trying to stop vandalisms of JT LeRoy and Laura Albert pages |
|||
Line 270: | Line 270: | ||
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.[[User:NVG13DAO|NVG13DAO]] ([[User talk:NVG13DAO|talk]]) 16:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC) |
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.[[User:NVG13DAO|NVG13DAO]] ([[User talk: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:BOOMERANG]]ed. Regards, <span style="border:1px solid #FFFFFF">[[User:Aloha27|<font style="color:#2B65EC;background:#FFFFFF">''' Aloha27'''</font>]] [[User talk:Aloha27|<font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#2B65EC"> <small>talk</small> </font>]]</span> 17:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:19, 17 October 2016
Literature Unassessed | ||||||||||
|
United States Unassessed | ||||||||||
|
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)
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.
- 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)
- 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)
174.91.158.113 (talk) 04:20, 12 February 2011 (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:
- There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
- It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
- In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
- This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
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
- Triggered by
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 NotifyOnline 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."[1]
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)