),.

Likewise, if the Washington Post articles is to be listed and quoted, perhaps a quote from a different media outlet that offers a different view could be offered.

Therefore, I put forth two possible edits that I would be comfortable with:

Version 1:

Author Stephen Beachy wrote in the October 10, 2005 issue of New York magazine suggesting that LeRoy and Speedie are both personas adopted by a woman named Laura Albert. [2] Beachy, like several commentators since 1999, speculates on parallels to the case of Anthony Godby Johnson, whom most persons familiar with the case are now convinced does not exist.

Writer Dennis Cooper was interviewed for Beachy's article and publicized it in advance as a "real whopper of a literary scandal" in an August 5, 2005 entry to his blog [3], adding that he originally "intended to defend [LeRoy] against what seemed like some rather outlandish theorizing, but, after several discussions with [Beachy] and a lot of thinking, I honestly don’t know what to believe anymore." Cooper writes in a further blog entry: "The progression from knowing and caring about a seemingly real 14 year old kid who claimed to have been horribly abused his whole life and was living on the streets and who claimed he was going to die of AIDS any minute and who could nonetheless and quite remarkably write well and honestly and sometimes beautifully about his life to watching this seemingly same kid transform into a fame and fashionability and money chasing alternative culture mini-Paris Hilton to discovering that the entire thing was probably a heartless and greedy if rather brilliantly carried out scam has not been fun at all."[4]

Conversely, Mary Gaitskill said, in her Letter to the Editor of NY Magazine: To the Editors: Considering that Stephen Beachy's article on JT Leroy is about lack of authenticity, it does have a certain small but strange feature: while I have in fact met and spoken with JT Leroy, I have never met or spoken with Stephen Beachy--and yet a reader of the article would reasonably conclude that I had. I wrote the description of my meeting with JT years ago and it was not meant to dispute his account of the same meeting, which was also written years ago. His account does not contradict mine, nor state that he spent lots of time staring into my eyes; one can see what a person's eyes look like, and notice that they have a pimple in, well, seconds. Mary Gaitskill

And writer Bruce Benderson wrote: To the Editor: As a person who has spent almost ten years speaking to J.T. Leroy, editing his manuscripts, comforting him on the phone while he was in hospital, having several short, concerned phone conversations with his therapist, reading his work for him in public, and showing his manuscripts to editors (and finally, to Joel Rose, which led to their publication), I cannot refute Stephen Beachy's allegations or theories for one simple and fundamental reason. No one can prove that he has written a book after it has been published. This would require a witness standing over the shoulder of the writer as he typed, and later verifying that the same words appeared in print. And thus, in my eyes, the futility of Mr. Beachy's research.

I can, however, point out factual errors in Mr. Beachy's article (if he did indeed write it--for where is the proof?). It is not true, as Mr. Beachy says, that I never met J.T. Leroy in person. I have met him on four separate occasions, in public. The last time was at the Deitch Gallery, several days before I left for France to claim a literary prize. I had told J.T. about the good news two nights before on the phone. And at the gallery, J.T. signed and dedicated one of his books for me, with the words, "Knock 'em dead in France, Bruce." If this was actually an actor, and not J.T., how would he have known about my trip to France? Bruce Benderson

Speaking to the New York Post celebrity gossip column "Page Six", New York magazine spokeswoman Serena Torrey clarified Beachey's article: "Our piece never outright says that J.T. Leroy doesn't exist. It lays out a very compelling scenario and explores many of the questions surrounding this figure, but it never pretends to prove anything one way or another. We were very clear about that."[5]

The Washington Post's David Segal picked up on the story and wrote, "[LeRoy] appears to be one of the great literary hoaxes of our day, and it fooled a whole lot of people as well as the media, including The New York Times, which last year ran a lengthy profile of LeRoy."[6]

Hans Eisenbeis, in his newsletter The Rake wrote: "I don't know what all the fuss is about. In the business, it's called a pseudonym, and the fact that J.T. LeRoy has been writing and publishing under that name for more than a decade ought to be track record enough to establish his (or her) credentials... It's an interesting mystery, but seems to me sort of irrelevant to whether the work written by that person is publishable or not. "

The psychologist LeRoy refers to as evidence of his existence, Dr. Terrence Owens, refuses to confirm that he LeRoy is who he says on the grounds that "it would be unethical for him to comment." LeRoy contests that Beachy failed to contact the people who had spent significant time with LeRoy, such as his literary agent Ira Silverberg, who maintains that LeRoy is authentic.[7]

JT Leroy maintains that the above articles are ad hominem attacks by two magazines and a newspaper seeking to create publicity for themselves by using LeRoy's name.[8] Also, LeRoy's official website contains letters of support from various celebrities and associates, including Shirley Manson, Mary Gaitskill, Bruce Benderson and others, attesting to his authenticity.[9] He continues to assert that he is who he says.

Version 2:

Author Stephen Beachy wrote in the October 10, 2005 issue of New York magazine suggesting that LeRoy and Speedie are both personas adopted by a woman named Laura Albert. [2] Beachy, like several commentators since 1999, speculates on parallels to the case of Anthony Godby Johnson, whom most persons familiar with the case are now convinced does not exist.

Speaking to the New York Post celebrity gossip column "Page Six", New York magazine spokeswoman Serena Torrey clarified Beachey's article: "Our piece never outright says that J.T. Leroy doesn't exist. It lays out a very compelling scenario and explores many of the questions surrounding this figure, but it never pretends to prove anything one way or another. We were very clear about that."[5]

Differing opinions on LeRoys existence abound. While The Washington Post's David Segal picked up the NY magazine story and wrote, "[LeRoy] appears to be one of the great literary hoaxes of our day, and it fooled a whole lot of people as well as the media, including The New York Times, which last year ran a lengthy profile of LeRoy."[6], Hans Eisenbeis, in his newsletter The Rake wrote: "I don't know what all the fuss is about. In the business, it's called a pseudonym, and the fact that J.T. LeRoy has been writing and publishing under that name for more than a decade ought to be track record enough to establish his (or her) credentials... It's an interesting mystery, but seems to me sort of irrelevant to whether the work written by that person is publishable or not. "

The psychologist LeRoy refers to as evidence of his existence, Dr. Terrence Owens, refuses to confirm that he LeRoy is who he says on the grounds that "it would be unethical for him to comment." LeRoy contests that Beachy failed to contact the people who had spent significant time with LeRoy, such as his literary agent Ira Silverberg, who maintains that LeRoy is authentic.[7]

JT Leroy maintains that the above articles are ad hominem attacks by two magazines and a newspaper seeking to create publicity for themselves by using LeRoy's name.[8] Also, LeRoy's official website contains letters of support from various celebrities, including Shirley Manson, Mary Gaitskill, Bruce Benderson and others, attesting to his authenticity.[9] He continues to assert that he is who he says. Grilled Cheese 24.60.177.101 01:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I also think that this line is redundant:

The matter under dispute is whether Leroy might in fact be a woman named Laura Albert, a Brooklyn-raised, 39-year-old mother and one-time rock singer. The talk page and history page would have more information.

There is a warning stating this is a dispute, and the entry mentions this later on. It is overkill and unnecessary.

It might be worthwhile to have LeRoy's's own opinion in the entry. This first one can be linked to the Women's Wear Daily article:

LeRoy, in an article by Women's Wear Daily about an article of his getting killed and no kill fee paid stated: "They asked for my passport, my Social Security card," Leroy tells WWD. He declined to hand them over. "I've always played with identity and gender. I understand what [the Times] is saying, but they entered into working with me knowing that . . . just because the Washington Post came after them, why should I be forced to prove who I am? They knew exactly what they were getting when the dealt with me."

And to his readers, he wrote: I am here, every now and again in my mangy wig and my scratched up sunglasses, sometimes not, sometimes in my pajamas, sometimes in a really pretty get up by Gary Graham, but I've been laying off the dark chocolate....well let me rephrase that, scaling back some. I'm still heavily on the green tea.

I am a writer. To have gotten to that point, where I can say that, has been a direct result of y'all reflecting back something to me I didn't believe in--through the wondrous gifts of your words. I've always been deeply effected by the story of Oscar Wilde. He refused to believe that his work would matter so little to people of baser instincts. He was a writer and he got murdered for it. It's a dangerous turf. Sticking your head out to peek with your words and saying this is who I am. I've said it from my first interview and I'll keep saying it...everything you need to know are in my books. You'll find Wigs and Sunglasses between the commas and periods--thankfully, which has been edited to land in their proper places. The one rumor I can testify to is that I am crap at punctuation and spelling.

We've made a nice little family here. Each of us sitting behind our screens in whatever cocoon of pain, elation, suffering, loneliness -- whatever motivates us to go out in spirit through our words and connect here. That to me is a very spiritual connection, that is sacred to me. We carry each other in the breath between bad punctuation, the heartbreaks in our lives, the small victories, the miracles, I am here. I am a writer. And I'm glad you're there, doing the same.

In a murderous time the heart breaks and breaks and lives by breaking. --Stanley Kunitz, The Testing-Tree

24.60.177.101 10:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC) Thank you for putting so much work into this. I don't understand what relevance some random guy with a thing called the rake has though. I prefer the longer version, it is best to have Cooper included as he is the famous writer who first promoted leroy and it is fine to include quotes by leroy's suppporters. might want to check they still stand by them. There is no reason though not to include the WWD story about how the NY Times magazine asked leroy for a copy of his passport or ss number and he refused resulting in their killing a story he was to have run in their magazine and not paying him a cent. The Leroy supporter wants to put in a quote from the story, i suggest we include the begining of it as well:

So in full this could be included as follows: LeRoy, in an article by Women's Wear Daily about an article of his getting killed and no kill fee paid stated: "Editors at the Times Magazine recently scrapped a piece by author J.T. LeRoy over concerns he may not exist...'They asked me for my passport, my social security card,' LeRoy said. He declined to hand them over." "I've always played with identity and gender. I understand what [the Times] is saying, but they entered into working with me knowing that . . . just because the Washington Post came after them, why should I be forced to prove who I am? They knew exactly what they were getting when the dealt with me." [1] full article at article.

RE: "Likewise, if the Washington Post articles is to be listed and quoted, perhaps a quote from a different media outlet that offers a different view could be offered." The problem with this is there is no media outlet comparable to NY Magazine, WWD, [2] or the Washington Post, i.e. all major print publications that have had anything suggesting leroy exists. If there is than it shoudl be included, but this is no reason to include something from a small time blog by someone not directly involved in this controversy. I agree that we should include materials by leroy's prominent supporters who are directly involved as you quoted above.

Thank you for putting so much work into this. I don't understand what relevance some random guy with a thing called the rake has though. I prefer the longer version, it is best to have Cooper included as he is the famous writer who first promoted leroy and it is fine to include quotes by leroy's suppporters. might want to check they still stand by them. There is no reason though not to include the WWD story about how the NY Times magazine asked leroy for a copy of his passport or ss number and he refused resulting in their killing a story he was to have run in their magazine and not paying him a cent.

It looks like we may have an agreement than as all I would ask in regards to the latest proleroy posting is to include the early part of the WWD quote as well. I have no problem with including JT Leroy's post from his blog as suggested above. "He" has the right to respond to these allegations in full. I just want to make sure the important stuff from both sides is included, putting in more in his defense that is fine. May I suggest taking the longer of your two versions and making the adjustments agreed to here and posting that? We can then agree not to make changes but post discussion on this page for Grilled Cheese to make changes based on our agreements here.

Grilled Cheese response:

I must go to work and will weigh in on this more when I get home. I will state that I much prefer the version without the Cooper quote. More later. 24.60.177.101 11:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I would like to get a third opinion on our discussion. I think "unsigned comment" and I might be too tied to our POV's to be neutral. As people of all different types will visit the site, I think having a person who is unfamiliar with the issue at hand could be a better judge as to the fairness of the entry. To this end, I have asked for a third party to review. Grilledcheese 01:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I thought we had reached a consensus, but of course another judge is always welcome. If you could find someone with Wikipedia experience who has worked on other articles for some time, that would be perfect---Scott.

Response from Grilled Cheese, JT's assistant

I have asked the wikipedia third party folks to review it.

As a point of reference, people involved in this discussion should know that there is bad blood between Dennis Cooper and JT LeRoy. Cooper maintains he is upset that JT used a picture of George Miles, Cooper's "greatest friend and muse" (http://denniscooper.blogspot.com/2005/08/dear-you-plural.html) as his author photo under the stipulation that LeRoy "promised me that he was never going to have photos taken of him, do interviews or any public events because he was too painfully shy and reclusive. " (http://denniscooper.blogspot.com/2005/08/dear-you-plural.html)

LeRoy maintains that this stipulation was unrealistic because it was based on the premise that he would never overcome his traumas so he could move about in society with more comfort and/or his work would never require promotion. Additionally, At Dennis Cooper's request, Cooper's roommate, Joel Westendorf, received photo credit and a photographer's fee from Bloomsbury, JT LeRoy's Publishing Company, for the use of the photo and a fee from other publications when the photo ran. Though the author photo has since been changed on the Bloomsbury site, photo credit can still be seen by putting "jt leroy bloomsbury westendorf" into google.

For these reasons, I would prefer that the version with the Dennis Cooper quotes not be used, in favor of the version that contains purely items in print. His opinions are not neutral, as a visit to his blog will attest.

I also would now like to state that I am JT LeRoy's assistant. I know he is the author of his books. I have worked with him for over three years, logged hundreds of phone hours with him and several days in person (we live on opposite coasts), done research and small edits for his writing, helped out when he travelled on book tours (with and without Laura Albert) and have done all the small and sundry tasks an administrative assistant would do. In my hour long conversation with Emily Nussbaum, the editor at NY magazine, I told her all of this. I explained that if JT was an actor, as Beachy asserts, how could we rack up all those phone calls, have all these secret jokes and share them when I saw him in person? How could someone be prepped for all of that? And to what end? And, though Stephen Beachy NEVER talked to me, some of my words found their way into his article, and, no surprise, of all that I said in that hour, the one line that was lifted was one that, when twisted, as with Gaitskill, Benderson, Rose, Wilinski, seemed to support the outlandish theory that JT LeRoy did not live his life and write his books.

Even before becoming a writer, JT has blurred the lines of gender and identity. There is no need for him to prove anything. His writing, which is pure, says all there needs to be said.

Hi GrilledCheese. I also read through the Cooper blog and found a definite bias that could/would color his comments. For that reason, I agree that any quotes by him or paraphrases of him should not be included as definite POV. As for the WWD/NowPublic.com article, I originally recommended cutting it because (a) the full version is available only on an alternate site (not the WWD site itself); and (b) readers can't access the original article on the WWD site without registration/subscription, which makes it an almost-unverifiable source. As I thought about it, I'm okay with leaving it in, though, because Wikipedia uses offline-only (print) citations all the time that have to be verified through means other than a simple point-and-click. Also, with the "full article available at" notation included, I think it's perfectly fine,

I've got no allegiance to either side particularly, and I'm a regular Wikipedian (if not a particularly long-time one) with interests in a variety of topics not related to this article. (My interest in this article is first as a reader/author myself, and second in cleaning up the article to conform to a higher standard. I got involved in this long discussion only when I discovered such a strong controversy.) I don't usually write articles or make extremely massive changes, but my focus tends toward copyediting and reducing POV. As far as I'm concerned, the changes that have been agreed upon look fine to me. (Though I'll probably go back through and make some minor grammatical changes that will not affect the substance of the article.) I'm really glad that the group of us have been able to work out a compromise on wording that is acceptable to everyone. --Animated Cascade ^talk 18:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

This is not an issue of pseudonym, but of a possible hoax that is central to the subject of this entry. It is deeply troubling that one of the main people editing this page is in fact an agent of the subject of this page. I.e. Leroy's employee is editing this page to suit her employer's interests. Doesn't Wikipedia have some rules about the subject of an article constantly editing the article to minimize the negatives associated with that entry? If the issue is important enough for WWD, New York Magazine and the Washington Post among others to do a story on, it is important enough for us to include in full here. We really need a long time neutral Wikipedian to resolve this issues.--Scott.

First off, I must amend another false assumption on Scott's part. I am not an employee of JT LeRoy's; he is not my employer. I don't get paid for my work with him. I have done it for these three years because I believe in JT's talent. Being with him through the writing process has made me see that even more clearly. Now that I have gotten to know JT, along with my steadfast belief in his writing, I also do it because of the great respect I have for him as a human being.

So, what are my credentials? I am a full time elementary teacher, close to 50 years old, a member of Mensa and a qualifier for Intertel. I am not that easily fooled. And, believe me, on a teacher's salary, I would not be doing this job for free if JT was a hoax.

So, who better to write copy for an informational piece about an author than an assistant?

I continue to reiterate that this is a part of JT LeRoy's history and should be included, that I am open to including all the print media that has covered this, that a neutral point of view approach which Wikipedia has mandated is my goal. What I will continue to rail against is a thinly veiled attack against this author.

This is supposed to be an encyclopedic entry. Including all the print media that discusses the Beachy article serves the purpose. Dennis Cooper's sensationalistic and malicious opinions do not.

Finally, I find it curious that you felt the consensus was reached on either of the versions that I had presented, though you stated that you preferred the one that included the Cooper quotes. Nothing has changed, except that Animated Cascade who, it is clear from the background that he has given, is neutral, has agreed that Cooper has a bias and that his quotes should not be included.

24.60.177.101 00:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I still think we may have a possible consensus, but agreed with Animated Cascade who suggested we have a more experienced neutral party look it all over. Whether you are paid or not does not change the fact that you are leroy's assistant, i.e. his agent. He is thus your employer as you work for him, whether he pays you or not is immaterial. What I find troubling is that you did not reveal this at first, but instead kept it secret until now. At any rate, the important thing is to have a a more experienced neutral party look it all over and resolve this.—the preceding unsigned comment is by 83.249.212.92 (talk • contribs)

My request to the Mediation Cabal is still open, but there's been no response from the community there. I think many of the voluntary mediators are students currently involved in final exams, so they're a little swamped at the moment. If someone else wants to add comments to the request, please add your comments in the "Comments by others" subsection at the "JT LeRoy: Does he exist?" section (section 4.13) of Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal. As for the Cooper quote issue, I'm still with GrilledCheese on that one; Cooper's blog shows a very clear personal bias against LeRoy, and thus shouldn't be included.--Animated Cascade ^talk 16:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Though Stephen Beachy wrote the article, there is strong evidence that Cooper was in collusion with him, not to put forth a "hoax" theory to the public, but to bring this author down. When they couldn't get people to talk smack about JT, they lifted pieces from old interviews, twisted words and otherwise distorted the truth to put forth this agenda. Hence the letters to the editor from Gaitskill, Benderson and I that explain how this was done.

Since this, allies of Cooper and Beachy have used all public sources available on the internet to attack JT LeRoy, i.e. damaging reviews on amazon.com from people who admit they haven't read his books or use their address as Bumf*ck, Eygpt, blogs and, now, wikipedia.

I welcome anyone to review this discussion and aid in a conclusion. It is clear Animated Cascade came into this discussion as a neutral party and Scott agreed with using either of my amended versions when it seemed the Cooper quotes were to remain. It should not matter that I am a friend or assistant to JT LeRoy, especially if I have continously supported complete coverage of the "hoax" theory, without the sensationalist and biased slant. I am fully prepared to accept the large boxed warning disclaimer (without the added tagline about Laura Albert that , once again, is redundant and covered later in the article) and the full coverage of the NYT, WWD, WP, as Animated Cascade wrote it. In that entry, both views are given in clear and succinct prose. Just what an encyclopedic entry should be. 24.60.177.101 05:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, maybe we should give that a try and see exactly what it looks like when posted. Then we could base our discussions on that and continue to try to involve someone more experienced and uninvolved. As long as we have the large boxed warning disclaimer and the hoax information is not buried away at the end or under a vague subject like additional information, then this might just work--Scott.

OK, I've input the changes at Animated Cascade's site. Please check it over. I've tried to wikify everything and include/delete all the things we've discussed. If it meets with both your approvals, let's post it.

Animated Cascade's comments

I think this version looks excellent, except for two points:

1. The Rake isn't really a newsletter, but a Twin Cities, Minnesota-based local magazine (judging from the "About Us" section of their website) with a circulation of 60,000, so I'd rephrase it as "Minneapolis–St. Paul-based magazine The Rake".
2. It needs several sections copyedited, which I'm quite ready and able to do when/if this version is agreed upon as acceptable.

Overall, I think this is a really good version, and I'm really happy to see that the community involved in this article have been able to work together to find an acceptable and encyclopedia-appropriate version. --Animated Cascade ^talk 16:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds great, Animated Cascade. I truly appreciate all that you've done here. Your dedication and help have been invaluable. 24.60.177.101 17:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Anything else we need to do or can we bring over the edited version now? 24.60.177.101 00:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

As soon as we get Scott's agreement on the version that's there now, I'll copyedit and clean up just a bit, then I'll update it back over here on the live one. Sound good everyone? --Animated Cascade ^talk 01:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

OK by me. 24.60.177.101 13:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

How do we look at this version under discussion? Could you put a direct link to it here. Thanks.--Scott.

It's at Animated Cascade/jtleroy. Let us know what you think. --Animated Cascade ^talk 20:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

looks good. a few minor points. i think "Presumably because" should be changed to "Allegedly because" there is no reason to presume that one does these things for the stated reason, it is alleged. or you could say according to leroy. or some such. no problem including lengthy leroy quote, but needs to be set off in some way so clear to skimmer it is quote. quote marks or block quote formation. include link/cite at end. if we include this lengthy piece by leory then only fair to include piece by famous writer dennis cooper. i would suggest we include the cooper as he is key to leroy's initial popularity and is a one time believer who is now a doubter. Stanley Kunitz quote seems not to belong here.

This reference seems to have tech difficulties as not posted correctly: {{Journal_reference | Author=Stephen Beachy | Authorlink=Stephen Beachy | Title=Who is the Real JT LeRoy?: A search for the true identity of a great literary hustler | Journal=New needs to be fixed.

overall looking very good. -scott

JT LeRoy's words certainly belong in this entry. He writes in his own defense about this controversy. And the Kunitz quote belongs because it is a part of the JT quote. It can be sourced back to his blog.

Dennis Cooper, as our neutral editor agrees, has a personal bias (and, in my opinion, a vendetta) against LeRoy and should not be included. That makes an informational entry an attack. I have no problem with the word "allegedly" instead of presumably (though it is true that he wears these things to preserve his privacy). BTW, did you see the article in the Boston Globe about vandals using wikipedia to further an agenda of poison-pen attacks? I found it very interesting. 24.91.123.59 16:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

HAven't seen it, what is the link? if you are mentiong it as an implication i am one of those with a personal bias, my ip shows i live in sweden and i dont think leroy has any enemies here. anyways, i disagree re kunitz and cooper, but dont think it is that important. so lets make the changes we all agreed upon and post it then. i'll surrender on kunitz and cooper.

I don't think she meant that personally, just guessing, but as an informational tidbit. --Animated Cascade ^talk 18:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Great, I'm glad we could work it out. Animated Cascade, are you available to make the changes? Thank you all for your concern and attention. I'm glad we could reach a consensus.

Excellent! Yes, I'll be making the change today. Look for the update soon. --Animated Cascade ^talk 18:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Great.

I think we are done. We should maintain the page as is only adding additional information later if it becomes available. We actually came to an agreement. Congrats and thanks to all. This should be my last post then.--Scott

Most excellent! I'm also adding a notice to the top of this talk page asking people to read all the comments before making substantial changes. I'm really happy with the way we have reached an agreement on this article. We've shown the rest of Wikipedia how to edit articles collaboratively to really resolve conflicts. Congratulations to everyone involved! --Animated Cascade ^talk 17:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Someone had added this line in the first paragraph of "controversy about identity": "Images of him on the internet often depict him wearing a large hat, large dark glasses, and long blonde hair--perhaps a wig." I removed it as this info appears later in the article, under "additional information." PS How do you leave a phrase on the history page? 24.60.177.101 14:32, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I've edited the page to remove the POV that Yeago has recently introduced. Also, as feydey pointed out on Yeago's talk page, the image posted was in violation of a standing copyright, so I've removed it from the article as well. Adding a link to Google image search is not encyclopedic, and is also unnecessary, since readers wishing to see a photo can easily do a search for themselves. As for leaving comments on the history page: When you edit an article, just below the edit box is another box that says Edit summary. Just add your comment into that box. :) --Animated Cascade ^talk 21:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)