Talk:James Frey/Archive 1

Archive 1

External link

Honestly, the external link is so poorly done it's not funny. It's worse than linking to pitchfork reviews for music pages. blah blah blah I'll try and balance this out in the future.--24.69.27.190 07:33, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Smoking Gun

Hah, someone added The Smoking Gun article at the same exact time I was.

Who gives a hjbvtjbdfxyjvgn dtvr if the lying publisher says "We stand in support of our author"--which is what the actual quote was? Wikipedia doesn't need to print that. Obviously the publisher has a plain financial interest in lying, never mind how their own credibility is toast. Besides, it doesn't mean anything with respect to the truth of the memoir. "Stand[ing] in support of our author" doesn't mean they're vouching for his honesty in AMLP, which is what this section is about. They'd be crazy to, after TSG's piece. I've read it, and it's devastating.

Goodbye, Mr. Frey, you lying fraud. I don't think Brad Pitt will be accepting the honor of playing you in a movie any time soon.

Lying shit, he is, and talentless, I really like this lemma in wikipedia though.

I am very saddened by this turn of events. I am a writer who is actually working on my own memoir, and I was so moved and so fascinated by both of his works. I was literally moved to tears twice during "My Friend Leonard. I was such a big fan of his work. I sincerely hope that somehow these allegations can be disproven, although I suspect that they probably have something to them. -- JAY... 1/12/06

Retort: I find it telling that a confessed Frey fan can't spell the words "embellishments" or "disappointing." How appropriate that the fans of an illiterate moron ... are illiterate morons.

It's sad that the public is more concerned about a lying nobody author than a lying President. - from someone that knows what's important

^^^Thank you for posting that, that is exactly what I was thinking. Oprah, CNN, Smoking Gun, and all the other sources reporting on this should stop giving this (admitted) liar publicity, and focus on the REAL issues at hand. 71.33.140.76 01:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Oprah

When was his initial appearance? You guys edited this entry past it making any sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.103.110 (talk) 20:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Category Removed

I removed this from the Hoax category as right now it would be way too contreversial for inclusion in said category, for one James Frey has gone on record saying the only about 18 of about 300 pages were in dispute, secondly like it or no this is this guys life we're talking about and fom what I gather it's mostly true. Those are the reasons I feel it should not be included in the "Hoaxes" category.Deathawk 15:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Death-awk: Fine, I agree. I was the one who added him to that category in the first place.

The "18 pages argument/less than 5%" argument is ludicrous, unless you consider a memoir to be written in some sort of mathematical formula where each page contains a proportional amount of 'truth'. Take into consideration the repeated refrain and theme of the book: I am an Alcoholic and a Drug Addict and a Criminal. It's been fairly well established that he is not a criminal (or is that Criminal?) so using my own arbitrary arithmetic, 33% of the book has been proven to be false.

You think it is too controversial to be call this a hoax? The only provable portions of the book have been disproven. He tried (succeeded?) to have the records expunged. Now, why would someone who has provided minute details of his every vice and crime, feel thratened by the existence of his 'criminal' records in the public realm??

Additionally, his purported jailtime and criminal charges are central to many other dramatic events in the book: His judge and mobster buddies pulling strings to have his felony count's reduced. His crack whore girlfriend killing herself 12 hours before his 3 month stretch in chokey ends.

This my learned brothers and sisters is not 'embellishment' it's straightout LYING--~~CS~~

While I agree that the book isn't really a "hoax" so much as a fraud, I think anyone that claims that the book retains a great deal of validity because it is "mostly true" has simply not come to terms with being defrauded. I'm glad to see that Oprah has.

As CS notes in his response, the things that are beyond mere embellishment (lies) are those things that Frey claims were pivotal times in his life. If they didn't happen, then anything purported to be a result of them must be regarded as highly suspect. Bsrbennett 18:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

People need to consider the possibility that the entire book is 100% fiction. I do not believe that Frey was ever in rehab. Nor do I believe he ever met the DSM-IVtr criteria for dependence on any drug. What is the evidence that Frey was ever in rehab? I am a professional addiction counselor(and one that believes 12 step programs are good for some and not for others, so I had hoped that Frey's book would offer something positive for people who can't work with 12 step)and nothing in the book rings true. The depiction of the rehab process is not true to life and is much more like college. For example, there is not one single group therapy session depicted.I would bet money that he never went to rehab or if he did was there as long as he was in jail.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:James_Frey"

What about the group scene from when he was in the "Family Program"? M. Frederick 07:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's been awhile since I last looked at this site. No one ever produced(or cared enough to adduce one single piece of actual evidence that Frey was in rehab. He certainly wouldn't do it, although if you were him wouldn't you want to put something out there? Well, why would you when you've made millions from a work of fiction that you lied about on Oprah. How much money would he have made without those lies on Oprah.

As far as the group you mention above that, I guess, is a "group" but it is a group that you would have made up if you had watched "clean and sober" a couple of times. Real groups are nothing like that. If you'd ever been in one, or run one(and I've run hundreds and hundreds of them and listened to other people do them etc.)you would know what I'm talking about. It just doesn't ring true. Sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.140.183.1 (talk) 23:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Tearful Winfrey

I removed "A tearful" from the sentence that quotes Oprah as having felt duped. I watched the episode, and describing her as tearful isn't factual, but probably the viewer's interpretation of how she felt. Bsrbennett 18:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I considered removing the 'tearful' part of that sentence as well. Good call, Bsr. Cazart! 21:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

- I believe the reference to tearful is due to a Yahoo News article, which described Oprah as "sometimes angry, sometimes tearful" when she confronted Frey. You can check the link to the article here. [1] Bear77 15:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The original text read in the article included both angry and tearful. I removed angry since that's a clear interpretation by the author. Tearful is an observable state. However, I have no problem with its removal. -- MisterHand 05:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but it also seems that the more that James Frey was telling Oprah, it seemed as if she was getting more and more shocked, which came out looking as if she was angry. Imagine backing somebody up, and then getting bit un the ass just because of it. Its pretty sad that he would put her through that after all the advertising and everything that she did for him.--WerLdWyde (talk) 22:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Either Oprah wept or she didn't; we can debate her feelings (in "Discussion") based on her emotions, but not whether her ducts produced fluid -- which, as MisterHand puts it, above, is an observable state. An encyclopedia isn't about "seems (unless opinion is safely bracketed by quotation marks & appended by citation)"; it's about what is or isn't. Sugarbat (talk) 15:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Factual Error

Look, people are getting something wrong about his book. Lilly didn't commit suicide and he didn't spend his three months in jail in "A Million Little Pieces". All of this happen in the follow-up, "My Friend Leonard". People are asusming that all of this happens in AMLP which is misleading. How he goes through the ordeal is in the sequel. Cueball 23:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

But even though he didn't do the jail time in the chronology of A Million Little Pieces, there's mention of it happening. And Lily's suicide is revealed in the epilogue of the book. My Friend Leonard just fleshes it out. That said, I absolutely agree that there have been instances of confusion about this throughout the article. Cazart! 20:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

When reading the book, not for 1 second did i think it could be a lie, its so deep and moving. If its found to be fake or exagerated thats just sad. Im sure millions of people have changed and respected this man due to this story. If its fake he's let them down and is a sad case.

If "millions of people" changed due to his book, do you think they're all going to change back now that it's been shown to false?M. Frederick 08:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The only change is that "millions" of non-readers were manipulated by their first exposure to the most asinine, repetitive, laughably lame cliches and the endless "I cry", "Cry", "Cry". This book is at least 99 percent fiction, its depictions of prison and rehab are pure fantasy . . . next to the "Left Behind" series Frey's stuff is the worst pseudo-literature ever perpetrated. Magmagoblin2 (talk) 06:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Truthiness??? (and other dubious additions)

I think that the whole discussion of truthiness seems out of place. The statement above seems to be a good example of truthiness. The response of the supporters of Frey who say it doesn't matter that it is true seem to be addicted to truthiness. But the book itself and the underlying controversy do not seem to be representative of the word truthy, as discussed by Cobert. It seems as if whoever added that is a fan of the Cobert Report or something. I suggest in future versions of the page that this reference be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.177.177 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it should be removed, along with the reference in the intro to charges of plagiarism. That accusation is seriously reaching and hasn't even been touched in the mainstream media. Whoever reverted that addition a few weeks ago had the right idea, but the author has since put it back up. The only article I can find documenting Frey's supposed plagiarism is dubious at best. I doubt anybody pushing the rumour has even read Eddie Little. Anyhow, until he is confirmed to be a plagiarist, it doesn't belong in the opening of the article. Maybe bury it in 'controversy'. Cazart! 03:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

People need to consider the possibility that the entire book is 100% fiction. I do not believe that Frey was ever in rehab. Nor do I believe he ever met the DSM-IVtr criteria for dependence on any drug. What is the evidence that Frey was ever in rehab? I am a professional addiction counselor(and one that believes 12 step programs are good for some and not for others, so I had hoped that Frey's book would offer something positive for people who can't work with 12 step)and nothing in the book rings true. The depiction of the rehab process is not true to life and is much more like college. For example, there is not one single group therapy session depicted.I would bet money that he never went to rehab or if he did was there as long as he was in jail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.150.155.167 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I am author of the above comment. I have yet to see anyone produce one piece of evidence that Frey was in rehab. Frey is still on the best seller list with My Fried Leonard, which is quite likely 100% fiction. I find that the most infuriating comment Frey made was when he said that "the emotional truth" of recovery was in his book. Imagine if someone claimed to have climbed mount everest naked and then wrote a book about it. At first people took him at his word. And then some people raised doubts. At first the author hemmed and hawed and then reluctanly admitted that he had in fact worn clothes. But then after more questions were raised he admitted that he hadn't in fact been to the top of Everest at all, but claimed, indignantly, that this was a "memoir" and that there is controversy about truth in memoirs. And what is most important, he argued, is that the emotional truth of climbing Everest naked is there. Now here's the problem: that makes the book a novel. Oh well! Thomas

It's not like other author's haven't lied: Take for instance the education of little tree, Between a Rock and A hard Place and a Child Called It. I don't see why those books don't get slammed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unopeneddoor (talk • contribs) 00:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Trust me, they do. Frey isn't the only literary fraud out there getting slammed. He IS one of the most obnoxious. Magmagoblin2 (talk) 06:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Huge anon edit reverted today

I doubt if that whitewasher will be back. The huge blanking was not cool, but I thought the top two paragraphs were actually very good. Maybe they can be added back/incorporated?

James Christopher Frey (born September 12, 1969 in Cleveland, Ohio USA) is an American writer. He graduated from Denison University and also attended The School of the Art Institute of Chicago. His first memoir, A Million Little Pieces, was published by Nan Talese/Doubleday/Random House in spring 2003. Its follow up, My Friend Leonard (also a memoir) was published by Riverhead in summer 2005. Both books became bestsellers. Frey, along with his wife and daughter, currently resides in NYC.

Frey started writing A Million Little Pieces in the spring of 1996. This memoir of Frey's experiences during his treatment at the alcohol and drug addiction treatment facility, Hazelden, was published by Doubleday in April, 2003. Amazon.com editors selected A Million Little Pieces as their favorite book of 2003. In September, 2005, Oprah Winfrey chose A Million Little Pieces for her monthly bookclub. A Million Little Pieces became a bestseller, remaining on the New York Times best seller list for 44 weeks, selling in excess of 4.5 million copies.

I'm not suggesting taking out any of the stuff that the other editor removed, but I think these two paragraphs are neutral, informative and could add to the article. --Anchoress 02:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The whole piece is almost laughably negative and seriously biased. No decent or reputable newspaper or magazine in America would print anything like it. That things like this exist and are perpetuated are why Wikkipedia is losing so much credibility.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.2.7 (talk • contribs)

No, its people like you that are making Wikipedia lose crdibility. C u Next Tuesday. Get it?--WerLdWyde (talk) 22:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Huge anon edit reverted today

I doubt if that whitewasher will be back. The huge blanking was not cool, but I thought the top two paragraphs were actually very good. Maybe they can be added back/incorporated?

James Christopher Frey (born September 12, 1969 in Cleveland, Ohio USA) is an American writer. He graduated from Denison University and also attended The School of the Art Institute of Chicago. His first memoir, A Million Little Pieces, was published by Nan Talese/Doubleday/Random House in spring 2003. Its follow up, My Friend Leonard (also a memoir) was published by Riverhead in summer 2005. Both books became bestsellers. Frey, along with his wife and daughter, currently resides in NYC.

Frey started writing A Million Little Pieces in the spring of 1996. This memoir of Frey's experiences during his treatment at the alcohol and drug addiction treatment facility, Hazelden, was published by Doubleday in April, 2003. Amazon.com editors selected A Million Little Pieces as their favorite book of 2003. In September, 2005, Oprah Winfrey chose A Million Little Pieces for her monthly bookclub. A Million Little Pieces became a bestseller, remaining on the New York Times best seller list for 44 weeks, selling in excess of 4.5 million copies.

I'm not suggesting taking out any of the stuff that the other editor removed, but I think these two paragraphs are neutral, informative and could add to the article. --Anchoress 02:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The whole piece is almost laughably negative and seriously biased. No decent or reputable newspaper or magazine in America would print anything like it. That things like this exist and are perpetuated are why Wikkipedia is losing so much credibility.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.2.7 (talk • contribs)

No, its people like you that are making Wikipedia lose crdibility. C u Next Tuesday. Get it?--WerLdWyde (talk) 22:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Dispute of Neutrality

Does this article fairly represent all manners in a neutral point of view? My opinion is that it does not.

I stumbled on this page looking for more information about the controversy of James Frey's book: A Million Little Pieces. Instead, all I received was a biased, self-serving point of view. The only conclusion a reasonable person could reach after reading this article is it was not written from a neutral point of view. All Wikipedia articles and encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral view point. That means it must fairly represent the views taking into account all significant conflicts that have been published by reliable sources.

There are a couple of reasons this article fails to follow one of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. First, there is not one separate header which indicates that there even is a controversy. How can this be when Mr. Frey has been in the national spotlight after admitting on national television that his work was not based entirely on a non-fictional viewpoint? Second, the view point expressed in the article is clearly one-sided. From the time I read the background information on Frey (“Amazon.com editors selected A Million Little Pieces as their favorite book in 2003”) until the content under the category of “A Million Little Pieces” (“Evashevski says … he’s a very talented writer and suspects we haven’t heard the last of James Frey”) I begin to wonder who the hell is making this up.

Are the publishers of Frey constantly working on this article? Crazed fans of Frey? Frey himself? I demand to know. PyrosRider (talk) 02:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think the article represents a neutral point of view either. If you look back at the past versions of the page under the history as well as the Talk page, you'll see that past versions dealt with the Controversy effectively. Back when the controversy was fresh, there were editing dispute over whether to keep well-sourced verified material (including admissions by Frey himself) about falsehoods in the supposed memoirs and the controversy surrounding them. The well-sourced material stayed in leaving an accurate balanced account. After a while I stopped keeping up with the page. Apparently, pro-Frey editors have taken the opportunity to scrub the page of information that might show him in a negative. It seems they deleted lots of text without making the case for the massive on the Talk page. That should not have been done and it should be restored. I plan to do so. --JamesAM (talk) 21:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Please restore the link to the Smoking Gun article. Anyone defending this creep who hasn't read this enlightening exegesis . . . I recommend it. 76.27.212.74 (talk) 08:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the massive deletions regarding the controversy that began with Littlemunk's edits of June 17, 2008 are appropriate. A consensus was achieved around late December 2006/early January 2007 when many editors were involved with the page. Changes to the controversy were relatively minor for a year a half. Then, on June 17, 2008 (when attention to the page died down) massive deletions began to take place. These deletions were never justified in Talk pages or edit summaries. I think deletions replaced an accurate, neutral depiction of Frey with an inaccurate, pro-Frey depiction. The deletions keep Frey's statement that he "never denied" altering "small details", but removes both his further quote that those "small details" were supposedly identifying information and removes the details about what was alleged/proven to be untrue. In effect, the deletions allow the "small details" characterization by Frey to exist uncontested without showing the readers the allegations themselves or the objective facts. Ironically, the version with the massive deletions goes into greater detail allegations by Frey and Nan Talese that Oprah Winfrey lied to them than it does about Frey's alleged and admitted fabrications. The fabrication controversy is his greatest claim to fame. So I think the deletion are wrong. But even on a procedural level, such massive changes should be discussed on the Talk Page. --JamesAM (talk) 22:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion

Where is the dispute here? I don't see much disagreement here. The consensus seems to be to restore info, as long as it is sourced it should be fine. --neon white talk 12:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The dispute is the editing impasse where I repeatedly restore the deleted passages, and Russmom, Littlemunk, or an IP address repeatedly revert those passages away. The impasse isn't getting hashed out because the other side isn't justifying the removal on the Talk page when I ask them to do in edit summaries. The only response is an edit summary by Russmom stating that his/her version is more concise and readable. There's no Talk page dispute because they won't respond. --JamesAM (talk) 15:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The next step would be to post a message on the relevant user talk page requesting that the user refrains from edit waring and seek to involve themselves in this discussion. I've also tagged the article as disputed so no-one can claim they were unaware of the discussions and consensus established. It might also help if we could create a summary of what is being removed and the sources to back it up here, it's hard to see on the diffs. --neon white talk 16:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

hello - I will post my comments here shortly - just became aware I needed to. Littlemunk (talk) 17:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)littlemunk

I may try to take more time later on to go point-by-point, but let me address what I think is the biggest problem now. The version that I think is inaccurately pro-Frey has largely removed the specifics of what was proven or admitted to be untrue in Frey's memoirs. By removing that information while keeping Frey's 2003 claim that he never denied changing small details, the article implies that Frey critic's were just nitpickers who criticized him for something he was upfront. That argument goes unrebutted. Three problems arise from that. (1) The article presents no proof that he did acknowledge changing details at the time of publication. (2) That version removes the second quote that explains what Frey meant by minor details (merely changes removing identifying information, nothing more). That removes the ability to clearly judge. (3) By removing the details of the fabrications, the article would rob readers of the ability to be informed about what the controversy was about (and the controversy is his biggest claim to fame), and to independently analyze whether the criticism is warranted or not. Describing what the fabrications were is NPOV. The version I have doesn't make a judgment on whether they were minor changes. The reader is free to make an informed analysis. The version I restored doesn't even go into as great detail as it could. For example, the controversy regarding Lilly (and Frey's admitted fabrication) isn't even described.

There are other problems. I tried to add balance to the reviews of Frey's latest book. The earliest google hits for reviews of the book yield negative reviews from major publication. The reviews on the Amazon page for the book has negative/lukewarm reviews. The article ought to reflect that reviews were mixed. There competing version of the article simply selects positive reviews. It offers no documentation that those positive reviews are representative of reviews of the novel in general. --JamesAM (talk) 18:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

You can't use amazon as a source, it's not verifiable, stick to sources such as magazines and newspapers for reviews. --neon white talk 18:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I am 'littlemunk' who did the edits that JamesAM keeps deleting. I am not a regular wiki editor, so I was not aware of this Talk feature, thus I'm only using it now.

JamesAM's rationale for continually insisting that his viewpoint prevail is that my edits resulted in an overwhelmingly positive slant to the page; whereas JamesAM believes his version of the page adheres to the editorial credo that "All Wikipedia articles and encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral view point."

I contend that it is absurd to believe that any reasonable person coming to the James Frey page would read the current JamesAM version as editorially neutral. On face alone, there are 24 paragraphs in JamesAM's version of the page, with fully 16 of those paragraphs dealing exclusively with the controversy. 16 out of 24 paragraphs, or a 2 to 1 negative editorial bias that JamesAM's edits give the James Frey page, is hardly neutral.

Further, JamesAM violates a second major rule of the wiki credo, "That [entries] must fairly represent the views taking into account all significant conflicts that have been published by reliable sources".

None of JamesAM edits strives to "fairly represent the views taking into account all significant conflicts". Every one of JamesAM's edits serves to cast a negative editorial slant to the page, and does so in the most insidious fashion by selectively cherry-picking only the quotes and citations that cast a negative light.

Frankly, that is fine if JamesAM wants to include negative citations in the entry, were he committed to the ethical guideline of fair representation and, likewise, including citations that oppose the anti-Frey viewpoint. This is most glaringly apparent in JamesAM's treatment of the second Oprah appearance, which JamesAM casts in an entirely negative light for James Frey, despite the fact that there are as many if not more published sentiments that supported Frey in the confrontation with Oprah.

As to JamesAM's accusation characterizing my edits as "scrubbing" the page of negative comments toward James Frey, that is likewise absurd in my opinion. I merely removed the redundancies, the selective negative citations, and the inappropriate anti-Frey editorializations that JamesAM was inserting without balance from opposing citations; and I corrected the taint of the 2-1 imbalance between negative vs. neutral or positively slanted paragraphs.

(A good example of JamesAM's negative bias is insisting on the sub-heading "Public Skepticism" under the heading Controversy, when it is widely acknowledged that it was Media Skepticism that drove the controversy; as supported by JamesAM's own inclusion of only media sources as skeptics, and bizarrely enough his citing the quotation by Kassie Evashevski saying she "never personally has seen a media frenzy like this", and then adding that "we haven't heard the last of James Frey", both of which directly refute that Public Skepticism is what drove the controversy. Further, the book continues to sell thousands of copies a month and in fact experienced a boost in sales following the controversy, clearly controverting the notion of "Public Skepticism". Alas, JamesAM's insistence on trying to write this meme into wiki despite the lack of published support reinforces JamesAM's clear anti-Frey bias, and his clear attempt to add the patina of "Public" validation to both the controversy and his own anti-Frey viewpoint.)

I will re-do (by hand) the edits I made before, and then invite commentary on which version is more neutral - mine or JamesAM's. And I really don't want to get in a tit for tat with JamesAM - he may have all day to edit this wiki page, but I do not. And I do apologize for not engaging in this forum earlier. Thank you. Littlemunk (talk) 18:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)littlemunk

I agree with you concerns about the controversy having undue weight in the article, this is definetely something that needs working on. I'm not sure quite what you mean by 'negative editorial slant'. Policy says we state sourced facts in a neutral manner but not opinions about facts, therefore no article is written as an editorial including this one. "widely acknowledged that it was Media Skepticism" - widely acknowledged by who, claims like these need sources. Sales figures are only relevant as a minor fact, they cannot be used to assert anything else without synthesis. I suggest working on the article in non-article space, plan out sections and add info relying on well sourced third party info only, adding all views and then see what is left. The final article will be a compromise not one or the other. --neon white talk 18:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

JamesAM's consistent cherry-picking of only negative citations is the primary evidence of his editorial slant. JamesAM does this right off the bat in the second sentence, paragraph one, under Public skepticism, where he selectively chooses only one allegation, and the most sensationally negative one at that, and then provides no counter-balance.

JamesAM does this repeatedly and exclusively in his edits, citing only negative commentary - and that pattern in itself comprises an "editorial slant" in my opinion.

This slant makes the page read more like Inside Edition rather than an encyclopedia.

And regarding using Amazon or anyone else as an unbiased source, I would contend that is disputable and negated considering how openly biased the newspapers and magazines are, at least as measured by numerous opinion polls (per Google of course). In fact that is a huge element of the Million Little Pieces controversy that isn't even explored here - how the media chose to attack James Frey at a much more intense level than they ever attacked other authors who have committed similar offenses of embellishing memoirs, namely Augusten Burroughs and David Sedaris and JT LeRoi and Margaret Seltzer and even Barack Obama, just to name a few. Point being, admittedly Amazon can be manipulated b/c it is "open source" sourcing if you will; yet to wholly discount Amazon in favor of magazines and newspapers who are "widely acknowledged" and defined unanimously in most opinion polls to be highly unreliable and biased, is not a solid position to assume in my opinion. For as many folks who trust the sourcing of the established" media shall we call it as you do, there are just as many who view that same mainstream media as inherently biased. Just because one has a press badge, does not make one a reliable reporter, as is proven time and again; and dismissing publicly generated verification as somehow inferior is no longer tenable in the internet age, where anyone can offer their opinion to the masses and not just the folks fortunate enough to have the badges. And no matter the opinion - they all read wiki.

Regardless, I wasn't aware I used Amazon as a source and will be conscious of the caution with which that must be done b/c frankly I hadn't even thought of it. Still getting used to wiki - very robust, tho needs a better interface! Thank you.

Littlemunk (talk) 19:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)littlemunk

Sorry, I didn't realize you had replied until today. (1) Regarding Amazon: you misunderstand what I'm talking about. I'm not referring to the user comments. I'm referring to the Editorial Reviews on the Amazon page, which are from Publishers Weekly, the New Yorker, and Bookmarks Magazine. I would describe two of those reviews as mixed and one as negative. My point is that you have presented no rationale for placing just the positive reviews of Bright Shiny Morning in the article and characterizing them as representative of the reviews of the book. On the other hand, I have shown that Amazon (which should be selected major or representative reviews from newspapers and magazines, has presented mixed reviews from that source. Or try googling "bright shiny morning review" (without the quotes). The first hit (http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2008/04/first_review_out_of_james_frey.html) relates a mixed review that calls the book both "a train wreck" and "a real page turner." The second hit is the Amazon page for the book. The third hit (http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-et-book13-2008may13,0,4210398.story) is a highly negative L.A. Times review that calls it "a terrible book." The fourth hit (http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20198688,00.html) is an Entertainment Weekly review that gives the book a grade of D+. So there are two methods (the editorial reviews chosen by Amazon and the top Google hits) that show significant negative reviewer response by "magazines and newspapers." I haven't seen any methodology for the choice to include only positive reviews. I think a possible compromise would be not to characterize the reviews generally, but just include one positive and one negative. (2) It's not accurate to portray all the information I've restored as things written by me. If you go back in the article's history to 2006, you will see that many users contributed to writing about a controversy. I didn't contribute that much; the version that persisted for over a year was certainly not the result of my unilateral action. The reason one might say that my recent edits have only added negative information about Frey is because I restored the information deleted by Littlemunk. Since Littlemunk only deleted negative information, there was only negative information to be restored. --JamesAM (talk) 18:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The issue over whether there is undue weight given to the fabrication controversy is certain a subject we could discuss. But I should note that objective reasons for giving the controversy so much attention have already been provided long ago. As I noted long ago on this Talk Page, "The controversy was huge. Numbers bear that out. It broke in early January 2006. In a LexisNexis news search for "James Frey" for all of 2005 (365 days) turns up 550 hits. A search from 1/1/06 to 2/15/06 (a brief 36 day period including most of the scandal period turns up a whopping 1885 hits." That means the short period of the controversy generated more than 3 times as many hits as a period of 10 times as many days that preceded it. During the controversy, "James Frey" generated about 52 LexisNexis news hits per day. In the previous year, during which Frey released a book, his name generated only about 1.5 hits per day. Pre-controversy, Frey's books themselves made him somewhat famous. But the fabrication controversy made him enormously famous. That's his main claim to fame. --JamesAM (talk) 19:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think amazon.com's editorial policies are of any real concern to us. Wikipedia has it's own policies to make sure pages represent all views in a neutral manner. It doesnt matter if we disagree with the opinions, our primary concern should be to produce an accurate article not an agreeable on. What i'd do is to stick with reviews from major publications if possible, these have the most verifiability, national newspapers, magazines, ny times, washington post etc. Be careful to simply state facts about the opinions, not the opinions themselves and with no personal commentary, synthesis or summations. Hits arent a good indicator how many sources are there? over how much time? what impact was there on his notability? what can be sourced that doesnt refer to the controversy? Whilst it's true that countless other authors have done the same thing if not most this doesnt mean that this controversy is not remarkable. I would avoid calling a section 'Controversy' and simple state cited facts this would avoid giving the impression that this is a controverial figure and help the neutrality og the article. --neon white talk 19:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The reference to Amazon is an effort to bolster the weight of literary criticism, so it can't be pushed aside as criticism by fringe publications. But to address the sources of the negative reviews themselves, I added negative reviews by the L.A. Times and the New Yorker. The L.A. Times has the fourth highest circulation of any U.S. newspaper according to a properly cited Wikipedia list. The New Yorker has a circulation of over 1 million according to its wikipedia article. The article states that it has been published since 1925 and "published short stories by many of the most respected writers of the 20th and 21st centuries." I think it is an established literary heavyweight among periodicals. I reiterate my belief that the number of hits from a database of news articles is a good methodology to determining notability. In 2005, Frey released his second memoir and received only about 500 mentions the whole year. In the month and a half of the controversy (during which Frey did not release a book or doing anything especially notable separate from the controversy, his name yielded over 1800 hits. According to its wikipedia article, "LexisNexis claims to be the "world’s largest collection of public records, unpublished opinions, forms, legal, news, and business information" while offering their products to a wide range of professionals in the legal, risk management, corporate, government, law enforcement, accounting and academic markets. Typical customers of LexisNexis include lawyers, law students, journalists, and academics." There is justification for viewing its results as good measure of media coverage. It simply accumulates the text of newspapers and magazines in a searchable form. --JamesAM (talk) 20:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that those two reviews should be included. Unless every single hit on a search engine has been verified as accurate, relevant and not a repitition they are of little use due to the inaccuracy. LexisNexis is essentially the same as google news searches. These kind of searches are only useful as ways to find sources. --neon white talk 14:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I read the comments as well as both your and littlemunk's version of the page and it's pretty obvious that your version is unfairly biased. Why don't you start with littlemunks version and put the negative information you want back in, one at a time, and justify your reason in this discussion for each piece of negative information (like you want others to do); that would probably be better than you just putting your negative version back in it's entirety without justifying your changes yourself. Why are you so biased against Frey anyway? He's an interesting writer I think and that's why I came to this page, not to be overwhelmed with the controversy about his first book. If I want to read about that, I go to the Wikipedia page on A Million Little Pieces.

So to answer your question, my reason for picking the more neutral version of the page over yours is that yours is way way too biased against Frey.

Obimomkenobe (talk) 23:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

This should really be done on the talk page or in user space rather than in the article. --neon white talk 14:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Your edit removed massive amounts of sourced information. I'm sorry that you don't like that negative information about Frey is factual - that's no basis for its removal, though. "Biased" is subjective, and I find the article to be quite balanced in its treatment of the controversy supprounding Frey and his writings. You'll need a better rationale for such wholesale deletion in the future. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 23:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually that isnt techincally true, regardless of the fact that info can be sourced, articles still need to represent a neutral and balanced view of the subject, overloading an article with negative criticism or giving it undue weight will not achieve this. --neon white talk 14:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The article was contstructed over a long period of time. Great effort was taken to assemble facts with verification, provide the proper citations, and discuss them on the Talk pages. Then, that work persisted for a couple years. New users can't simply delete massive amounts without working for consensus on those changes and force those who worked so hard to repeat everything. Facts are not the basis for a charge of bias. Under the Wikipedia policy on neutral point of view, "By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." For example, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things. So we can feel free to assert as many of them as we can." Frey conceded on Oprah's program that The Smoking Gun's allegations regarding his arrest and incarceration were true. There's no dispute about that; therefore, they are facts. In addition, the facts regarding Frey's fabrications should not be removed merely because they could be deemed "negative" any more than the crimes of a famous criminal should be removed. As far as the "Controversy" section title, I suppose "Memoir Fabrications" or "Memoir Veracity Disputes" could be alternative. Of course, as mentioned above, Frey conceded that many of the allegations were true, so those ones are no longer disputed. --JamesAM (talk) 01:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

They can but it's always better to discuss. Remember that articles are not owned anyone can edit. The fact, in that example, is that "Frey conceded on Oprah's program that The Smoking Gun's allegations regarding his arrest and incarceration were true" be careful not to assert opinions, as the policy says state facts about opinions. We may have to remove or summarise some of the article to balance it. Those titles seem better to me. The difference between a notable criminal and here is that the 'controversy' is not his sole notability and therefore if the article reads like it is, it's not neutral or balance. --neon white talk 18:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

TheRealFennShysa had his/her ID deleted by Wiki Administrators in April, 2007, and has been called out on engaging in edit wars, so I removed his changes and put the page back to the more neutral viewpoint. I can't believe we are going to debate putting every minute detail of the fabrications that Frey made in his first book on this page when it is more than detailed in the A Million Little Pieces Wiki page, which is where such detail information belongs; not on the James Frey page. This is all sort of ridiculous. Wiki is never going to keep it's credibility with games and deliberate bias like this going on.

Had you actually looked and read instead of jumping to conclusions, you would have noticed that my ID has not been deleted - my user page was deleted, at my request due to a stalker using that information to harrass me in real life. That's what the U1 comment represents. Also, the "edit war" this user is probably referring to (the only one on my talk page currently) dealt with a user vandalizing many CW articles - that user has been banned from Wikipedia - I have not.

All of this is beside the point. Ad hominem attacks are not called for, and had no bearing on the edits in question. I'm sorry you feel the need to attack those who disagree with you, but that doesn't change the fact that the Obimomkenobe/Russmom edits have removed quite a lot of accurate, sourced information. It may not be complimentary to Frey, but that doesn't alter the fact that events happened. To remove such mentions smacks of whitewashing, which should NOT be done. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 21:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest JamesAM and Littlemunk discuss changes they feel should be made to the page and why before further reverts are made to the page. Russmom (talk) 02:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you should avoid personal attacks on TheRealFennShysa and address the merits of the article. He/she is not under an suspension of his/her ability to edit. You're not a moderator, so it's not your call. Another editor placed a warning on his/her Talk page. So what? An editor placed an NPOV warning on your Talk page. If your objection is to "putting every minute detail of the fabrications" by Frey in the article, then that objection does not apply to this article. The article succintly describes the fabrications. It wholly omits any mention of fabrications regarding Lilly or the dentist. The Littlemunk/Russmom edit deletes any description of the fabrications. It fact, your edit goes into greater detail about Frey's countercharges agaisnt Oprah. Why should it be that way when the subject of the article is "James Frey"? No one has contested the argument on this page that only retaining the "small details" quote without context gives a false impression about the nature of the fabrications. So then how can that edit be made? --JamesAM (talk) 20:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that A Million Little Pieces covers the controversy well and suggest that this page merely contain a summary and a link to that section to avoid repetition. --neon white talk 18:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

To reiterate, the fabrication controversy isn't some minor sidenote in Frey's life. It's his primary claim to fame. I searched the CNN.com website for the words James Frey. There are 12 articles dated after the scandal broke. All 12 of those refer to Frey in the context of fabricating his memoir rather than, for instance, just writing to him as a writer, discussing the literary merits of his work. There are just 3 pre-scandal articles that mention him. The rest of the articles are false hits (e.g. mentions of Amber Frey). Furthermore, the search yields 4 news videos. Three are about the scandal. The fourth (which is 2:20 long) is titled "James Frey's new book." However, the video report doesn't get into the new book until around the 0:58 mark after dealing with the controversy. Then, around the 1:09 mark, it gets right back into the fabrication issue and deals with it for the majority of the clip's remainder. So the vast majority of references to James Frey by this major news organization website are as a person who fabricated memoirs. So I have yet another objective measure of the significance of the controversy in Frey's overall fame.

On a separate, the reporter on the clip (Lola Ogunnaike) twice describes the reviews for Bright Shiny Morning as "mixed" and quotes both the postive N.Y. Times review and the negative L.A. Times one. So that's more support (from a major news organization) for showing both sides of the mixed reviews. --JamesAM (talk) 02:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

JamesAM,

I'd like to, once again, disagree with the logic you lend in trying to justify the lack of excessive portrayal of negativity surrounding James Frey and the controversy. James Frey sold umpteen copies of his books before the controvery, and sold even more after the controversy. I state this, not in favor of Frey, nor to diss him. It's a fact. I find your continued and aggressively long-winded efforts to be one-sided and filled with intention to have a negatively telling effect. It seems to me that, both, the negatives and positives are equally stated and this ostensibly endless game of ping pong is wasting considerable editing time. I'm curious as to the amount of time you spend editing other subjects and why you seem so fixed on James Frey. Obimomkenobe (talk) 15:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

"I'm curious as to the amount of time you spend editing other subjects and why you seem so fixed on James Frey." <--This statement, coming from someone who's *only* made edits to the James Frey article, is highly amusing... TheRealFennShysa (talk) 15:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Obimomkenobe, the Talk Page is for discussing the article, not engaging in ad hominem attacks. No one here has contested the assertion that merely retaining the "minor changes" quote, while deleting the second quote explaining what Frey meant and failing to describe the fabrications, leaves a deceptive impression. No one contests the evidence that the reviews for Bright Shiny Morning were actually mixed or the evidence about media coverage. Two diligent editors don't have to justify themselves to you. If you're curious about what changes an editor has made just look it up. --JamesAM (talk) 23:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, both JamesAM and TheRealFennShysa are jumping to conclusions and are rude to other editors on this talk page. They are taking politely asked questions far too personal and attacking others. Smacks of collusion to me. Grow up kids! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obimomkenobe (talk • contribs) 00:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

These kids take wikipedia too seriously, and neither of them are going to admit that they are wrong, because they both have seperate opinions, so all of this bickering is really pointless--WerLdWyde (talk) 22:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Why not try to stick to the substantiated facts?

There are constant revisions to the James Frey page and I think we need to reach a "happy medium" with these edits. The page is seriously biased and has reached the point that it reads like a cheap tabloid. As a user of Wikipedia, I think this compromises the integrity of the site as a whole.

There was a segment about Wikipedia on CBS's "Sunday Morning" show this past week (Dec. 10, 2006). It was evident from this segment that there are serious problems with the content of many Wikipedia pages and the editing process is up to anyone that wants to add their comments, factual or not. Below are a couple of comments from the show:

"Steven Colbert bestowed his critique. "I'm going to log on to Wikipedia here and I am going to change it," he said on one of his shows. "You see, any user can change any entry. And if enough other users agree with them, it becomes true."

"Because most anyone can edit most Wikipedia articles, mistakes can and do happen. Altschul searched herself on Wikipedia. Her name was spelled right, but her birthday was wrong. Much more serious errors have been found. "

"Quality control troubled Wikipedia co-founder Sanger. He quit and went on to help create Digital Universe where experts control content. Recently he has announced a new venture called Citizendium that will mirror Wikipedia but will also include expert oversight."'

Why not put the substantiated facts on the page and let readers go to the links, research the controversy and reach their own opinion? There was an edit this morning that contains factual information re Freys biography and career categories. I agree with this edit...the controversy should be kept in the proper category (Controversy).

Like it or not, "A Million Little Pieces" remains on the best sellers list; give the guy credit for writing two great books!

Russmom 14:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The facts regarding the fabrication and the ensuing controversy are substantiated. You'll see that the relevant sections have proper support through footnotes and links. That's how it should be. The removal didn't target unsubstantiated info; a lot of substantiation info was removed. Rather, it target information that reflected poorly on Frey. The removal of "negative" facts was so broad that it even removed the description of Leonard as a mobster and Frey self-description as a former addict and criminal - both pieces of info were in the article before the controversy broke.

I feel the removal of content since early November may mislead readers. For example, it may give the impression that the publishers have continued to oppose Frey's critics. In fact, their very own statement back in February acknowledged that they find The Smoking Gun's account of Frey's past persuasive. Further, the removals stripped the article of descriptions of fabrications. Why shouldn't the article described the fabrications and alleged fabrications? It's important and informative to present concrete information and not keep things amorphous.

I think the "tabloid" feel is due to the subject matter rather than the writing. I think the mostly pristinely neutral description of an event of this nature will sound seedy. Efforts can be made to keep the tone appropriate without removing facts.

The controversy was huge. Numbers bear that out. It broke in early January 2006. In a LexisNexis news search for "James Frey" for all of 2005 (365 days) turns up 550 hits. A search from 1/1/06 to 2/15/06 (a brief 36 day period including most of the scandal period turns up a whopping 1885 hits.

Although I'd prefer to discuss this article, I'll briefly reply to the criticism of Wikipedia. Of course, it's nature opens it up to problems, but that's why the community puts in all the work it does. I take Wikipedia very seriously. People worked hard from January to November the edit article. You'll notice that most of them were registered users; this lends some accountable. Since November (with less attention being paid to the article), this content has been removed - mostly by unregistered users. I think the process was working well for the article before the purge of information. --JamesAM 00:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If you took Wikki seriously you wouldn't allow it publish blatant slam pieces with unsubstantiated facts. That is precisely the problem people have with Wikki. You put a massive revert up with bad links, bad information and a tone that is clearly biased. The article was edited tio make a reasonable piece. There is clearly an agenda here. Where is the information about the pre-controversy success, and the post controversy success (if you look the book is at #27 on the NYT list). You never addressed issues such as - Frey had access to his family's fortune - or the fact that many of the links are to a publication that prides itself on libel. Wikki will die, or become irrelevant because of editors like you.

Please, sign your posts, and remember the WP Policies of assume good faith and no personal attacks. Anchoress 01:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The revert restored information that was stripped with no justification. Someone can say it's all lies, but I think the substantiated, well-sourced product of many editors over many months shouldn't be significantly stripped without justification on the specific points that are being removed. The article has information about his pre-scandal success. Why should the scandal be purged. Personally, I have no quarrel with removing the family fortune reference. That just came back as part of the revert. I don't your skepticism about The eXile justify the massive removal of information, because the eXile wasn't a source for any of information (check the citations), it was merely among the links in the links section. The deletions had nothing to do with the eXile. Furthermore, I don't think some joke about libel and a suit by Pavel Bure make the eXile less credible than Frey, who has admitted that he lied about many things in his books. And yet the pro-Frey contained misleading information by suggesting that he was upfront about the degree that he altered his life story, suggesting that the publisher support his take on events, stripping the article of nearly all the specifics of what he fabricated, etc. --JamesAM 04:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

What Materials Should Be Included?

I think the James Frey article should be consistent with other articles regarding famous people in Wikipedia in terms of what information is included, how much is included, and where within the article it is placed.

In my edits (except the initial revert), I have tried to keep appropriate information that was added to the article by those editors who removed massive amounts of information that may be unflattering to Frey. I have kept additions about the success of his books, their accolades, Frey's schooling, his residence, and his family. By the same token, I think editors should respect the notable, substantiated information about the scandal which they have repeatedly deleted. Within the article, this information is in fact more substantiated that the additions by "pro-Frey" editors. The criticisms and evidence for fabrication are sourced. In contrast, information such as Frey's schooling, where he lives, and Amazon.com editor ratings are unsourced. In spite of that, I'm assuming those are good faith, factual additions.

Frey's intial claim to fame is that he wrote a best-selling memoir and a follow-up book. The fabrication scandal is extremely notable. First of all, it generated much more publicity regarding Frey than he had previously received. Second, it is inextricably linked to his previous claim to fame. It bears directly on the heart of the "memoirs." Are they memoirs or are they fiction or are they a mixed of both? Any accurate description of the books (even a brief one) should include the fabrication. So because the scandal is arguably a bigger source of fame than the initial success and because the scandal is inextricable part of any discussion of the books themselves, it should be mentioned in the introductory paragraph.

The major details of the fabrication (admitted, proven, and alleged) ought to be mentioned. Wikipedia should inform people. People shouldn't finish reading the article having no idea what all the hullabaloo was about. So things like exaggeration of criminal record, questions surrounding Lilly's death/existence, supposed fabrication of involvement with the train crash victims ought to be included. Every minor detail need not be included, but the major issues of the fabrication should.

Pop culture references are regularly included in Wikipedia articles about people. I don't think things like the South Park episode should be removed unless they are non-notable/very, very minor. --JamesAM 17:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Your argument is good, persuasive and logical, but then you revert to an unbalanced piece with huge amounts of unsubstantiated information and bad links and sources, which undercuts the substance of the argument. Ther should be some middle ground that is reachable. - Greyman

The information is substantiation. The links are substantiation. None of the editors who have made these massive deletions have provided any evidence whatsoever contradicted this. You haven't either, so your edits are contrary to those principles. If a specific link is dead, the answer is to remove that link. The purged information doesn't have the problems that you ascribed to them. What the purged information has in common is that it is all info that substantiates the fabrication allegations. I have been worked for a middle ground. As I've noted, I've made efforts to include the information (such as Frey's schooling) that was added by the deleting editors. My position hasn't been undercut whatsoever. I've restored the information, which is the right thing to do. You should improve things, not delete them. --

JamesAM 19:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's be reasonable, please!

JamesAM, in my opinion, your edits so biased against Frey that it makes me wonder why you have such a "burr under your saddle" over his page. When I looked at your contributions to Wikipedia, all of your pages pertain to cartoon characters/artists, with one exception; a baseball player. On December 10, you hit the Frey page and haven't let up since. Why? I'm really curious as to your motive.

The controversy is all documented in The Smoking Gun article/link and viewers of the page can go there and read it. There are also many other links referenced on the page that anyone can read in order to satisfy their curiosity. To substantiate the Amazon information on Frey's books, all you have to do is go to Amazon.com and it's right there for you to verify. No one knows who Lilly was; I'm sure James wanted to protect her identity, as well he should.

Frey's education should not be in the "Career" section but rather in the intro of the page. I've deleted the duplicate entry under the career section.

We all do our best when it comes to keeping Wiki pages as factual as possible. You seem to like the drama associated with James Frey's books far more than his success as an author. His books sold very well before he was on Oprah and prior to The Smoking Gun investigation. I agree that the information brought to the fore front by those two "institutions" should be linked to the page, but not to the point of sounding like cheap tabloid gossip. JamesAM, I think you're better than that...prove it to all of us! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.4.227.247 (talk • contribs)

I think it's important that any edits I make are judged on their merits rather than whether you like me or dislike me. The Wikipedia community finds that important principle; hence, the official Wikipedia policy of no personal attacks notes, "Comment on content, not on the contributor." There's no restriction that people who edit articles about comic books can't edit articles on memoirists/novelists. Also, your statement about my contributions is incorrect.

The vast majority of information that I've added in my edits has been information that was in the article prior to early November, when the massive removal of unflattering information began. I agree that Wikipedia articles should factual. Both Frey's book sales and that he fabricated parts of his memoirs are facts. Just because something is "positive" doesn't make it more factual that a negative.

The standards for inclusion should be things like notability, veracity, and informativeness. Wikipedia gather information together. People shouldn't leave this page ignorant of the facts and dependent on the links to get any information. If we left out any information that readers could obtain elsewhere, the articles would only have links and no text.

Whether there was a Lilly and, if so, how she died, were notable matters. Readers should get both side of it. Further, I think you misunderstand the nature of Stephen Levitt's search regarding Lilly's death. He didn't search for people named Lilly. He searched a database of deaths for any that matched the supposed circumstances of her death (both the hanging story and the revised wrist slitting story). He said he didn't find any death based on age, sex, location, etc. that seemed to match Lilly.

The fabrication scandal is a huge party of Frey's fame. As you can see above, I present an objective metric of news regarding "James Frey" (a LexisNexis search) to show that more than 3 times as many stories on him were done during the month and half that started 2006 (the scandal on Jan. 8, 2006) than in the whole year before the scandal. Thus, there is substantial to back up the statement that Frey is much more notable for the fabrication scandal than for his memoirs considered independent of that. --JamesAM 02:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed; whatever Frey's success prior to the controversy, the discovery and publication of his apparent deceptions, along with the media frenzy that resulted (fueled by the parallel stories first of JT Leroy, then Nasdijj, then, later, Kaavya Viswanathan), will remain a defining moment of his career even were he to go on and author many further critical and popular successes. To omit prominent, thorough (NPOV, sourced) discussion of the matter is disingenuous at best and POV-pushing at worst. Robertissimo 17:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Memoir

Both of Frey's books are still classified as memoirs in every media outlet out there and I think it would be a mistake to classify them as novels. It has not been, and probably will never be, proven that the books are works of fiction. I think we should leave it as it now stands and let readers make their own decision based on the material presented on the page itself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Russmom (talk • contribs) 17:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

"Best-selling"

I cut the final two lines about how his book was a best-seller in 2005 and 2006 despite the controversy because of the "quality of the writing." It was non-factual commentary, and since he wasn't widely exposed until 2006, the earlier sales figure aren't relevant. The lines sounded like a defensive statement from a Frey supporter, not a neutral description. 68.81.114.143 16:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Imposter?!

I don't get this category. Yeah, he made up some stuff, but he didn't assume someone else's identity. So why? He was a drunk who got sober. That's as much truth as I need. Sevenlies 14:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Revisions

This article in incredibly unbalanced and biased. It's ironic, as it was with Frey himself, that people to whom truth and balance seem so important are willing to write pieces that are clearly designed to attack and debase and do nothing more. also, many of the sources and links do not work or are invalid. It's needs a major reworking.

I think balance can be achieved by adding more details about just how critically acclaimed he was prior to confessing that crucial details of the book were fabricated. I added for example the fact that the New Yorker (which is known to be quite picky when it comes to literature) praised the book for its electrifying description of his experience. But we now that his experience was partly fabricated so it's impossible to avoid the controversy (it's what he's best known for and encylopedia's focus on the notable) however more details need to be added about just how well regarded Frey's book originally was in literary circles. 64.230.51.101 17:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm disturbed by the removal of negative information about James Frey. If a figure is notable for information perceived to be negative (such as fabrication of a memoir and plagiarism), it is biased to display that information. The controversy surrounding Frey is notable. In fact, a google search for "James Frey controversy" produces about one-seventh as many hits as a search for "James Frey." The fabrication and plagiarism controversy created popular media attention for Frey that dwarfed his previous acclaim. Thus, the controversy should be mentioned in the initial paragraph. The scandal progression shold be discussed in detail in the article. The pro-Frey edits are troubling because they largely deleted the other side of the story. We were left with mitigate statements by Frey and his supporters. The details about what he fabricated and substantiation of his deception were largely removed. The evidence was good information. Without it, a mere "he said, she said" situation is created rather than an informed exploration of the situation. If editors disliked the inclusion of certain information, I think they should have reworked the language rather than removing factual information. No one explain why they had a problem with the source, factual, notable information that happens to reflect poorly on Frey. It was simply removed in great bulk, without a supporting reasoning on the Talk page, which was requested by other editors. For some public figures, a neutral article will include information that places them in ill-repute. Absent a specific showing about the faultiness or non-notability of specific facts, I don't think they should be systematically purged like they have been. --JamesAM 00:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

By your logic, one seventh of the article should then be about the controversy. There is clearly more than that in it's current form. And the plagirism charges were made in a paper in Russia that prides itself on being able to publish without regard for US libel and defamation laws. Not a single other legitimate news source reprinted it. If Wikki is to consdiderd legitimate source of information, it should be presented as such.

No, that one-seventh argument isn't a consequence of my logic. First of all, my search includes pages that use the words "James" and "Frey" anywhere, so it's going to have a hits not about the author. So the ratio of pages with the word "controversy" and a reference to the author "James Frey" is probably even higher. Second, "controversy" is just one way to refer to the situation. There would be other hits using words like scandal, fabrication, lie, etc. The point is that it's a huge part (probably the biggest part) of Frey's fame. And there is no Wikipedia principle barring informationa from non-U.S. sources. The removal of information that may reflect poorly on Frey was so broad, it even remove things that he or his publishers had admitted. The removal of adverse facts was so systematic that it made the article read like only isolated voices claimed fabrication, when the opposite was actually true; on many points, eventually only Frey (or sometimes not even Frey) still claimed such aspects of his memoirs were true. And in fact, Frey's publishers basically conceded that Smoking Gun was correct. --JamesAM 02:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Frey had two books on the bestsellers list before the controversy, and two after the after controversy. He was published in 29 languages, and the only the US publisher deemed it necessary to include new discliamers. How can you substantiate statements like - He had access to his family's fortune? How do you know what his family had and what he had access to? It seems like you're out to slam him and most likely work for the smoking gun? The article is laughably biased and wouldn't be publisheable in any newspaper in the country.

Why do people always seem to get how good the book was. Even if some of the book was fabricated, it was still a great book, and while reading, i felt as if he was talking to me. I felt as if i was there living his life, he is one of the greatest authors out there right now. It is terrible that he would make stuff up just to get more sales. but remember, a very SMALL portion of the book is actually in question. We are making it seem as if the guy made up the whole story and then put it out as a memoir, but he did not do that, and because of his actions, they made My Friend Leonard a fiction novel. Is he gonna pay forever? Or are people gonna grow up and just read the book for the masterpiece that it is.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by WerLdWyde (talk • contribs) 22:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Oprah's Nation

What does the James Frey fiasco say about us, the American people? We count on icons like Oprah to tell us something's worth reading; then we're outraged when something like the Frey scandal breaks out, and Oprah has to make a public appearance and be "sometimes tearful, sometimes angry" so that her book club's stamp of approval doesn't lose its value. Here's a thought: what if we looked for good books on our own instead of relying on Oprah's sticker as the end-all and be-all? M. Frederick 08:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree 100%. The part that gets annoys me a bit, that at times people portray his crime was lying to Oprah. Lying to Oprah?!? How about deceiving millions of his readers, fabricating about serious situations? I agree with you that, Oprah isn't the hear all end all when it comes to literature. ESPECIALLY modern literature. Maya Levy 00:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Because EVERYBODY know that what Oprah says has to be right. jk. People take that women way too damn serious. She is a person, just like all of us. Yes she has had a hard life, so have a lot of us. The only difference between me and her is that she has a show, and she is RICH, I wonder if the whole money thing played a factor at all.--WerLdWyde (talk) 22:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Not a Memoir

Three times in the opening paragraph it describes his books as "memoirs." As we all know they are actually fiction, continuing to describe them as memoirs makes no sense. Does anyone object to changing "memoir" to "novel"? Trcrev 16:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

No objection. I would argue that something can be a novel if it is written in the form of a novel. Truth or otherwise has little to do with it (in my opinion). Of course, if an account is true it may be a memoir AS WELL. 129.12.200.49 20:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally I don't think that 'novel' is an appropriate description; fictionalised memoir or creative non-fiction would be more accurate, IMO. Anchoress 00:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

There should be a distinction between a work of pure fiction and a memoir that is distorted in some fashion. For instance, 'Dutch' a biography of Ronald Reagan uses a fictional narrator to narrate historical fact. 'Speak, Memory' is a Nabokov memoir that uses his playfulness to create a unique tone. In my mind, this is a 'memoir' not a 'novel'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.67.229.94 (talk) 22:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Placement of Oprah Apology

I think the text about Oprah Winfrey's apology should be moved back to the section it was originally placed by the editor who added it, rather than moved to the introductory paragraph. First, the intro paragraph is appropriately a summary. It doesn't fit the purpose of a summary to have all that is said about the Winfrey apology to be in that summary and nothing in the text below. Second, the confrontation between Winfrey and Frey itself wasn't significant enough to make it into the intro. It seems disproportionate to have an apology (which hasn't received as much coverage/attention) make the intro, when the incident that prompted it was significant enough. Third, before the new addition, the intro was neutral in my opinion. It noted that Frey was a writing and it was revealed that he fabricated his memoirs. No judgments are made. But this addition creates a "Frey apologist" tone. In effect, it seems to elevating one person's opinion to the last word on the matter, as if Frey was vindicated. Any counterarguments or agreement? --JamesAM (talk) 23:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Hard to call. His dishonesty does not disqualify him as a writer. On the other hand it should not be ignored or excused.Kitfoxxe (talk) 09:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Book review, bright shiny morning

Book review of

Bright Shiny Morning [2] 2008 follow up book to his autobio, feel free to add some content about it. Off2riorob (talk) 21:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Double posted "External Links" and "Refrences"

I removed one set of both as to clean up the page. No other alterations were made. Some one needs to learn how to use Paste properly.--VXbinaca (talk) 12:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC) No one has yet posted or linked to one single piece of evidence that James Frey was ever in rehab. Other than the use of his name, the entirety of "Pieces" is fiction. Let "big Jim" post some evidence. He won't. There isn't any, I believe. I may be wrong, but I would publicly bet him that he has falsified this whole thing and then tried a "post-modern" defense: there just ain't no such thing as truth anyway. That's cool, though. You made lots of money, dude. Good for you. At least David Foster Wallace had integrity! (and you ain't no DFW-in any respect)Thomas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.254.242 (talk) 06:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Personal background

in 'tropic of cancer' published by 'harper perennial' (2005) frey writes an 'essay' titled 'thank you, henry' in which he describes time spent in paris, trying (but failing) to follow henry miller who he idolised. i think this helps define frey as a person and is useful as 'personal background' or under the 'career' header already created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulb wiki (talk • contribs) 15:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on James Frey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070912140931/http://homepage.mac.com/imfalse/chapel_annex/oprahs_bunk_club.html to http://homepage.mac.com/imfalse/chapel_annex/oprahs_bunk_club.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on James Frey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110808141716/http://www.theodoraandcallum.com/blog/cat/creative-factory/post/my-faves-james-frey/ to http://www.theodoraandcallum.com/blog/cat/creative-factory/post/my-faves-james-frey/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)