Talk:JT LeRoy/Archive 4

Merge proposal

Proposed new article as Laura Albert merge:

Laura Albert

• Bio
• Writings
  • Written works, etc
  • Written works, etc as JT LeRoy
• JT LeRoy Literary Hoax
  • JT Bio (existing intro)
  • Summary of events/reactions
  • Timeline of events

Yeago 16:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

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 16:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Regardless of whether they are the same person in reality, JT LeRoy and Laura Albert are indeed different characters with different stories. LeRoy is not merely a pseudonym, but an entire persona with a history and biography all his own. --Animated Cascade ^talk 00:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Agree. Making viewers navigate two distinct articles is unneccesary, especially considering how scant the Albert article is. As for her also being Savannah Knoop, I find this to be merely an aside, as Knoop was only entracted to do public appearances--of which there are very few examples. As for LeRoy being an "entire persona," well, I doubt that will continue to be so unless Albert can prove her credibility in the issues she formerly appeared to be so well acquainted with. Certainly I can't imagine she will be publishing under the name an further.Yeago 06:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Agree. While Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, Chris Gaines, and Sherlock Holmes have their own entries that are independent of their creators, it is my feeling that until something other than the JT LeRoy hoax distinguishes Laura Albert a merging makes better sense--especially since a growing amount of evidence suggests that LeRoy's history, story, voice, and creative expressions were mostly, if not all, her creation. Also, it might should be noted that "employees at Disneyland Paris and two Paris hotels confirmed that the person claiming to be JT LeRoy matched photographs of Laura Albert, who told the employees she was traveling with her husband and son." Not only that, but Albert's own Wikipedia entry deals almost entirely with LeRoy and the hoax, offering little or nothing else that truly sets it apart. Hiroshi
• Oppose. It is premature, at the least, to merge the articles. If it is ever definitively established that JT LeRoy is a creation of Albert then it may make sense to consider the merger then although I would probably argue against it even then.--DieWeibeRose 00:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose for both short- and long-term reasons. — ciphergoth 11:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - but JTLeRoy article should be retitled JTLeRoy Hoax, as that's what it will be remembered as. PiCo 10:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me but I have been part of plenty of wikipedia votes where votes that failed to meet some degree of intellectual warrant were thrown out as trash votes. This (DieWeibeRose's) vote basically says, "We shouldn't merge them because its premature, and even if it wasn't, I'd vote against it." If it seems that people are inviting their puppet friends to vote on this issue, I won't mind doing it too. I'm going to leave them a message urging them to provide legitimate rationale. If it isn't done consider it nixed.Yeago 01:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

You may not agree with me but it is legitimate to argue that it is premature to merge the two articles because the relationship between LeRoy and Albert is not yet clear. It is also legitimate to postpone extensive discussion on remaining issues until that key issue is resolved. Also, the first principle of Wikipedia etiquette is to "Assume good faith." I don't appreciate your "puppet" remark. I found out about this dispute after viewing the article as a result of hearing a radio report on JT LeRoy and the possible hoax. No one put me up to it.--DieWeibeRose 06:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

You have missed my point. No reasonable person would ever suggest we merge these two articles before adequate evidence has surfaced as to the identity of JT LeRoy. You say I "may not agree" when in fact I perfectly agree. I do not find it legitimate to "postpone discussion" as new evidence as to JT LeRoy's identity is coming out daily. Look even to the recent contribution by User:Hiroshi made this very evening.

In reference to my recent contribution as noted by either Yeago or DieWeibeRose, it should be pointed out that that information was taken from the Laura Albert entry already on Wikipedia, and isn't new at all in terms of this debate. I only added it to point out that Laura Albert herself has claimed to be LeRoy in the past, or at least this is what was confirmed by Warren St. John. Lastly, with all due respect to Jokestress, there is a logical reason why Deep Throat (Watergate) and W. Mark Felt should have separate entries, based on historical circumstances and roles, etc. Furthermore, W. Mark Felt would most certainly have an entry regardless, even if it turned out he wasn't the man behind Deep Throat (Watergate). But in the case of Leroy and Laura Albert, the two are nothing if not tied to the same connotations, implications, and references. That said, I do realize that Lamb Chop the sock puppet and its creator Shari Lewis have separate entries, although Shari Lewis had certainly accomplished herself well beyond our beloved Lamb Chop. Hiroshi

Please address my original point:

The reasoning you gave behind your vote seemed to me to reduce to the following paraphrase: "I oppose because merging seems premature. When merging does not seem premature, I will probably oppose anyway."

Yeago, please do not bite the newcomers. Your summary of DieWeibeRose's statement summarizes my reasons for separate articles as well. There is ample precedent for hoaxes having their own articles separate from their creators: Ern Malley, Nat Tate, Ossian, etc. Right now there is no reason to merge, since Albert has not been conclusively linked (though I am certain she is the primary perpetrator), and even once she is conclusively proven to be the key hoaxer, the article should stand on its own as with the examples I showed above. We went through the same argument on Deep Throat (Watergate) and W. Mark Felt, and the final decision was to keep them separate. I am sure the same reasoning will prevail in this case as well. Characterizing other editors' opinons as "trash votes" is not cool. Jokestress 08:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I can only repeat Hiroshi's observation--Laura Albert/JT LeRoy have not nearly reached the critical mass of Deep Throat/W. Mark Felt and never will. Moreover, both entries had elaborate and extensive articles before the news broke--the same is not true in this instance. Agreed, there is ample precedent in an abstract sense. But in a practical sense it just comprimises readability, and ignores the fact that JT LeRoy is, as yet, Albert's most notable contribution. Regardless of what happens in the next month, 5 years down the road these will not be two distinct articles.

I can understand your point about not biting the newcomers, however, I still maintain that this vote and its reasoning are trash. Are you new to this article? I urge you to look at the archives and realize that this article has been the constant playground of LeRoy's cheerleaders, if not LeRoy herself given her penchant for identity swapping.

Out of pure curiosity, shall I take this to mean you found no problem with DieWeibeRose's logic?

Yeago 18:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

That's absolutely correct. Also, there was no W. Mark Felt article until the day it was revealed. And I can only reiterate that as long as there are separate articles on Ern Malley, Nat Tate, Ossian, etc., my vote will be for separate articles for this literary hoax as well. Jokestress 19:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. Its off topic at best; you present your own reasoning for voting but I never solicited it. Interesting change of subject, but change of subject nonetheless. Had DieWeibe presented him/herself in a reasonable manner there would be no question, but there is. Vote is bunk per Wikipedia guidelines:

"Your opinion will be given the most weight if you are logged in with an account that already existed when the nomination was made. Unregistered and new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons)." User has failed to elaborate. User has said "I oppose because of X, but even when X is not true, I still oppose" and user has not elaborated when asked.

and QUITE possibly:

"Please make your recommendation only once. If there is evidence that someone is using sock puppets (multiple accounts belonging to the same person) to make multiple recommendations, such additional recommendations will be discounted."

Yeago 02:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm starting to lean more toward the separate articles myself, although I don't think it makes much difference one way of the other--JT Leroy is an American Author who was created by Laura Albert/Laura Albert is an American author who created JT Leroy. Surprised, though, to hear W. Mark Felt had no article until the day Deep Throat was revealed. Regardless, I'd say that was likely a Wikipedia oversight than anything, as Felt was associate director of the FBI during Watergate and was involved in trying to bring down the Weather Underground. Regarding the Leroy/Albert quandry, one thing has crossed my mind. While the inclination is to mark it down as simply a literary hoax and, therefore, define it solely in that manner, it appears that "LeRoy" has no intention of slowing down or going away. Already Amazon shows there are plans to publish a post-hoax book under the Leroy name called "Labour," so I suspect this is going to end up as something that goes a little beyond the usual dead-end that comes with being outed as a hoax. Lastly, I've noticed that someone like Howe Gelb has no entry on Wikipedia, despite having released many solo albums, yet he is merged completely with his band Giant Sand, which he also writes and sings for. The same goes for any number of individuals, so there doesn't seem to be any set rule on when merging or separating articles is called for. Hiroshi-san 00:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

We'll see what the Publisher does. I recall Jayson Blair attempting to continue--even going so far as attempting to secure a book deal. The world loves a mystery.... not a fraud. I withold condemnation until Albert explains why she has special credentials to speak on the issues which LeRoy claimed to have been the victim/effected by.Yeago 02:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Just making it official, I'm now signed on as Hiroshi-san from here on out. Still trying to figure my way around Wikipedia, a bit of a slow learner but I get there eventually. Hiroshi-san 15:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Yeago, my vote counts and I want two apologies from you. First, I want you to apologize for your completely baseless accusations that I have been using sock puppets. That is a personal attack. Second, I want you to apologize for your incivility by repeatedly characterizing my vote and rationale as "trash" and "bunk." I don't mind that you don't like my reasoning and disagree with my vote but your continued rudeness violates Wikipedia policies and guidelines. BTW, my user ID was registered last summer; presumably, long before the article merger was proposed.--DieWeibeRose 07:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Please forgive me if it sounded like a personal attack.

Your 'apology' for how your personal attack on me "sounded" is unacceptable. I will accept an apology for the actual personal attack in the unlikely event that you can ever bring yourself to make one.

I would never have made it were this article not previously edited by people who are not who they claim to be. I hadn't realized that your account was registered last summer--where is that date?

I'm not interested in your excuses. Next time, check before you make baseless accusations.

Did I not just ask you where to find this date? Where can I find this date so I can check future 'baseless accusations'?Yeago 21:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

You still have not substantiated your vote. If you'd like to have it counted, please elaborate. From what I can tell, you've voted to oppose under circumstances that would never exist (merging before being sure of LeRoy's identity), and then promised to oppose when this changes. I'm really just trying to understand where you are coming from. Please elaborate.

I've "elaborated" all I'm going to--no one else seems to have so much difficulty understanding my reasoning. You've consistently misconstrued my remarks and to quote Barbara Bush, I'm through with you." I suppose you'll be attacking ciphergoth next.--DieWeibeRose 11:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeago 02:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't realized that your account was registered last summer--where is that date?

Here.

Yeago, please stop being so aggressive toward this editor. There's no call for this ongoing aggression simply because you do not approve of an editor's reason for voting differently than you. Jokestress 03:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

It isn't that I disprove of their reason. It is that I do not understand their reason and they refuse to elaborate. DieWiebe could have ended all of this long ago merely by explaining what was meant, and settling what I consider to be a logical error. Yeago 17:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeago, I'm not sure whether your last remark ("were this article not previously edited by people who are not who they claim to be") was directed to me, but if so, you'll see here that I've also been a Wikipedian for over a year who has edited more than a few other articles as well. --Animated Cascade ^talk 04:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Hiya. No, it wasn't directed at you but at a few editors before. User:Grilledcheese to name one. Could you archive our previos discussion over the LeRoy pictures, etc? Its all moot now. Thx.

PS: In the future, "Comments to Yeago" should be at User_Talk:Yeago.

Yeago 17:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose per my comments at Talk:Laura Albert. Perhaps some indication should be made of which is the real discussion. . . Chick Bowen 03:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)