Talk:JT LeRoy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Archives

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)