Talk:Literary forgery

message: By the same argument as Jpgordon's's one may ask/say:
What's the difference between a "false document" and "forgery? The definition there says:
     A false document is a form of verisimilitude
     that attempts to create in the reader (viewer, audience, etc.)
     a sense of authenticity beyond the normal and expected suspension of disbelief.
     That is, it wants to fool the audience briefly into thinking
     that what is being presented is actually a fact.
     This is not to be confused with a mockumentary,
     an admittedly fictional film done in the manner of a documentary.
     
     In practice, the device takes a very simple form.
     The work of art (be it a text, a moving image, a comic book or whatever)
     usually is composed of or includes some piece of forgery.
     The false document effect can be achieved in many ways
     including faked police reports, newspaper articles,
     bibliographical references and documentary footage.
     The effect can be extended outside of the confines of the text
     by way of supplementary material such as badges,
     ID cards, diaries, letters or other objects.
:Clearly, there's a whole article false documents which are also, or involve, forgery.
:Accordingly, the mere fact that a literary forgery involves forgery does not deny it the entitlement to a useful WP Article any less that the United States is to be denied an article because there already exists an article for states. Yours truly, Ludvikus 01:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[False document]] 

message: *Literary forgeries and mystifications is also a subject category of the US Library of Congress, for classification purposes, of its holdings. Ludvikus 03:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Literary forgeries and mystifications

message: I did some copyediting and was reverted, probably because my removal of content was thought of as vandalism. Thus, while reinstating the changes, I'll explain them in detail:
*The italics in second paragraph are unnecessary, there's no need for special emphasis.
*Whether "Literary forgeries and mystifications" is a Library of Congress subject category is utterly irrelevant. Wikipedia is not the Library of Congress catalog.
*The spelling of "antisemitic" follows the precedent of the linked article.
*The "About.com list of books" about literary forgery is not encyclopedic content; it may indeed be a copyright violation. It's one of the external links anyway, so an interested reader will be able to find it. At best, we might list some books under a "further reading" heading, but at least one of those ten books isn't about a literary forgery, but is itself a literary forgery.
*I removed those "See also" entries that were already linked in the article's text. Listing them under "See also" would be uselessly redundant.
*The article was categorized in :Category:False documents twice. I removed one of the instances.
If someone still thinks that some or all of these changes are vandalism, feel free to revert me again, but please also discuss it here. Huon (talk) 19:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyediting 

message: The protocols of Zion is already mentioned under False document. In what way would it classify as memoirs? I would rather have expected an entry on fake memoirs from the holocaust, like Herman Rosenblat's Angel at the fence,  Misha Defonseca's Misha: A Mémoire of the Holocaust Years and Binjamin Wilkomirski’s (or rather Bruno Doessekker's) Fragments. Source Ssscienccce (talk) 20:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fake memoirs 

message: Firstly, about the protocols of the elders of Zion, it was claimed that they were written by the members of the Russian Secret Police, there was no source provided to prove that and the wiki article about those protocols doesn't mention it too. In fact, the only one notion about any secret police in that article it's about the Prussian secret police. I deleted the sentence.
Secondly, it had a paragraph about George Elliot who used a man pen name being a woman. Pen names, when they are not used to pretend to be an already known person, aren't literary forgery, they are very popular, and the more so they aren't fake memoirs in which chapter that paragraph was, it is completely unrelated to the article. It also had a direct lie that women had no other way to publish their works in the Victorian times, it's not hard to name, for instance, sisters Bronte, also check this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Victorian_women_writers in fact George Elliot was the only example, at least the only notable example, of a woman who used a man pen name and she might have other reasons except the supposed criticism, she might like it. Anyway it's all unrelated since pen names when they are not an imitation of an already established author, don't belong to the literary forgery, so I removed that paragraph completely.217.118.64.55 (talk) 04:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  deleted some of the unproven and unrelated data 

message: Why is that in this article?  It seems like an entirely different phenomenom being added as a "by the way."  Nobody contests that James Frey wrote "A Million Little Pieces", so it's not a forgery, it's just fiction-presented-as-fact.  Are there sources that connect this and back up the claim in Fake memoir that this is a type of "forgery"?  I mean, good sources, not merely ones looking for any random term to insult such fake memoir authors with.  I think this article should be restricted to the usual definition of forgery - either creating a false document in someone else' name, or altering a real document to include new material or edit out disliked old material.  SnowFire (talk) 02:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fake memoirs section 

message: This article should include the methods that are used to detect literary forgeries.  For example, how was The Poems of Ossian by James Macpherson (1736 – 1796) determined to be a forgery?
Has text analysis been applied to suspect text(s) and to valid text that's known to have been written by the author?  For example, analysis of the frequency and types of contractions, the use of punctuation, vocabulary, sentence lengths, etc.
VexorAbVikipædia (talk) 02:42, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Methods of analysis ?