Talk:JT LeRoy/Archive 3

Discuss new edits here

In the interest of keeping edit wars to a minimum, please discuss your proposed changes here in this section before making them, so that those actively involved in the article can weigh in and discuss the changes without simply reverting them. PLEASE? --Animated Cascade ^talk 21:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure. I reworked the article a little bit. I left several things in the Controversy section to generate some consensus. My idea is that the section as a whole can be greatly decimated as the evidence for and against is no longer hot. I think a summary of the debate as it progressed certainly should remain, but things such as JT LeRoy's letter can be summarized.

PS: Could you Archive the below debate section? ThanksYeago 21:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The Cabal arrives, eventually...

Hello, I'm responding to a request for help made to the Cabal. As that request is a couple of weeks old now (sorry!), could people fill me in on the current situation, and what (if anything) they'd like to see changed? PS try to keep it brief :-) Dan100 (Talk) 16:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

If anyone involved is interested in mediation, just leave a note for me on my talk page Dan100 (Talk) 14:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Dan100. Thanks for coming around. :) I think that, through the power of positive collaboration, the community here has reached a consensus on the controversy at hand. Thanks for checking in with us! --Animated Cascade ^talk 20:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC) (CC'ed to your talk page)

Glad it's been sorted out, and thanks for letting me know! Dan100 (Talk) 18:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello Article

Hello there,

I have never read or heard about JT LeRoy until a friend of mine read 'Heart/Deceitful..'. I was interested in seeing the movie, however was disappointed when it failed to find a distributer in its tour of film festivals (I hear it is still touring). I am a fan of Marilyn Manson, and was definitely interested to see him play, well, someone else other than himself.

Anyway, I thought I would introduce myself to this article. It seems that even the author her/himself has executed some stake in the conclusion which this article draws. Ahh, the power of wikipedia.

Welp, I look forward to bringing some objectivity to this article. I think its a pretty interesting case, pseudonym or none.Yeago 01:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Animated Cascade, for your good work here in wikifying and keeping the page neutral--also, for telling me how to do the phrase thing on the history page. It stumped me. Thanks also to the Cabal for coming round.

Yeago, the film has been picked up by Palm Pictures and will be shown in Spring of 2006. I think that news is in this wiki article somewhere... I hope you read JT's works, especially since you have edited his wikipedia page. IMHO, this article has produced a tempest in a teapot, but JT's books will stand the test of time.

Not my style of reading, but thank you. I am purely interested in the case of mistaken identity.Yeago 19:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Curiously enough, the ghosts of both Jacob Marley and JT LeRoy had a two hour long live interview on San Francisco's K-POO radio station on Christmas Eve. Well, maybe Jacob Marley wasn't there---I think his chains needed soldering.  :) Nice to know the non-existent can talk and even read from their work.  :) Grilledcheese 21:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I removed the copyrighted photo, it is against wikipedia policy. Also, references to wigs and sunglasses appear several times in the article, as well as references to a pseudonym. It is redundant to repeat this info by saying that the info appears elsewhere in the article, as happened in the last edit. I will try to track down a photo that is not copyrighted that we can use here. The caption can read: JT LeRoy in wig, hat and sunglasses. That should serve the purpose. 24.60.177.101 13:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

While the information does appear outside of the article it does not (in your revert) appear in the context of the pseudonym issue, It is mentioned separately and as an aside, despite high potential for synthesis there. Replacing. Photo will be good but short of you doing so, I find at least the google image search link highly relavent. *shrug*. Sorry you don't think so. Yeago 05:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• Article has Transgendered/transsexual category yet article makes no mention of this.Yeago 06:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The entire section termed "Controversy About Identity" is framed around these issues. It is comprehensive and balanced. Mention is already made of the author's use of wig, hat and sunglasses throughout this article. The repeated references to the author's use of disguise in the last edit are a redundancy that leads to nonconformance with wikipedia's NPOV. Note that I kept the "small in stature and demeanor" descriptor for the early pen-name, Terminator, as it is relevant to his being given the nickname. Additional references to the author's physique are not relevent his work or the controversy over his identity. I removed the transgendered-transsexual category. JT LeRoy's works explore these themes, as well as the more universal themes of search for family, belonging, and love. Categorizing his work in this way limits his audience, as in a previous edit's descriptor of "cult writer." Grilledcheese 16:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I am thoroughly confused. The history page states that changes have been made by 65.33.136.18 but none are in the article. Additions that I made yesterday have been removed. Changes that were already made are listed yesterday as new edits. There is no discussion about it here to explain. If edits are to be made, please take the time to read the history, and respect the large amount of time and effort that have gone into making this page neutral and balanced. I find this current editing irresponsible.

In regards to the edits: the nickname was given in irony and that's fine to include. What I have issue with are hints that his small stature in some way is evidence of...what? That he didn't write his books? That he is Laura Albert? Even the Beachy article doesn't go to these lengths. It maintains that, in public, an actor is playing the JT LeRoy role.

Actually, phrase "small stature" came from a neutral article illustrating the ironic meaning of the nickname 'Terminator'. Means... whatever you want, buddy. Yeah, what a 'great length'. I swear I thought I was reading A Holocaust Survivor's biography of Hitler when I read that cutting phrase .... small statureYeago 04:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

This dialog about his physical make-up (petite stature and height for a male) is nonsensical. Napolean was small...was he not a general? One gets what one gets from the great manufacturer in the sky. It has absolutely nothing to do with one's abilities. Grilledcheese 14:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

It is never present in that context. It is strictly relevant and applied to the case of LeRoy's identity.Yeago 04:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, now I see. "Removed the other reference" in the history page refers your having deleted the sentence regarding the author's wearing of wig, hat and sunglasses that had been put into the additional information section. Please understand that Scott, Animated Cascade and I all worked exceedingly hard at arriving at a consensus for this article. That one sentence had been edited and inspected rigorously. To delete it in favor of phrases that intimate that JT LeRoy's God-given small stature is evidence that he did not write his books is cavalier and irresponsible. Grilledcheese 14:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

That's wiki for you. Sorry you don't like it. Never said or inflected anything you're accusing me of. Read above: I am strictly interested in the case of mistaken identity. Obviously the author has some clout or...well... we wouldn't be feuding about this now, would we?Yeago 04:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I've stated before and I reiterate: My only interest here is to maintain a neutral point of view and a high-quality article. Having said that, I have a few points that really, really need to be made:

• As others have pointed out, the photo was a copyright infringement. It's out, no questions, no debate. I'll continue to remove any copyrighted photo that is used without the permission of the copyright owner.

What are you talking about? I'm the one who removed it.Yeago 04:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• • Actually, I removed it the second time (12/29), feydey removed it the first (12/27).Grilledcheese 18:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• POV issues can be much more subtle and insidious than something like, for example, "JT LeRoy is a big fraud." Other examples of POV violations include words such as "questionably authentic" (there's a photo; the reader can make her/his own conclusion regarding the authenticity), "obscuring garb" (garb is an antiquated word and has come to have a negative connotation, and the same thing with "obscuring" as with "questionably authentic" -- let the reader decide), and even the use of quotation marks surrounding "extreme shyness," which strongly implies that such reason is irrational or unbelievable.

The wig is questionably authentic. Actually I wrote that before I discovered the author her/himself maintains that its a wig. So, you're right. Phrase should have been 'artificial'. "Extreme shyness" is a direct quote. Why don't you read the article?Yeago 04:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Given these points, I've reedited the article to counter POV (even the word "ironic") and also to clean up some wieldy phrases and word construction. Please discuss any further changes to the article on this talk page before making the change. --Animated Cascade ^talk 04:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• shrug*. Replaced. Phrasing 'ironic' comes from A New York Times profile of the author in question. If you can't see how the nickname 'Terminator' would be unobjectively and Websters' approved 'IRONIC' when given to someone because of their stature, then, uhm. Well. I don't really know what to tell you. Its pretty plain to me. Go write the Times about it if its so awful.Yeago 04:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Please end the edit war!

EVERYONE: It seems that a couple of new editors to the page have no regard for the hard work that the rest of us have put into reaching a compromise version. As the edit war has been going on for days on end now, I have listed the article on the Requests for Protection page. Again, please respect the work and cooperation that went into writing a neutral and encyclopedic article. --Animated Cascade ^talk 12:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

You seem to think that somehow new people are not allowed to come along and place information they feel to be relevant into the article, merely because you and very few others agreed to its current status. You can sound whatever alarm you like, but I suggest you take it up to discussion. In several examples I was accused of being NPOV when in fact I was quoting clearly objective sources. I'm sorry you didn't like my responses, but I was not convinced by your reasoning and in every instance I cited why I remained unconvinced. Yeago 18:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Yeago. I personally do not believe that new people shouldn't edit the article. I am a Wikipedian first, and a person interested in JT LeRoy second; I really do want to see the best article possible, which means that I do support the spirit of open editing. Having said that, I want to first ask you to carefully reread the big brown box at the top. It has taken a lot of work not just by myself but by others to reach the version that had been here prior to your edits. (Not all of it is described on this talk page; be sure to read the Archive page as well.) Personally, my issue is with the particular wording you've chosen, which implies a certain slant or bias on the topic.

I'm very open to discussing the changes with you. Please, though, let's discuss them before we make them -- and I direct that not only to you, but to everyone introducing new changes -- so that those of us who are actively following the topic and the article can weigh in on them. I respect your right to edit any article you choose, but please respect the community at large as well, who also have a right to input on the topic. So, having said that, I'm introducing a new topic here on the talk page for discussing new edits before they are enacted. Please feel free to propose new changes you'd like to see, and the rest of us who are actively involved in this page will discuss them with you. I personally don't want to see this edit war going on forever, and I doubt that you or anyone else does either. --Animated Cascade ^talk 21:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I do agree with them, however, the connections obviously no longer need to be made.Yeago 06:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

If your issue is with wording than reword it. The identity controversy is so plainly linked with the appearance issue that I have trouble understanding how anyone could be so perplexed as my mentioning it. Obviously, your outright reverts of my additions show that your position is staunchy that the article should make no mention of his appearance in the context of the identity controversy, so I just keep replacing it. When you're willing to drop the hard view then feel free to add something about JT LeRoy's appearance in coincidence with the identity controversy. As long as nothing is there, my text does quite well and I'll continue replacing it.Yeago 03:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that a neutral wording can be found that will accommodate that without pushing the point-of-view in any direction. I'll work on writing that shortly. My apologies for not seeing a more agreeable option sooner. I'll be editing the article again shortly; please let me know what you think of it. --Animated Cascade ^talk 05:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeago, I've edited the page to reword some stuff. Please let me know whether you find this version to be acceptable. I do agree with you that discussion of the disguise within the context of the controversy. My issue was more with wording, and hopefully you can agree with the changes I've made. I also want to hear from anyone who has an interest in this article. --Animated Cascade ^talk 06:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Well done, Animated Cascade. I concur with your version. It is fair and balanced without being inflammatory. I appreciate your civility, as well. We all would do well to follow your lead. Grilledcheese 18:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Grilledcheese. I really appreciate your willingness and that of the others to work together on this. I generally hate the phrase "fair and balanced" (for reasons to do entirely with a certain television station), but I appreciate the compliment. --Animated Cascade ^talk 03:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Linking today's NYT piece

Today's NYT has a piece called "The Unmasking of JT Leroy: In Public, He's a She." [1] They give evidence that JT Leroy's public face is Savannah Knoop, half-sister of Laura Albert's husband Geoffrey Knoop. I also NPOVed the opening, but the whole biography needs an NPOV rewrite (regardless of past edit wars). Jokestress 23:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I have read your edits, and I personally find them completely appropriate. You've done what I've been trying to do for weeks now. Thanks for stepping in, but be prepared for pushback.--Animated Cascade ^talk 00:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, rewrite is necc as article prepares for its 'cooling off' phase, as factual disputes are all pretty much moot. I believe a lot of evidence (for and against) over the identity scandal can be removed and decimated (the letter, for instance, should be referenced but its entirety is no longer neccessary, just historic. Not even United States Constitution contains the actual constitution, full text, in entirety. Suffice it to be known that a letter was written in response). Regardless of how the vote to merge goes, I suspect that the articles will eventually be merged merely for the sake of readability, and because it may very well be the most notable thing Laura Albert is recognized for. I am speaking strictly in terms of press publicity and general public attention.Yeago 06:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)