Talk:JT LeRoy

message: 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)
thread_title: References

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  What is the "scheme"? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Fraud is more like it 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  This article and the hoax 

message: 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".    	+
The cited article does not include Silverberg calling them "grifters." Jokestress 05:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed "grifters" comment 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Recent anon edits. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Winona Ryder/Argento stuff should go 

message: 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[].  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)
thread_title:  Much of the text on this page is copied 

message: 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)
thread_title:  From [[Wikipedia talk:JT LeRoy]] (deleted) 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: JT Leroy was not just a pen name; it was a entire fraudulent identity, i.e., a hoax.
174.91.158.113 (talk) 04:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL, JT was just a "pen name"?  Is Laura editing this page?  It may have started out as one, but it became a full blown hoax.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.93.24.28 (talk) 06:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  I would like to change the use of 'hoax' 

message: 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)
thread_title:  References 

message: 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)
thread_title: Undue weight

message: 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)
thread_title:  Savannah Knoop - worthy of her own page? 

message: 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.
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)
thread_title:  removing POV tag with no active discussion per [[Template:POV]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Confusing "supporters" section 

message: 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
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)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Contributions removed

message: 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."http://www.sfgate.com/living/article/IDENTITY-CRISIS-How-former-sex-writer-Laura-2501521.php
Msturm 8 (talk) 05:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 27 September 2016 

message: 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)
replies: text: Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  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)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 26 September 2016 

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) 16:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  JT LeRoy/Laura Albert pages

message: INTRO, PARAGRAPH 4
The question of whether a traumatic childhood, abuse and sexual assault, justifies the "JT LeRoy" scandal is controversial. “I think the tension of this story has to do with the ethics around what Laura Albert and company did to get ahead,” writes Marjorie Sturm, maker of 'The Cult Of JT LeRoy.' “First off, the JT LeRoy enterprise was not just Laura Albert. It involved her mother, her sister, her sister-in-spirit [Savannah Knoop], and her partner/mate of many years [Geoff Knoop]. Were they all mentally ill? Or were they profiting and living off it? Was JT LeRoy just ‘bubbling out of her consciousness’ when she formed a corporation to hide JT’s money? When she actively promoted JT and drew in celebrities? Even if we give Laura Albert the benefit of the doubt and say JT was a coping mechanism, does that give her the right to abuse, lie, and exploit others?”[9]
This paragraph has to be completely deleted, all of it. 
explanation:
Wikipedia is not an ethical-discussion panel -- and even if it was, this paragraph does not discuss ethics but make accusations. If the ethics are controversial, this paragraph does not explore multiple sides of the controversy; it just legitimizes Marjorie Sturm's campaign of hatred against Laura Albert.
PacificOcean (talk) 03:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: . Looking at this talk page, these edits would be contentious. Please get a consensus to make these changes first. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:29, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please delete accusatory paragraph 

message: PUBLISHED WORKS, SUBSECTION "FILM", PARAGRAPH 1
currently reads:
LeRoy was listed as the associate producer of Gus Van Sant's 2003 film Elephant.
should read:
Filmmaker Gus Van Sant commissioned JT LeRoy to write a screenplay about a school shooting, a text that became the basis for Van Sant's 2003 film Elephant. LeRoy received a credit on the film as Associate Producer.
here's the citation:
Gus Van Sant bought the film rights to Sarah and commissioned J.T. to write a screenplay about a school shooting that provided the seed for the 2003 film Elephant (for which J.T. received an associate-producer credit). 
http://www.vanityfair.com/style/2006/04/jtleroy200604
explanation for fix:
Added sourced information about JT LeRoy's role in the making of Elephant.
PacificOcean (talk) 03:08, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please help clarify a citation 

message: SUPPORTERS, SUBSECTION LITERARY SUPPORTERS, PARAGRAPH 5
But many of JT's early literary supporters did not have such a light attitude regarding the fraud such as Susie Bright. "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." As well, Another San Francisco author and activist, Michelle Tea ("Rent Girl"), a former sex worker, has said: "Laura Albert is a traitor to writing itself, specifically to memoir. ... It's such a slap to the artists who really are toiling away to create meaning from the hardships of their live," Tea said. "It turns the redemptive quality of a lot of writing into a total farce."[19]
This paragraph should be deleted entirely. What authority do these people have to make these accusations? Which in fact are extremely personal and vicious, not at all a matter of literary commentary -- they make legalistic judgments and moralistic attacks ("cruel," "traitor") that are legally unsubstantiated, which is libel. This paragraph has no source for Bright at all and no citations of Bright or Tea ever having been literary supporters, which is the topic of this section.
PacificOcean (talk) 03:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please delete accusatory section that is not substantiated 

message: Hello, I would like to discuss the most recent edit made by this user. I have made a note on their Talk page. I believe that their most recent edit regarding Asia Argento is accusatory without appropriate significance for the article, and gets into a he-said-she-said tabloid-like description that is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Thank you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=JT_LeRoy&type=revision&diff=750986619&oldid=750558515
PacificOcean (talk) 21:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hello again, I see the article's history shows no recent changes including from any IPs so I would like to at least think that as a good sign. I'll still be watching and see if anything happens. SwisterTwister talk 17:10, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

text: , at the very least you are providing a one-sided description of events. Assuming this was also you, at times your contributions veered into the outright untrue and arguably libelous (no, Albert was not "convicted of fraud", and her activity was not found to be criminal). Since you have a conflict of interest when writing about the subject of your documentary, I strongly suggest you follow PacificOcean's example, do not edit the article directly but rather propose changes on the article's talk page (ie here). Let uninvolved editors decide whether the changes you propose improve the article. You can add the code  (including the curly brackets) to raise awareness of your proposals. Huon (talk) 18:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discuss with [[User: 76.21.32.54]] 

message: Hello, we are involved in a pending DRN that was created on 12/11/2016.
Recent edits seem relevant and disputable.
Among the edits Msturm 8 made on 12/13/2016:
:*Msturm 8 removed a paragraph, Reason: It was inappropriate because it quoted Laura Albert... However that is inaccurate, Laura Albert was not quoted in that paragraph.
:*Msturm 8 removed a significant amount of content, Reason: "pseudonym was a lie."  This doesn't make sense; author published with a pseudonym.. also removes content that was up for 3 weeks in an edit request without objection. Definitely welcome changes to this section, but would appreciate the oversight of a more experienced editor. 
:*Msturm 8 added a line about Albert on phone calls. Starts out fine but then seems to conflict with WP:BLPStyle.
 Huon,Dragonfly6-7, JustBerry, or User:KrakatoaKatie perhaps you can advise?
PacificOcean (talk) 07:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: That was me that removed it. Sorry if it was factual, I simply saw "taking calls +[in the voice of a damaged boy from West Virginia]" and immediately assumed it was NPOV vandalism. – 🐈? (talk) (ping me!) 20:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

text: Hi there. I just wish to note that edit request templates should not be used during a content dispute. I have declined both the requests (the first one per no consensus, the second one did not talk about a specific edit request). Regards, VB00 (talk) 14:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits during Dispute Resolution

message: PacificOcean (talk) 03:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: BLPN pending

message: Laura Albert continually claimed that "JT LeRoy" was HIV positive. Her own therapist Dr. Terrance Owens mentions under oath in a trial video deposition that "he" told him that 'he' was. The citation I included was  of Ira Silverberg, the literary agent of JT LeRoy, claiming the same thing. Google JT LeRoy and HIV positive and you will see a ton of references.
This is what dealing with a pathological liar looks like. I know that I am suppose to assume 'good faith' to contribute to Wikipedia, and I have that for the site or I wouldn't be bothering. But I don't have that for Laura Albert because I am aware she will say what she feels she needs to say. The interesting thing for me is if in fact Pacific Ocean is a different person, why she would enable this behavior and promote falsity.
Here is the writer Susie Bright's blog where she mention "JT" having HIV-- http://susiebright.blogs.com/susie_brights_journal_/2006/01/my_name_is_susi.html
Here is a clip and at the end of it the other literary agent Henry Dunow mention the same thing-- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIRTb6vKCaI
In this other clip the writer Dennis Cooper mentions the same thing, the using of HIV positive-- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nye1Zk_Mcps&t=2s
Meanwhile, besides HIV positive, she was also NOT a host of other identifications that she appropriated.
Msturm 8 (talk) 07:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  HIV is Not Unsubstantiated 

message: I just have a few thoughts. The BLP policy demands that we only pull content from the highest quality sources when we write about living persons. The Susie Bright blog is unreliable because it is a self published blog, the Village Voice is unsuitable for encyclopedic information about living persons because it is tabloid journalism (see WP:BLPSOURCES), and the YouTube videos look like copies of a film called The Cult of JT LeRoy, which may be reliable (not sure), but we have to be extra careful we aren't drawing conclusions not explicitly stated in the source. (It looks like those YouTube videos are copyright violations of the film, so do not cite them in the article if we're going to use them, instead cite the film.)
Regarding the pseudonym issue presented at WP:BLPN, remember, Wikipedia's job is to explain what the sources say, not what we believe. The Guardian source states:  We can include Albert's point of view—and we already do in the "Circumstances of JT LeRoy's creation" section—but we also have to include the point of view of others in order to remain neutral. There were indeed a number of people who felt angry after it was revealed that JT LeRoy wasn't a real person (per The New York Times). Presenting both of these viewpoints fairly and proportionately to their weight in reliable sources is what neutral point of view is all about.
Finally, there's no need to claim that a fellow editor is engaging in bad faith conduct without serious evidence. (For example, claiming that a fellow editor is purposely trying to make a non-factual article.) This is a collaborative project, and I understand that this subject is controversial, but the goal should be to work together to find common ground.
In the meantime, I have removed a quote because the citation given seems have nothing to do with JT LeRoy (unless I'm missing something, the source appears to be about a lawsuit concerning buildings in San Fransisco). Mz7 (talk) 04:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section break 

message: A number of concerns and complaints have been made about the neutrality of this article over the last several months, both on-wiki and through OTRS.  On reviewing the edit history, it is apparent that there have been significant problems with giving undue weight, as well as some genuine indications of editing despite conflict of interest on the part of more than one account. There are also several accounts that are completely focused on this article, with all edits either to the article or discussing the article.  The effect of all of this has resulted in an article that was, at times, violating our biography of living persons policy. (Yes, BLP applies to the pseudonyms and nom-de-plumes of known persons.)
Some long-experienced Wikipedians have carefully reviewed the content of this article and have edited to a more neutral and balanced version. I have added extended-confirmed protection to the article, so that it can continue to be edited by experienced, knowledgeable editors, but will also prevent the repeated inappropriate editing that has been happening over the last several months.  Others who wish to request an edit to the content of the article may post on this page with their request, using the  template to request that the proposed content be reviewed and an experienced editor will determine whether or not it is edited.  Risker (talk) 04:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is now under "extended confirmed" protection 

message: In order to maintain a neutral point of view, I think the following should be removed from the Popular Culture section: "Filmmaker Michael Arias claimed JT LeRoy for his inspiration in translating Taiyo Matsumoto's manga Sunny.[20] At a 2013 symposium with filmmaker J. J. Abrams in New York, actress and writer Lena Dunham said that JT LeRoy "co-opted my imagination for a full year of my life. [...] It was pretty remarkable. And then you also go, 'This person isn't who they claim to be, but they still wrote this book that captured all of our imaginations, so then why does the identity of the author even matter when you're reading fiction and engaging with it in a really personal way?'"[21] That same year, Laura Albert told Interview magazine, “You know, JT LeRoy does not exist. But he lives. That’s what a famous film historian once said about Bugs Bunny."[22] Another interviewer insisted, "Albert had ingeniously hacked the literary establishment."[23] In March 2014 the San Francisco Chronicle reported that the Academy of Friends Oscar Party in San Francisco invited JT LeRoy – played by gender fluid fashion model Rain Dove Dubilewski – to walk the runway as part of its HIV/AIDS fundraiser.[24] "
This makes light of the fraud and considering the page still doesn't reflect the emotional fall out that occurred, there shouldn't be comments like 'remarkable' or "Bugs Bunny." Also, there is a lot of outrage about the fact that Laura Albert pretended to be HIV positive. So to not mention that, but this comment isn't neutral but a form of spin.
Thank you.Msturm 8 (talk) 20:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: The quote (and the "remarkable"/"Bugs Bunny" comments you cited) is cited from sources. Please seek consensus on this talk page if you still think it should be removed. — Train2104 (t • c) 15:24, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 February 2017 

message: Please remove the non-neutral contributions from Popular Culture: "Filmmaker Michael Arias claimed JT LeRoy for his inspiration in translating Taiyo Matsumoto's manga Sunny.[20] At a 2013 symposium with filmmaker J. J. Abrams in New York, actress and writer Lena Dunham said that JT LeRoy "co-opted my imagination for a full year of my life. [...] It was pretty remarkable. And then you also go, 'This person isn't who they claim to be, but they still wrote this book that captured all of our imaginations, so then why does the identity of the author even matter when you're reading fiction and engaging with it in a really personal way?'"[21] That same year, Laura Albert told Interview magazine, “You know, JT LeRoy does not exist. But he lives. That’s what a famous film historian once said about Bugs Bunny."[22] Another interviewer insisted, "Albert had ingeniously hacked the literary establishment."[23] In March 2014 the San Francisco Chronicle reported that the Academy of Friends Oscar Party in San Francisco invited JT LeRoy – played by gender fluid fashion model Rain Dove Dubilewski – to walk the runway as part of its HIV/AIDS fundraiser.[24]"
Replace with nothing. Should read: "Documentaries about JT LeRoy include Author: The JT LeRoy Story (2016) directed by Jeff Feuerzeig, The Cult of JT LeRoy (2015) directed by Marjorie Sturm, and The Ballad of JT LeRoy (2014) directed by Lynn Hershman Leeson.
I am seeking more opinions on this. The edit request was not done because of 'cited material.' The point being, and the history on this page surely shows, is that there is a lot of material to cite was removed because it wasn't 'neutral.' The only quotes are now positive and if they are to remain, I would then start to make edit requests that balance out this page with people who were horrified about the use of someone pretending to be HIV positive and dying and being conned for their time and money and on and on. 
Or we eliminate what I'm asking above that is not neutral.
Thank you. Msturm 8 (talk) 19:20, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template on this talk page. Morphdog (t - c) 16:23, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 February 2017 

message: I am hoping to reach some consensus around my thoughts on the last paragraph in Pop Culture. I understand that Wikipedia wants to remain neutral. This history of this page has had a lot of problems in regards to NOT being neutral. There's been a lot of back and forth on the page, and for the most part a lot material just eliminated, even if it was cited.
The last paragraph however remains "not neutral." It was added quite a long time ago I believe. 
In popular culture, I think the following should be eliminated:
"Filmmaker Michael Arias claimed JT LeRoy for his inspiration in translating Taiyo Matsumoto's manga Sunny.[20] At a 2013 symposium with filmmaker J. J. Abrams in New York, actress and writer Lena Dunham said that JT LeRoy "co-opted my imagination for a full year of my life. [...] It was pretty remarkable. And then you also go, 'This person isn't who they claim to be, but they still wrote this book that captured all of our imaginations, so then why does the identity of the author even matter when you're reading fiction and engaging with it in a really personal way?'"[21] That same year, Laura Albert told Interview, "You know, JT LeRoy does not exist. But he lives. That's what a famous film historian once said about Bugs Bunny."[22] Another interviewer insisted, "Albert had ingeniously hacked the literary establishment."[23] In March 2014 the San Francisco Chronicle reported that the Academy of Friends Oscar Party in San Francisco invited JT LeRoy – played by gender fluid fashion model Rain Dove Dubilewski – to walk the runway as part of its HIV/AIDS fundraiser.[24]"
Even if it is cited material. 
Or we could include a lot of cited material like the following "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."http://www.sfgate.com/living/article/IDENTITY-CRISIS-How-former-sex-writer-Laura-2501521.php 
Or "To present yourself as a person who is dying of AIDS in a culture which has lost so many writers and voices of great meaning, to take advantage of that sympathy and empathy, is the most unfortunate part of all of this," Mr. Silverberg said. "A lot of people believed they were supporting not only a good and innovative and adventurous voice, but that we were supporting a person."http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/09/books/09book.html
Or "When the truth about Albert/LeRoy/Frasier emerged, I simply assumed that Argento had been in on the whole charade when we had met in 2005, but she wasn’t. “It’s the most shocking thing that’s happened to me in my life, and believe me I’m the queen of shock,”  . . . ”A way I thought I could get rid of the resentment was to just not talk about it. It is something I cannot forgive. Believe me it’s hard to carry this burden. I would be very grateful if one day this stops in me. I couldn’t do movies as a director for 10 years. Because I’ve been fooled. I’m a fool! How could I not see it? It made me feel worthless to be honest. I didn’t have a lot of self esteem after that. It took me a long time to rebuild it. I was lost. So forgiveness … it’s a beautiful thing, of saints and martyrs, but I can’t let it go. I was fucking manipulated, it’s time for me to say that.”https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/jul/20/jt-leroy-story-modern-literary-hoax-
I would love to get others input on this. It seems the way it stands now isn't neutral and only includes those who thinks it's all Bugs Bunny and inspiration, which isn't credible.
Thanks so much. Msturm 8 (talk) 01:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, thanks for responding. If we agree to deleting the items that is all that I'm discussing. (I wasn't the person to list my film on this page in the first place. Amazon is the prime distributor of the other film not Netflix. My film actually has quite a large distribution going (SundanceNow, Fandor, Kanopy-the largest educational, Amazon, iTunes)  but that is irrelevant to this discussion, (where a film that was produced by five corporations gets distributed compared to an independent is a different discussion . . . what is entertainment and propaganda versus real learning). Anyways, that's great we can agree on the deletions. Msturm 8 (talk) 04:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus for Alteration 

message: I I thought I would point out Vanity Fair definitely wasn't the one to point out that Geoffrey Knoop was involved.
That occurred in the January 2006 and February 2006 New York Times Articles. Not sure why or how that got edited incorrectly.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/09/books/the-unmasking-of-jt-leroy-in-public-hes-a-she.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/07/books/07lero.html
Also, the way this site reads, with Dr. Terrance Owens is 'credited' with  encouraging JT's writing, makes it appear as a 'good thing' as opposed to something that he feels embarrassed, betrayed and
humiliated by. He was taped illegally after all. Laura Albert went on to dupe and catfish and mislead everyone who would possible listen- many notable writers.
It seems that no one is interested in making the Popular Culture section unbiased either. Bringing up celebrities who weren't personally humiliated in this context is irrelevant, especially if there isn't going
to be a mention of all of the aftermath and bad feelings of others.
People do seek out Wikipedia as source for information. It's a shame that it is misleading and has errors.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msturm 8 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corrections 

message: Would fix this myself but discovered this page is protected. In the following text: "The following month Vanity Fair identified an additional participant in the hoax: Savannah Koop's half-brother Geoffrey (aka Astor), 39. As TJ's career took off in the wake of all this publicity, Savannah continued to play him in public.[15]" it seems to refer to the article's subject as "TJ" rather than "JT" just this once. Maridiem (talk) 07:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request: Small typo to fix 

message: In the "Exposure" section the name "Koop" is used twice, but it should be "Knoop" which you can see in the rest of the article. MyssK (talk) 21:29, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Regards,   Aloha27  talk  00:04, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 March 2018 

message: hi,
missing ling for "The Night Listener" in "Armistead Maupin's The Night Listener"
greetings Rafftrix (talk) 16:59, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Done (If a "ling" is a link, it's done.) RivertorchFIREWATER 17:42, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 May 2018 

message: I am requesting the correction of inaccurate changes made to the lede in the JT LeRoy article. Please see my explanation of this correction, which I have posted in the "Lede" section, above on this page. Portofcallhttp (talk) 19:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 June 2018 

message: The article contended that Bruce Handy in Vanity Fair first revealed Savannah Knoop's role in the hoax, but it was Warren St John. St John wrote two articles in 2006, the first breaking the info that S. Knoop was playing LeRoy in public, and then a second article in which G. Knoop confirms that info and admits that Albert wrote the book. So, I have made the appropriate edits.  Matuko 00:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Vanity Fair Correction (again)

message: The COI template was added to the article in December 2016, when the article was 39,705 bytes long: . Nearly six years later, the article is now 17,154 bytes, less than half the size it was when the template was added. Although it can still use some work, it seems neutral, accurate, and balanced. Stophorus (talk) 04:28, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: No one has objected to this, or responded, so I am going to go ahead and remove the template, as it is fairly clearly no longer needed. Stophorus (talk) 00:00, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  When to remove the template at the top? 

message: The revisions of the article over the past several years have removed all mention of the fact that a film adaptation was made of "The Heart Is Deceitful...", by Asia Argento.  That seems relevant here, even if relegated to the "Art and Popular Culture" section, though I think it would deserve higher billing than that.  To be clear, I'm talking about its existence (and the desirability of providing a link to the Wikipedia article about the film), not its contribution or lack thereof to the myth of LeRoy's existence. Ajericn (talk) 22:14, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Argento Film