Talk:Laura Albert

message: Note: please add comments about this propsed merge on the Talk:JT LeRoy page. The comments below are duplicates.
Since the idea has been proposed, allow me to set up a straw poll.
*Oppose. Merging JT LeRoy and Laura Albert is inappropriate in this case, because JT LeRoy was not only Laura Albert, but also Savannah Knoop, Geoffrey Knoop, and likely a few other accomplices. This is not a pen name or pseudonym, but a hoax. There are also precedents set for other hoaxes; see the See Also section at the bottom of the article. Jokestress 16:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: Salon article dated March 8, 2006 gives the following: "How did a 40-year-old woman fool the world into thinking she was teenage prostitute and wunderkind author JT LeRoy?" and "She was a Scorpio and said all the girls who worked there were Scorpios." 
Since Scorpios are born late October through most of November, and she is now 40, that puts her birth date in late 2005. I am changing the date accordingly. Jokestress 03:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth date 

message: Transferred the following comment by  - Skysmith (talk) 10:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transferred apparent comment by Albert  

message: 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) 16:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  JT LeRoy/Laura Albert pages

message: An amicus brief is not subject to peer review or editorial oversight. It's a piece of advocacy, and also a primary source. Per WP:BLPPRIMARY, we should not rely on such primary sources (and "trial transcripts and other court records" are explicitly mentioned; amicus briefs should be treated the same) in the biography of a living person. I'll thus again remove the two paragraphs based on that brief. Huon (talk) 19:28, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't have it both ways. Either this is "completely pertinent to the subject", a living person; then WP:BLP and WP:BLPPRIMARY apply. Or it isn't used "to support assertions about a living person"; then it's off-topic and should be removed for that reason. Either way, citing an amicus brief in the absence of coverage in secondary sources is not appropriate. The same goes for interviews with the subject. If no secondary coverage exists, this simply is not an important aspect of Albert's biography. My deletion isn't damaging, it's upholding core policies such as WP:NPOV. Huon (talk) 21:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amicus brief as a reference 

message: The following content is at the end of the first paragraph. It is a quote referencing an event that was part of a larger issue and a larger discussion (there was a settlement thereafter, the prosecution wanted the defendant's life rights, the question of use of pseudonyms and avatars and an author's right to privacy or to control their public persona, etc.), and should not be in the first paragraph- if anything, it should be in the section "Fraud Charges" or "Trial."
Albert was convicted of fraud in June 2007. The New York Times reported, "JT LeRoy, the authorial “other” whom the writer Laura Albert employed as her alter ego and self-protective proxy in the world, was found yesterday by a jury in Manhattan to be not just a fictional creation, but a fraud."[2]
PacificOcean (talk) 21:16, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: A lawsuit that almost cost her the copyrights to her works seems relevant enough. It was a civil case, though; I have reworded it. Huon (talk) 01:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request to delete controversial material in first paragraph 

message: Under the section "Writing and other Activities"
The "She" in the following sentence should be replaced by the name "Laura Albert," since it could be confused with Savannah Knoop who is the subject of the sentence immediately preceding:
She attests that she could not have written from raw emotion without the right to be presented to the world via JT LeRoy, whom she calls her "phantom limb," according to a 2006 interview in the Paris Review.
PacificOcean (talk) 21:24, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: More clarity never hurts.  Pppery 19:04, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarify a pronoun 

message: The request is repeated below with additional details. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 10:44, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please help clean up section on "controversy of authorship" so it is scholarly and not tabloid 

message: Here is the section below with my requested edits in bold, and reasons in italics:
Fraud charges[edit source]
Antidote International Films, Inc., and its president Jeffrey Levy-Hinte announced plans for a film adaptation of Sarah to be directed by Steven Shainberg. According to The New York Times, when Shainberg "learned who had truly written 'Sarah' an inspiration came to him to make a 'meta-film,' a triple-layered movie that would blend the novel with the lives of its real and purported authors in a project he took to calling 'Sarah Plus.'"[22] The Times also reported that this new project "required the rights to Laura Albert's story, rights that she in no uncertain terms refused to grant."[23]  The following sentence lacks enough grounding. It's unclear what his "loss" was, or what truth he was trying to convey, and it doesn't serve this section- it only serves to cloud this section with unclear information. The previous sentences in this section were concrete and easy to follow, but this quote is not.  Levy-Hinte stated, "that the lawsuit was less about getting his money back than about sticking up for fair dealing and telling the truth. I’m kind of a person of principle. I wasn’t willing to simply walk away and take a loss with no apology or reasonable explanation.”"[24]
In June 2007 Antidote sued Laura Albert for fraud, claiming that a contract signed with JT LeRoy to make a feature film of Sarah was null and void.[25]  I don't really understand the following sentence (about ABC news and Shakespeare), and I think that I'm a competent reader.. so that means that most readers probably won't really understand this sentence. Can it be removed?  ABC News questioned whether Antidote’s lawyer “may have misfired by comparing Albert to Shakespeare in an attempt to claim that authorship matters. ‘You think Shakespeare would be Shakespeare if he didn’t write it — whoever Shakespeare really is?’ he asked.”[26] On June 22 a Manhattan jury found Albert liable in monetary damages for the tort of fraud because she had signed her nom de plume to the movie contract. She was ordered to pay $110,000 to Antidote, covering the option contract, as well as an extra $6,500 in punitive damages.[27]  in the following sentence, the quote should begin with a capital letter.. this edit request is just regarding simple writing rules..In reporting the verdict, The New York Times noted that Jeffrey Levy-Hinte said, “if Ms. Albert, who never made a fortune from her literary works, could not afford to pay the judgment, he might have to consider laying claim to the rights to her past and future books.”[28] On July 31, 2007, the court ordered Albert to pay an additional $350,000 in legal fees to Antidote.[29] After having appealed, the damages awarded were reduced by settlement with Antidote in 2009, and Laura Albert retained the rights to her books and her life story.[30]
 I do not think the quote from Filmmaker magazine adds anything but an opinion, and a not very useful or clear opinion at that. 
According to Filmmaker magazine, "Antidote v. Albert has succeeded in extending the 21st century’s most fascinating literary hoax into a whole new discursive realm. While some have argued that the case is about the right of an author to create a pseudonym for him or herself (and Antidote has proposed that it’s just about the non-ability of a fictitious person to enter into legal agreements), the verdict is a step towards defining the responsibilities of the alter-ego. In an age in which many if not most people employ fictitious identities in everything from puffed-up dating profiles to Second Life avatars, Antidote v. Albert seeks to identify the responsibilities of identity — even a fictitious one."[31]
PacificOcean (talk) 23:00, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this tone is appropriate; also, there are far too many quotes for comfort from a copyright point of view. I have rewritten the section. Huon (talk) 01:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please help clean up "Fraud Charges" section

message: OUTLINE OF CHANGES I PROPOSE:
I am proposing a rewrite of the two middle sections of content. 
The first section, titled "Writing and other Activities" in its current form deviates from the topic, and instead goes into various irrelevant critiques of the work. I have edited this section to focus solely on listing the titles and publish dates of the work, and paraphrasing of some educated descriptions of the work content. Beyond the books, I have cleaned up the sections to focus solely on the work that Laura Albert has created herself (whether it be performance, film, or appearances), instead of listing all the media that may or may not have been created about her without her own doing.
The second section in its current form is erroneously titled "Authorship Controversy." The current title implies that there are various people claiming to be the author, and this is not the case. The author of the books was Laura Albert, under the pseudonym of JT Leroy. It is the pseudonym and the life that the pseudonym took on in public that is of interest- and thus the section should be titled "Pseudonym."
In its current form, the second section undertakes a disorganized and gossip-like discussion of Albert's moral character and the feelings of spectators. This is not of interest to Wikipedia on this page- instead this section should clearly describe the story of the authorship, and in this case, the pseudonym. In my rewrite, I have gone in consequential order to describe the facts of how the pseudonym came to be, how Laura Albert came to publish under that pseudonym, and in what ways the name was used in public marketing and discourse. I still do mention that there have been various opinions on the matter but I clarify what in fact were the applications of the pseudonym and the point of departure between Laura Albert and her pseudonym.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by PacificOcean (talk • contribs) 23:12, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi there. I had a look, and it seems to be fine, so I'll let it remain in the article. Note that I have added some "citation needed" templates in certain parts of the passage, which I feel should be backed up with references, as well as an "unverified content" template where content is not backed up by the reference given. Regards, VB00 (talk) 17:26, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for revision and reorganization of sections "Writing and other Activities" as well as "Authorship controversy" 

message: This article is in need of biographical information. In an interview with Marc Maron, Albert described her mother as an immigrant, journalist, game show winner, and abuser. Information about parents and upbringing are standard in biographical articles and should be verified and included here. --Tysto (talk) 15:34, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biographical information