Talk:Brent Corrigan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.

More information about this article...
	This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
	This article has had a peer review by the Biography WikiProject, which has now been archived.
	The following comments have been left for this page: It's a start As this article is continually shaped, there is an ongoing NPOV war raging on the history and comments page. Need to have a few more unattached persons dropping by and helping to form it into a better, balanced whole. I've rated it a "start" to reflect this fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jodyw1 (talk • contribs) 13:29, September 9, 2006 (edit)

LGBT Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.

This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.

Pornography Portal

This article is part of WikiProject Pornography, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Brent Corrigan article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Archives
Up to start of August 2006 To end of September 2006 To Mid April 2007

1 Year Of Birth
2 Revert wars and NPOV Status of article
3 nakedwriting.com reference
4 Idiotic Reverts
5 height/weight
6 Wait wait wait
7 Another problem
8 Hey, stop reverting back and forth, back and forth
9 Page protection
10 DL number
11 License issue is OR
12 Ongoing Issue
13 Partial Protect
14 Suggestion
15 Fair use rationale for Image:Brent Corrigan in Every Poolboys Dream.jpg
16 NPOV tag

[edit] Year Of Birth

PLEASE do not assume that Corrigan's providing an old alleged Washington licence means that his birth year is established. He also provided 3 separate forms of "positive Id" stating he was born in 1985. The article has reflected that dispute since it was started PLEASE do not start a revert war. Fake licenses are a dime a dozen and the fact that his old videos continue to be sold openly does not say much for the 1986 date. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.192.21.77 (talk) 19:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

Anon, I didn't "assume" that Corrigan's age has been established. I provided text, link and a cite for the 1986 date. There's a difference. This is a bio page of a living person, as such, unless you have a citation that shows their provided source to be false, it has preference.

Corrigan has stated on multiple occasions that his birthdate is October 31, 1986. Now, he's provided a source for that information. A check of Washington State's records reveals that the source cited is valid. That their remains some controversy around his birthday is mentioned throughout the article, both in the preceding paragraph and in the legal dispute sections. That some people will be upset by citing the 1986 date is unfortunate, but the discussion of the controversy in the article more than makes up for that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jodyw1 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

This article has, since inception, shown both dates. Corrigan, by his own admission submitted "positive ID" showing the 1985 date-http://xbiz.com/news_piece.php?id=12382. Why doesn't he post these on his website as well? PLEASE do not start an edit war. Both dates need to be shown. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.192.21.77 (talk) 23:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

You can source that he used 1985 ID, which everyone else claims is false. You can't claim 1985 as an actual birth date. SchmuckyTheCat 23:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Anon, Corrigan states that his birthday is October 31st 1986. Corrigan provided a valid ID that his birthdate is 1986. Under Wiki's own guidelines, this is more than enough to establish that 1986 should be used as his birthdate.

The 1985 date needs to be mentioned and discussed in the article as a source of conflict and of a legal dispute. That is in the article. It has it's own sub-section in the article. Nothing is being hidden. Jodyw1 23:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

< Corrigan states that his birthday is October 31st 1986. Corrigan provided a valid ID that his birthdate is 1986> He has also stated that his birthdate is 1985 and provided 3 "valid Id's" to prove it. The article has had both birth dates in the lead paragraph for a LONG time. Now you seem determined to start an edit war to change that. The 1985 date seems more likely since the old movies have NEVER been ordered pulled by the government and remain for sale both in the US and abroad. I could, for $20, get a Cal. driver's licence in Macarthur Park with the name Mickey Mouse and any birthday I wanted -so Corrigan's scan is meaningless. He could easily have scanned any of the 3 "valid ID's" he provided Cobra.

You need to read the biographical entry again. Corrigan has never said that he provided three IDs -- Kocis' attorney's did. Corrigan stated that he provided copy of a fake ID to Kocis during the shooting of his first film. One of the issues of the legal dispute dealt with that.

Second, the citation for his 1986 birthdate is two fold: One, Corrigan himself, who has publicly said he lied to Cobra about his earlier birthdate and two, a Washington State Driver's license, showing the 1986 date and the WA registry, showing the license to be valid. While it could be a photoshopped ID, you need to provide a source showing that, in fact, the ID referenced is. A lot of citations in a lot of articles can be fake, but if you don't have a citation showing that to be the case, by Wiki's own rules, it doesn't matter.

Third, again from the Wiki article, Pacific Sun Distributing pulled all of their copies of the films from circulation here in the USA. Cobra pulled their copies from sale as well until the matter was resolved. The films weren't pulled from Europe, where the legal issue is different. That copies of the film are still in available in the USA means little, one way or the other, regarding Corrigan's age. Jodyw1 16:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

jody is starting another edit-war. The website does NOT prove a birthyear, it simply verfies that the license number is valid. The site does NOT provide the date-of-birth. Until a court of law establishes Mr. Corrigan's age, it is perhaps still better to put "disputed" or something similar in the birthdate. --Julien Deveraux 04:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The AVN article says that his attorney, whose public statements can lead to disbarment if he lies, stated his birthyear as 1986. The drivers license, LOCKHSP141PU, states 1986 (because 2000 - 14 = 1986, 14 being the first two digits after the name). There is no source that says 1985, other than sources, including Lockhart himself, that said he lied about the 1985 date, but no source backs up that date. SchmuckyTheCat 05:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, his personal blog is a reliable source on himself. It's not a reliable source for say, the History of France. SchmuckyTheCat 05:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Schmucky, what the hell are you talking about? 2000-14 = ?? where are you getting that from? Again, since the birthdate is disputed, i don't see why you keep deleting the remark--just to be contrary? An article quoting an attorney?? This is pathetic; this article is trash and not reliable.--Julien Deveraux 22:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You can decode a pre-2000 year of birth on a Washington state ID by subtracting the first two numbers after the name from 2000. The birth date isn't disputed. Who's disputing it? That isn't even clear to me. SchmuckyTheCat 23:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

This site: http://www.highprogrammer.com/alan/numbers/dl_us_wa.html shows how Washington State creates its drivers licenses' numbers. The alpha numeric code on Corrigan's license matches the DOB information also printed on the license. Schmucky is right.Jodyw1 06:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

okay so now we're expected to believe a hacking site's word about how washington licenses are coded? You guys are pathetic, and your'e still quoting blogs as "sources." What about my blog? What about elmysterios blog? Can they now be quoted to just because they are on the web? --67.171.203.224 07:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

No, Corrigan's personal blog is being cited as a source about his own life. Corrigan is a living person. Under Wiki's rules he gets deference. And nowhere is the hacking site listed as a source for the Corrigan article. It is linked here in the Talk section, to illustrate what Schmucky Cat was talking about in his earlier remark about WSDL numbers. Big difference.Jodyw1 08:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's more information from Marist College that elaborates on the High Programmer site about how Washington State generates it's DL numbers (http://www.academic.marist.edu/mwa/wsdln.htm). Please note that this isn't being cited in the biography on Corrigan.Jodyw1 08:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revert wars and NPOV Status of article

PLEASE STOP MOVING THIS TO THE BOTTOM; there is no reason for that! The birthdate is under dispute and is even included in the article as beign under dispute. As such, it would be deceptive to present his birth year as a fact in any part of this article without stating that the date is disputed. --Julien Deveraux 00:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The birth date will continue to be an issue, and as such, stating the birth year as a fact when it is still being disputed is fallacious and misleading. To date, I have inserted that information in this article and it continues to be reverted without explanation--also; blogs are being used to cite sources (not just Brent's blog but also Jason Curious' blog and GayWebMonkey (and PDFs????) This violates source-citing procedures and continues to look extremely biased and skewed. Also, the age issue has never been legally challenged and therefore remains a claim--no matter what kind of photoshopped IDs get posted to personal blogs. --Julien Deveraux 08:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

What is the source for the dispute? If you want to include that there is a dispute about his age, source that. I don't find any serious source that believes the 1985 date. Did he lie about it? YES! That is sourced. That is in the article. Does anyone think he was born in 1985? NO!

Blogs, such as the one he writes, can be used as a source to source information about the subject - in this case Brent Corrigan's blog can be a source about Brent Corrigan.

Blogs, by notable people in a certain field, can be used to source information about that field - in this case Jason Curious is a notable and reliable web-journalist on gay porn, and can be used as a source for gay porn.

I'll note however, that just about any "fact" sourced to either blog has also apppeared in AVN, which is a more reliable (by Wikipedia standards) source.

The drivers license number on the posted Washington State drivers license verification web page matches and turns up as valid. That is COMPLETELY RELIABLE and it 100% backs up the 1986 date, unless you think he lied to the state to get the DL. SchmuckyTheCat 13:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Schmucky, I invite you to check my DL number in colorado. It is 95-198-0787. I'll say i was born in 1856. The driver's license number is valid, so that does mean I was born in 1856? rest my case. Also, please do not move an entry in here to the bottom; there was no reason for that other than to be an a**hole. --Julien Deveraux 00:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Standard Wikipedia convention is that the newest conversations go on the bottom, not the top.

I don't care what Colorado says your DL number is. Does Colorado encode the birth year in the DL number? I don't know. I do know that Washington DOES. And that the ID posted is valid and says he was born in 1986.

I do not see any statement in the article that says the birth year is disputed. Not even by the dead guy. He sued for mis-representation. He wasn't trying to prove to a court that Lockhart was born in 1985, but that he represented himself as being born in 1985, and that the deception was the basis for a civil tort. WHAT IS THE RELIABLE SOURCE THAT SAYS THERE IS A DISPUTE ABOUT HIS BIRTH YEAR? WHERE WHERE WHERE? SchmuckyTheCat 01:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Schmucky, please source where a reliable source (as in the actual place of issue) states that Washington encodes its birthdates in its license numbers? You've only cited hacking websites :-) There does not need to be a source indicating that the birthyear is disputed. Why? well, for one thing the article even states that it was disputed and their has been no court finding indicating one way or or another. --Julien Deveraux 04:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The Washington state bartenders guide to ID. Probably doesn't exist online.

The article doesn't state the year is or was disputed. It says he mis-represented his age to Cobra. Nowhere does it ever say that once he revealed the mis-representation that anybody disputed it. Was Cobra pissed off? Yes. Did they disputed the age? no. Claiming evidence of misrepresentation to avoid liability and criminal prosecution, yes. Claiming 1985 was correct? No. SchmuckyTheCat 08:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

In any case, the onus is ON YOU to show a reliable source that there IS A DISPUTE about his age. There are no sources showing anyone disputes the 1986 date. SchmuckyTheCat 08:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The information you are citing "as proof" that his age is really 20 (as of today) is citable but not verifiable. The Washington State website does not include this "code-cracking" scheme on it; and even though the information is posted by some fly-by-night 199-a month "University," It can still be incorrect. I have not removed that information from the article even though I severely question its relevance but I have changed the language of that entry to language that does give the impression that its doctrine. There are sources to show that the age matter is under dispute but much like "nakedwriting.com" they are not appropriate to cite here. Yes, the article states that Corrigan CLAIMS that he falsified his age documents but this has never been proven. Un-verfied statements by attorney's are citeable but not proof, statements on personal blogs are citeable (??) but not proof. To that effect and the effect that there are many MANY bloggers out there who still don't believe this information since it has all come from someone who has already lied to the public once (and again for other reasons) it is valid and not misleading to include that this information is possibly suspect in the article without having all of you accuse the editors of brent-bashing. --Julien Deveraux 06:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Source the dispute. This has not been done.

Don't put "disputed see below" in the intro sentence until the dispute has been sourced.

The way Washington state encodes the birth year is a well known fact, whether some quickie internet search finds a reliable source for that or not. It is the kind of thing you can ask any cop, or any bartender, or probably half the state. It's trivia. SchmuckyTheCat 15:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Then source that too, chmucky, I mean really, if you are going to try and tell me to cite a dispute (he lied, now he's saying he isn't lying...what is there to cite besides gay blogs ..right?) then you can cite your "well-known" fact, you know as in..coming from the source itself--in this case, Washington State. --Julien Deveraux 18:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] nakedwriting.com reference

The nakedwriting.com reference is the blog of the producer/director an independent film. Thus, it is reliable as a reference to state that Corrigan had a role in the film. SchmuckyTheCat 18:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC) Then Quoting Julien's Gay Rant Page and Elymysterios Rants from a Mysterious Place as locations of the Lawsuit Documentation and that there is a dispute about age is also allowed --Julien Deveraux 20:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Idiotic Reverts

Now this is getting stupid, now we're reverting simply because one or two users "don't like" the article or the edits I've made because they are more neutral/skeptical than the biased article that existed beforehand. Schmucky has repeatedly deleted entries without explaining why (a wiki violation) and has also continuously changed the language of the article so that everything Corrigan states is suddenly fact and anything anyone else says is "claimed." What the HELL is wrong with doing this the right way and stating everything in this article as a claim? There are too many lies and drama surrounding this article and because of that fact, ALL information is potentially supsect.

Here is what we know.

1) A living person who has a biographical entry on here can now have his biographers use his blog as a source? That is questionable, please link to the official wiki policy stating that this is reasonable and or acceptable. I looked for it for a long time and never found it. Why? Because Corrigan has repeatedly posted blog entries and REPEATEDLY deleted them and altered information later on in an attempt to control the information that has gone out about him. I have personally archived previous entries that he later deleted (julienpdx.blogspot.com) , as has Elmysterio (elmysterio.blogspot.com). We cannot however, be cited as sources according to the same principles since we are in the blogosphere or whatever the hell logic is being used here. However, neither is Corrigan in this case right? 2) Corrigan posted a copy of his license online; he then states he used Photoshop to edit the image. STOP RIGHT THERE. Regardless of WHY he used Photoshop on the image, the fact remains that Photoshop was used; thereby making the image a potentially dishonest representation of truth. He also admitted to doing this as well, but that was conveniently removed as a citation when it became obvious that the same logic used to defend it could also be used to attack it. 3) We all know that the age is under dispute and this whole BS about asking people to CITE the truth is ridiculous. There isn't a way to do this unless blogs are cited and it isn't established whether or not this is ok. My assumption is that if it isn't okay to do that, then corrigan's own blog shouldnt' be used in the article as fact.

the fact is that some of us have bought the subsequent explanations and accepted them as truth and some of us have not. Like I've stated before, no criminal charges were filed against Kocis for making "kiddie porn," we also have the lawsuit documents (that are posted, but again, on blogs) indicating that the judge wasn't buying the sob story that Corrigan was positing (including his status as a minor; which was never proven). Therefore, all the subsequent crap that has been thrown at us and expected to be bought as "truth" is not verifiable as it wasn't coming from a legal source. I am lost then, as to how this article can so flatly deny that Sean Paul Lockhart's age is really 20 until a credible legal source or a non-gay-porn related news source confirms it.? --Julien Deveraux 19:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if you write about yourself, you are a reliable source about yourself.

Yes, other blogs by fans and critics who aren't otherwise notable in their field aren't reliable sources.

I don't care about the image of the license. The number on the license verifies his age.

Of course no criminal charges were filed. It's really rare for any to be filed. The lack of criminal charges is a proof of "authorities don't give a damn" and not a proof of innocence. If Cobra kept selling the videos, or if a stack of them were found in a store where the store KNEW about the age problem, then charges might be filed, if anybody cared.

Lawsuit documents, no matter where they are posted, are primary sources, and can be sourced - very carefully.

There still is no source AT ALL, that says anyone thinks he was born in 1985. WHO THINKS THAT? How many times must it be asked of you to provide any source that anyone actually believes the 1985 date? SchmuckyTheCat 19:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Schmucky, your credibility is now shot down the toilet because you didn't answer my questions and you keep responding in the first person, indicating that you have personal reasons for making these edits. The fact that you're now defending your edits with opinions ("I dont care about this/It is just is because I said so") just basically tells me that you've run out of reasons for keeping the article biased. --Julien Deveraux 20:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

So until you can refrain from using non-logical arguments in an attempt to justify your ridiculously thinly-veiled bias, I won't attempt to engage you in any type of debate on the talk page. --Julien Deveraux 20:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I just thought I'd point out that there's obviously a difference between a reliable source and a notable source. The fact that Corrigan makes certain claims on his blog is relevant, not gospel. -- Ec5618 20:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

WHAT BIAS? I have no interest in Brent Corrigan, or gay porn whatsoever. I came to this article to mediate a dispute a year ago. I saw another dispute, so I involved myself again. I have no bias and don't care one bit. What I see is disputes that don't exist, revert warring about height and weight, weasel wording where everything is "he said/she said" and blah blah blah.

Here is a question, Julian, that I have asked five or six times now. WHAT SOURCE is there that there IS A DISPUTE about his age? Show me any single reliable source that believes he was born in 1985. SchmuckyTheCat 21:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The reference name "Cobra Strikes Back" goes to this url [1]. That URL does not state that anyone believes he was born in 1985. It simply quotes a Cobra Video press release that they were suing him, not that they believed the 1985 birthdate. I'll remove all of this again in 24 hours unless there is a real source. SchmuckyTheCat 23:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Schmucky, once again your ignorance is astounding, the article states that Cobra was provided with ID claiming an 1985 birthdate. Ergo, if they have this information and they believe it to be true, and all the customers who purchased the videos believed it to be true, and there has been no solid evidence indicating that it isn't true, other than photoshopped pictures of IDs on personal blogs, then common sense would dictate that a dispute exists. Just because an article isnt' cited in which a specific person comes out and says "I BELIEVE HE WAS BORN in 1985" doesn't make this a valid source for the claim. Argument destroyed yet again, you are reaching for straws. --Julien Deveraux 00:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Everything Cobra says after the revelation has been ass covering, not making a claim that the 1985 date is real. I see no dispute. SchmuckyTheCat 05:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

By your logic, everything Corrigan is CLAMING is also ass-covering. --Julien Deveraux 05:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I n s e r t f o r m u l a h e r e

The article, other articles, as well as Corrigan's website all state that Corrigan admitted to forging his documentation. Neither the Cobra article or the lawsuit maintain that he was 18 at the time. You even have the provisional agreement between Corrigan and Kocis. In it, Kocis required Corrigan to issue a statement that Cobra/Kocis didn't know Corrigan was under age at the time of the film shoots. Corrigan's age is not in dispute.Jodyw1 05:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not under dispute at this point, simply b/c you are stating it isn't. Since there was a claim made that he was born in 1985 and no reliable, verifiable, legal source has proven otherwise, I see nothing wrong with quoting both birthyears in every part of the article, rather than misleadingly positing the potentially false birth year as fact --Julien Deveraux 05:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

J, citations don't have to be "legally" proven. They don't even have to be *true.* They just have to be verifiable. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability:

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed."

You don't understand Wiki policy as well as you think you do.Jodyw1 06:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) There is still no claim anyone believes he was born in 1985. We have plenty of reference for the lie, but not that anyone still claims it. And yes, for the record, the WA state ID is reliable, verifiable, and legal (it is a state issued ID). SchmuckyTheCat 06:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] height/weight

I don't know (or care) where the current height/weight is coming from. It's a stupid thing to argue about. Julian is putting the h/w from the drivers license there, with dispute tags. The DL has an issue date in 2003. It should come as no surprise that teenagers are still growing. Is this really an issue? SchmuckyTheCat 20:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC) Yes, as you acertain, he wasn't a "teenager" at that time. --Julien Deveraux 20:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

As requested, the "source" for the dispute is cited in the article with careful word choice and a notable source indicating that he had provided falsified documentation; thereby creating the as-of-now unresovled dispute regarding his age. The dispute about his height/weight is petty, I agree, but its an argument being used based on the same logic for the reverts of language being used that is inappropriate for the article, the height and weight are not cited, i've offered a place for the brentophiles to find this information. I am citing the license as the source of conflicting information. Whether or not you personally think something is "a stupid thing to argue about," is rather irrelevant. I did what I was supposed to do, so please stop the incessant reverts. --Julien Deveraux 22:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC) Oh, and also does anyone else find it odd that the Washington Driver's license was the only thing posted? I mean, didn't Jason Sechrest claim that he had viewed a California license? Food for thought. --Julien Deveraux 22:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Julien, what part of Wikipedia's policies on Biographies of Living Persons don't you understand? Corrigan stated his age, h/w etc. That's enough. The legal dispute around documentation he provided is listed later in the article. It isn't about "proving" it's a about verifiying. You may not agree, but you are violating the BLP rules.Jodyw1 00:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, by your logic, we can now dispute the height because the license he posted in 2003 in which you are stating (as well as he) that he was 17 claims his height to be 5'1." Is it really realistic to expect someone to have grown 6 inches after puberty in less than a year? Hmmm..probably not (see the human growth article). It is not fallacious or misleading to post both stats in the article throughout as the information is suspect. I checked out your links to BLP rules, but the line "information is not contentious" is where my argument stands. The information is contentious. --Julien Deveraux 05:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Julien, a) it's 2007, 6 inches in 3-4 years is not unrealistic. b) For the information to be contentious, you need a current article stating he's 5'4, 5'9 or 7'2. You have not made your case.Jodyw1 05:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I have made my case and I am sorry that you don't see it that way. I am citing the same license that you're citing and claiming that as my source for a height and weight. Knife cuts both ways Jody, stop being an ass. --Julien Deveraux 05:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Julien, that was his height and weight etc in 2003 when the license was issued. His height and weight have changed in the ensuing four years. Linked citation is for the most recent values. Again, per Wiki: BLP. Just because you feel it is contentious doesn't mean it is.Jodyw1 05:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Misusing a source like the ID, to claim the height and weight of someone who is 19, based on stats from when they were 15, is clearly disruption to make a WP:POINT, Julian. You've actually said that is why you are using it. Knock it off, you know he doesn't have the same weight now that he did four years ago. SchmuckyTheCat 06:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wait wait wait

He turned 18 in October 31st 2004, Every Poolboy's Dream and Schoolboy Crush was released on the 19th December 2004, so he was 18 for almost 2 months before it was released. His older boyfriend sent pictures of him via webcam to Cobra Video shortly before October 31st 2002 (his 16th birthday). His first two movies were filmed sometime between January 1st 2004 and October 30th 2004. Also, according to this page, sometime in 2004 he moved to San Diego with his mother. Then he was abondoned by his mother and that he met an older gay man when he was 16. But he couldn't possibly have been 16 in 2004. I can't open pdf files in my browser, but I'm guessing that it is meant to say 2002, not 2004. In any case, I was just laying that out for my question, when in those 10 months were the two movies filmed? And also, why did he go public with the information that he was underage? I don't mean in a vindictive sense, but literally, after he falsified his own ID why would he go public with that information? What was his motive? JayKeaton 00:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Jay, those are 64, 000 dollar questions that are unforunately, a major part of the reason there continues to be revert-wars on here. --Julien Deveraux 00:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another problem

The citations where COrrigan is quoted (in which he gives details of his childhood etc is a dead link. --Julien Deveraux 00:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Fixed.Jodyw1 05:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hey, stop reverting back and forth, back and forth

There is this thing called WP:3RR, here. I'm assuming everyone reverting repeatedly is aware of it. And it's not an entitlement. SchmuckyTheCat 06:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

since the article has been reverted more than three times by both me and Jodyw, I must ask if reversion priveleges have been now removed for all parties involved. --Julien Deveraux 06:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Under WP:BLP the 3RR rule doesn't hold. I know it's dickish, but given this is a biography of a living person, and that the defamatory provisions are pretty stringent, at this point, reverting is all that can be done. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jodyw1 (talk • contribs) 07:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Page protection

I've protected because of the reverting and 3RR violations. I can't see what the issues are exactly, but if there are BLP issues in the protected version, someone let me know, please, so I can remove them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

(copied from SV talk) Great, so you locked the page from editing DIRECTLY AFTER the incorrect reversion was made. If you are going to do this, wouldn't it be great if you could provide an explanation for that behavior on the talk pages of those who are doing the reverting, rather than simply locking it AFTER the BPL issues are restored to the page? --Julien Deveraux 06:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

If you don't tell me what the BLP issues are, I can't remove them, so please do, but I'm about to go offline, so speed would be appreciated. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I've removed some obvious original research, though I see neither of the reverters were objecting to it. No third-party personal websites are allowed in BLPs, and no original synthesis is allowed in any article. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The bio box that includes stats such as height and weight are misleading. Why? Because on this persons' personal advertising site, he claims one set of stats, but a copy of a driver's license that he claims is his (after making a public claim about his age that he now states is untrue) disagrees with these statistics. Also, this person claimed he was a certain age when he made pornographic films but then later claimed he was underage. No court of law and no "official" source has actually substantiated this claim. As well, citeable sources indicate that there are some who might believe he is one age while his "official" stance is another age. therefore, I felt it necessary to include both entries regarding his age and height in the article but his fans continue to revert my article (including my use of the word "claims" rather than states when facts presented in the article about this person's life are only being sourced from the subject) simply to be contrary. I also have been accused of libel in teh latest ridiculous reversion tactics simply b/c I edit the article in such a way as to present a more neutral viewpoint on the subject when information about him isn't available in any citeable format other than from the subject himself. This is done specifically because information has been presented from the subject and then later either shown to be potentially false or is unverifiable. Compromises are not being made, reversions are the only answer from the opposing parties..what do to do?> :-(--Julien Deveraux 07:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

We're allowed to use material from the subject of the article, subject to the limitations in WP:V. The material shouldn't be presented as though we doubt it ("A claims X"), but in a neutral manner ("A's website states that X"). The entire drivers' license thing smacked of OR, especially the bit about the Mathematics and Writing in Action Program. I don't see that the height and weight issues are urgent enough to require an immediate change. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Slim, the recent Drivers License information is from the subjects personal page. It's SELFPUB and BLP. The older information pertained to issues in the original lawsuit. That does hold under the completeness standard for the entry. Info does need to be in the article about Cobra's public comments as to what information they had on file at the time the videos were shot.Jodyw1 07:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Some parts of the drivers license section may be okay, but other parts definitely weren't, and it was written as though we were hinting darkly at something without saying it outright. I'll look more closely at the sources tomorrow. I removed it all because I don't want to risk having protected a page with BLP violations. I'll restore what can be restored when I've had a chance to read it all properly. In the meantime, I hope you'll all discuss the other issues to find a compromise so that editing can continue. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

well then, SlimVirgin, what do you recommend we do? It is a fact (and verifiable) that the person about whom this article is written has made claims that were untrue. it is a fact (and verifiable) that a dispute exists as a result of it and it is a fact that he has made claims that evidence he provides clearly contradict (height, for example). so you're right, while it may be questionable to write an article and use the word claims (which by defintion is "3 a : to assert in the face of possible contradiction) (m-w.com); I see no other alternative that wiki has clearly layed out for this particular type of issue. --Julien Deveraux 07:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Source the dispute Julian. Just come up with a source that says anyone believes he was born in 1985. SchmuckyTheCat 07:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Schmucky, for the last time, I already did. Just b/c you can't use your head and see that a citation that shows a different birthdate was provided at one point constitutes a dispute, doesn't make it a bad citation. I'm not answering this question again. --Julien Deveraux 07:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The source DOES NOT SAY ANYONE BELIEVES the 1985 date. Which means, no dispute exists. SchmuckyTheCat 07:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Julian, where you have a dispute like this, especially in a BLP, you need to find a reliable secondary source who has noted the discrepancy and commented on it. That ensures (a) that the issue is notable enough for inclusion here, and (b) that we're not interpreting primary-source material ourselves. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I dont understand the whole "the source doesn't say anyone believes the date," argument because the source that was provided clearly shows that someone (who may be dead) did believe it and that videos were sold to consumers (such as myself) who also believed it. Yes, there has been press saying that the original age was a lie, but this has never been proven. There is still at least one source indicating a different birthdate, so I can cite it, right? This is still not making sense --Julien Deveraux 17:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The point is, although people may have believed it before he came clean, there is no evidence that anyone now is saying "Brent Corrigan lied about having lied about his age; in fact he was over 18 when he started making movies". Everyone involved accepts that he was, in fact, 17. —An gr 18:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

"everyone involved accepts that he was, in fact 17." Not exactly, a lawsuit was filed after the contract was breached because the plaintiff believed (according to the suit) that Corrigan was still of legal age to be bound to a contract. The age issue was announced right before the lawsuit. Fans of Corrigan have accepted Corrigans new claim of age AFTER the fact; skeptics like myself have not been sure what to believe. Since nothing has ever been proven and there are citeable sources showing more than one birth-date, it is fair to cite both sources, the reason this is turning into a revert war is because JodyW is friends with Corrigan, so in a way, is acting as a "self-editor," he is changing the article to skew it in such a way to read that this new birthdate is fact and that the prior birthdate was fake--even though there is no proof. His argument is that verifiability, not truth is what rules here, however, the contentious birthdate is verifiable for BOTH 1986 and 1985 simply because there are sources indicating as such. The reverts have been "spin," --67.171.203.224 18:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

There is NO source indicating a true birthdate of 1985.

There is NO source indicating that Cobra thought the 1985 date was true. "was still of legal age to be bound to a contract", yes, because he had turned 18 in the meantime. Cobra was not suing him to try and make him admit to a 1985 birthdate.

This is an attempt to make an "encyclopedic" entry. "Skeptics" without any real world backing (in the form of reliable sources) have nothing to add to this entry. You may in fact, be entirely correct, but the standard for Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. If it turns out to be true in the end, that will be verifiable, and the article will change. Until then, come up with reliable sources that state there is a dispute and that there is mainstream belief that he was born in 1985. SchmuckyTheCat 18:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

As you can see, anon, JodyW is not the only editor arguing that there is no dispute as to Corrigan's birth year. As you say, there is no absolutely incontrovertible proof that Corrigan was born in 1986 and not 1985 (or for that matter 1987 or 1984 either!); nor can there ever be. Even a birth certificate can be forged; and even if one were released, where would be the proof that the person named on it is the same person? If it comes to that, there's no proof that Brent Corrigan's real name is Sean Lockhart, either. But he has publicly, and verifiably, stated these things to be so; no one involved is still denying their veracity; and, most importantly perhaps, he has no reason to lie about it. —An gr 19:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's important that the article contains Cobra's statements about the copies of the ID they state they had on hand. It's important the article contains Corrigan's statements about forging that identification. It's important that Corrigan's Washington State DL is included. I'll even grant that it's important to include information that he removed his family address from that ID. All of that is verifiable based on articles and Corrigan's own statements. Debatable is including a reference to the WS License Registry and to how DL numbers are generated. I think that in light of the debate, it's reasonable to include that information and not synthesis. But there is no verifiable debate that anyone believes he is 21. Jodyw1 21:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, Jody. What's odd though, is that no source (besides Corrigan) disputes that the 1985 date. At least 1 source indicates that his birthdate is 1985, this 'anyone believes' thing is where the argument seems to get weak; i mean how do you know what 'anyone believes?' especially given the fact that his revert war has taken place. i personally am having a hard time understanding how its "libelous" for the article to cite both heights and both birth dates since there are sources calming two different dates and different heights--further I added a qualifying statement indicating that there is confusion since both dates and heights are citeable? The problem here is that the same logic being used to delete teh reversions is the same logic being used to present the article in a misleading way. Also, if someone is publiclly lied at one point and has been caught doing it, doesn't that pretty much make anything they say at that point, suspect? (claims vs. states) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Julien Deveraux (talk • contribs) 00:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

no source (besides Corrigan) disputes that the 1985 date backwards, all reliable sources dispute the 1985 date. no reliable source indicates the 1985 date. Show a reliable source with the 1985 date. How many times has this been asked? SchmuckyTheCat 00:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Julien, the thing is not even Cobra is claiming Corrigan is lying about having been born in 1986. There is a dispute between them, of course, and Wikipedia has to remain neutral on it; but that dispute is not whether he was born in 1985 or 1986. Rather, the dispute is whether or not Bryan Kocis (and anyone else in charge at Cobra) knew he was underage at the time the first movies were made. This is made more explicit in the Bryan Kocis article than here: Corrigan claims Kocis knew he was underage, Kocis (and Cobra in general) claimed they didn't know. But the 1986 birth date itself is not under dispute. When Corrigan revealed that he was born in 1986, Cobra's response was not "He's lying! He was born in 1985!"; rather, their response was "We didn't know! He gave us false information!" —An gr 04:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DL number

The 2001 textbook "Identification Numbers and Check Digit Schemes" uses the Washington state license as an example through it's example material. Can we quit calling it OR now? SchmuckyTheCat 07:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Can it be cited here? Are book entries eligible for citation if no way to verify them online easily exists? This is a general question, not an attacking one. --Julien Deveraux 07:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. Though personally, I don't care about citing it because I don't think the whole deconstruction of the license needs to be in the article. It should have been left with the wording that the WA site verified it as valid. SchmuckyTheCat 07:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

By that logic, someone posting a photoshopped ID with an invalid birthdate but a correct ID number that is "verifiable" by a state website would also be admissible; this is why there is contention; not whether or not Corrigan truly has that birthdate . --67.171.203.224 08:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

huh? the verification website affirms the birthdate, the birth year is part of the ID number. SchmuckyTheCat 09:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Wrong again schmucky! The site only validates that the number is a valid number; it DOES NOT tell you that the birth-year is part of the number. That information comes from third-praty sources who make an interesting claim but have no official source confirming it.!

That is a Begging the question fallacy, Schmucky. The birthyear is a part of the ID number if you believe the sources that you are quoted indicating as such. The Washington State Drivers' License web page DOES NOT comment on the algorithm used and there isn't an official source indicating that this INDEED the algorithm used; therefore that information is potentially contentious. Assuming it it is true does not strengthen your argument. If you are going to maintain that you can go ahead and use these sketchy sources to back up your argument, then it is fair to cite the height from Corrigan's license (as well as his official height off his porn site; since the kid wasnt 15 when the license was issued as you keep saying, but 17) and it is fair to cite the other birthdate because there is a source that says it was provided with copies of an ID indicating as such. The source does not state that the ID's were fake but the source does indicate that someone believes/believed it to be true. Customers of cobra believe/believed it to be true. I understand that this is stated later in the article, but the new birthdate is posited as truth in the entire article and only mentioned once that it "may not be true" Many of the editors of this page are guitly of the post-hoc fallacy becuase they have already assumed that the revelation about the age was genuine. --Julien Deveraux 18:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

To both Julian and the anon: you can keep denying this all you want. The state teaches it in guides for alcohol servers and restaurant owners. It's now sourced to a college level mathematics textbook. I'm done arguing it. SchmuckyTheCat 18:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] License issue is OR

I looked more carefully at the license issue. The section is a violation of NOR and BLP. The sources are (a) "X-Rated Exclusives from Deep Inside the Adult Industry. Jason's News Desk: Underage Performer Brent Corrigan's First Interview" (no longer available); (b) jasoncurious.com (third party personal websites not allowed in BLPs); (c) The Washington State Department of Licensing Driver Status Display Site, which hasn't written about Corrigan (see WP:SYN); (d) The Mathematics and Writing in Action Program, which hasn't written about Corrigan; and (e) the subject's website, but only to retrieve a copy of his driver's license, which he posted because he likes to post a lot of pictures; he didn't post it in relation to this issue, at least not as stated. Therefore, the view of this as a notable issue, as well as the way it was approached, was entirely the work of Wikipedians and not reliable secondary sources. That makes it a BLP and NOR violation. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Julian has asked how long the article is going to be locked. Are you all done discussing this, or are there outstanding issues? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure we can find something else to argue about. (grin)

I was going to disagree with your ruling a bit. The Jason's Newsdesk / Jasoncurious.Com cites link to an, *cough*, published journalist and radio talk show host. While I don't care for his journalistic ethics, he did speak to Corrigan directly about the ID. Per Wiki:OR 2.2 that would make him a Primary Source (observation of the ID) on the subject. Corrigan has spoken about the age and ID both explicitly and implicitly, many times. I don't agree that "...he didn't post it in relation to this issue, at least not as stated." Even without mindreading Corrigan's intent, as posted on his site, and as a primary source, it's germane to post about the ID, to post a picture of the ID, and to even say that according to the post, the ID was photoshopped to remove the address.

The remainder, the Washington State Drivers License site, the Marist site, etc, I can see your point that WIKI:SYN is more apt than any other rationale.

But hey, you are the admin, so your ruling rules...Jodyw1 19:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The jasoncurious.com link didn't work when I tried it. If it's self-published, it doesn't matter that it's a journalist's site. No third-party self-published material is allowed in BLPs.

As for the rest, the drivers license site and the other one are clear OR. That leaves us with Corrigan himself, but all he did was upload a photograph of his license, accompanied by no relevant text.

I also can't see that any of this matters. As I understand it, the issues are: (a) did the boy say or imply that he was old enough to do porn acting when he wasn't, and (b) did the people who paid and filmed him know his age i.e. did they have reason to believe he was under-age? His uploading a driver's license that may or may not have been altered addresses neither of those questions. Also, given that there are potential criminal allegations at stake here, we have to be particularly careful about what we say or imply, so I would leave out anything that you have even the slightest doubt about. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

A little tired of arguing Wiki policy ambiguity. It's fine. The article is fine. That said, I really do appreciate you coming in and refereeing. When you decide to unlock the article, you might still want to stop in from time to time for a vist...Jodyw1 21:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC) [moved comment back up here, to the point it was agreeing withJodyw1 03:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)]

I agree with you that it doesn't matter, and said so earlier.

However, it's worth it to reply to say I don't agree with your reasoning this is OR or because of unreliable sources.

jasoncurious is a reliable source on porn, that it appears in a blog doesn't make it less a reliable source.

Yes, it does, because it's self-published, which means the writer can say whatever he wants about anyone, with no constraints. That's why self-published sources are never allowed in BLPs. You just went to one of the policies on that and tried to change it because of this case, which isn't really on. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I changed it because of a conversation on the talk page of BLP, because of a totally different situation. I have no beef in the Corrigan dispute except as a previous mediator. SchmuckyTheCat 00:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

What was the other totally different situation? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The examination of the ID was being done as a primary source document of his age. The WSDOL webpage was making a statement about Corrigan, an interactive page verified the license presented was a valid license - specifically his: that is making a statement. The source about the mathematics thing shouldn't have ever been there, even as far as this got. The point of that was because Julian is being dense about the license verifying the age, it should have stayed on the talk page. SchmuckyTheCat 22:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I dont mind the fact that the license issue is considered OR, but at the same time, we STILL have two citeable sources that indicate two different ages and the article continues to be reverted based on the fact that Jody and Schmucky are trying to tell me that even though the citation says those things..whether or not they are BELIEVABLE is supposedly up to me to prove. That is NOT part of the BLP procedures so that argument is bunk. To date, the age has not been proven and as long as both ages are citeable, then I don't see the problem with citing both in both the bio box and the intro paragaph in order to be FAIR. --Julien Deveraux 22:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

If that article (I forget the link) is a reliable source, you can report what it says. I suggest you consider leaving his birthdate out of the lead and out of the infobox and start a section called "Controversy over date of birth," then write up purely what the reliable source reports, namely that X has filed a lawsuit because of etc etc. No extra padding, no OR — and only if that website is not self-published i.e. so long as it's not someone's personal website. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Julian, the article states that Corrigan lied about his age. What you are trying to insert into the article is that there is an ongoing dispute about his age. That dispute does not exist. The article should stay protected until there is conclusion to that, specific point. SOURCE THE DISPUTE. SchmuckyTheCat 22:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Schmuck, my name is Julien, not Julian, spell it right already; its not rocket-science. I have sourced the dispute, again your argument is assuming the age issue was settled. it was never settled; however I now have documentation that I will source that will (for once and all) solve the dispute--definitively!! :-) --Julien Deveraux 00:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Is the legal action ongoing? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

You have not sourced the dispute. You've sourced that Corrigan previously used a 1985 birth date, and that he then used a 1986 birthdate. Those were already facts, and already sourced, to the same sources you gave. You have not sourced that anyone, currently, disputes the 1986 birth date.

If you have some new information, provide it. SchmuckyTheCat 00:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave the page protected for now as this obviously isn't resolved. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ongoing Issue

SV, that's the problem. Or the conflict. There isn't a dispute over his age. The lawsuit centered around a trademark dispute and a breach of contract dispute. Those are discussed in the bio. As part of that lawsuit, and to counter charges that they knowingly produced underage porn, Cobra stated that they had copies of valid IDs on file. Corrigan stated he forged that/those IDs. There is no source that maintains Corrigan lied about lying/forging his age.

Corrigan has stated on his blog, in interviews and in print, that he's 20. Per WP:BLP, that's enough for the article. Be that as it may while, as you noted, not explicitly posted for that purpose, the Washington State Drivers License does underscore his statement. Further, there's no source out there -- none that I've seen at any rate -- that maintains Corrigan is really 21: no doctor that delivered him in 1985, no mother saying she went into labor in 1985, nor Social Service report indicating he was taken into state care in 1985. In short, there's nothing that would, per BLP, over-ride Corrigan as a source for his age.

Posting on here that his age is disputed simply isn't true. Per BLP, it opens the door to defamation.

As an outside party, SV, I'm interested in your take on the mater.Jodyw1 04:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Corrigan has provided no fewer than THREE pieces of positive ID showing he was born in 1985. Why doesn't he scan those documents on his web site? In over 2 years the government has not issued a statement recalling these films, as they did in the Tracy Lords and Jeff Browning cases. His allegedly "underage" films remain on sale without the government saying "boo". They are on sale RIGHT NOW on Ebay- http://cgi.ebay.com/Cobra-videos-schoolboy-crush-poolboys-dream-twink-orgy_W0QQitemZ150121499079QQihZ005QQcategoryZ4802QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItemorn in 1985. In any event, we can all agree that Corrigan is a liar, con man and dealer in false documents:someone totally lacking in credibility. As a compromise I have proposed that the lead paragraph remain as it was "1985 or 1986". Corrigan's business partner Jody W(heeler) refuses to keep this sensible language and insists that because liar Corrigan now says 1986 we are bound to 1986. I say-why not have Corrigan scan the 3 pieces of positive ID showing 1985 on to his web site? John celona 13:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The link above doesn't work. If you log into the "mature" Ebay section, the auction number is 150121499079. John celona 13:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia. We describe the world, not prescribe. We don't get involved, we don't go do detective work, we don't interpret the government, we don't make demands of subjects. Corrigan may be a liar, con man, and dealer in false documents, in fact, those ARE described in the article. But reliable sources other than Corrigan sustain the 1986 date. Wikipedia uses reliable sources to describe events. So far, there are no reliable sources that indicate a 1985 date, nor are there reliable sources that anyone believes the 1985 date. SchmuckyTheCat 15:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay boys, calm yourselves. Jody and Schmucky, I now have evidence that your claims are true (and not evidence that is published by people who took corrigan's side without actually independently verifying his story). By the way; examining a license by sight and feel, and then not using state records services to verify it is an example of poor journalism. Jason is not a journalist; he is a gossip columnist by definition. He does NOT have editors, therefore he is not a journalistic source. While I maintain a professional respect for Jason Sechrest and this is not a slander to him. If Wiki requires a citeable source then why is Jason's blog being allowed to be cited? Corrigans blog is useable b/c he's the primary source, I get that but Jason's??? Also, this article never stated that his age was under dispute ..which is a fact, it always repeated Corrigan's claim and posited it as truth rather than indicating that it was potentially suspect since no court of law or "credible" source (journalistic requirements that did follow-up) could prove it one way or another. I also have a serious issue with Wiki's moderators coming in here and playing policeman and doing it inconsistently; this was confirmed when I saw that even Jody had an issue with a decision a moderator made.

Corrigan was arrested in San Diego on or near October 2006. He was cited, booked, charged and fined for underage drinking (according to his blog). His birthdate was verified by the cops as October 31, 1986 and an arrest record was posted to the San Diego Sherrif's website. This would seem to prove Corrigan's age of 20; not 21. This cannot be cited here however, b/c no "source" that is allowed by Wikipedia can be used here. Does anyone else have a problem with this other than me? I mean, the media can choose to report things or NOT to report things and if they choose NOT to report something, it can't be stated here? That seems less encyclopedic and more like propoganda --Julien Deveraux 05:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The only blog that may be cited is Brent Corrigan's. If any other blogs are used as sources, they should be removed.

Julien, my only role here is to protect and unprotect the page, and to make sure there are no serious BLP violations, if that's what you mean by "playing policeman." How is it being done inconsistently? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

SV, I misunderstood what you said in another post, so I'll retract the inconsistent claims, you should remove the other blogs being cited then, and unlock the article. I also find it quite amazing that you locked the article RIGHT AFTER jodyw (an admitted business-associate, which makes him a "self-editor," ) made his last post which contains the blaring violations you spoke of --Julien Deveraux 05:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who Jodyw is, but it would be worth reading WP:COI in case it applies. Also, no third-party blogs whatsoever are allowed to be used as sources in this article; see WP:V and WP:BLP. I'll unlock the article so that, if there are any, they can be removed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Jody W is Jody Wheeler, a business partner of Corrigan-not exactly someone to give a NPOV. Here is his website-his occupation is (LOL) "fiction writer"-again Jody I am asking you and Liar Lockhart to also post the THREE pieces of "positive ID" stating he was born in 1985, which all evidence indicates is the correct date. http://www.nakedwriting.com/ John celona 00:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Those would be the three pieces of fake ID he showed Cobra. What's the point in that? How does it help Wikipedia? SchmuckyTheCat 00:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey Schmucky-those 3 pieces, including birth certificate, are REAL. He was born in 1985. Why doesn't professional fiction writer and Corrigan partner Jody Wheeler , aka Jody W put those 3 pieces of ID online? Because people would see them and know the truth, that's why. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.14.10.237 (talk) 11:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

For the love of Cthulhu.... [rolls eyes] I just reverted him.Jodyw1 14:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Even under WP:BLP and WP:Vit can be interperative whether or not a blog is a First or Third person source. In Jason Curious' case, I agree with Julien that JC is more gossip columnist than journalist, however, in addition to his blog, he also has a radio program, discussing material written on his blog on the radio and vice versa. I understand the argument that blogs have a "print whatever you want" air to them. In this case though, it's assumed Curious has oversight through his radio show, at the very least capable of being thrown off the air if he disagrees with the station owners. As he appears to have access to people in front and behind the camera in the porn industry and makes reports about such matters for his radio show and his personal blog, the line is rather diffuse.

Regarding WP:COI, like the Three Revert Rule exceptions, that doesn't hold sway with WP:BLP. Jodyw1 18:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think COI doesn't hold sway in BLPs? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, SlimVirgin on doing a great job here on this article. I'm sure glad someone likes doing this job! I think I'll go find some nice science article and learn something. Cheers. WAS 4.250 07:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

SV, the policy in COI is advisory, not prohibitory, regarding COI. The policy in BLP for removal of unsourced, poorly sourced or out right defamatory information is mandatory. No sway, as it were. Jodyw1 14:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Partial Protect

Here's a thought. SV, would you partial protect (non-anon users only) the page for a while? I have a feeling that 68.14.10.237/John celona is going to revert matters settled above. It would be nice to have changes trackable to registered users. Appropriate comments, conversations, and action can then ensue. Jodyw1 17:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing "settled" Jody W, aka fiction writer Jody Wheeler. Where are the scans of the 3 pieces of ID Corrigan posseses showing his true date of birth-1985? The article has continiously reflected the age dispute by using both dates in the opening paragraph. I am perfectly willing to continue this compromise. You, a professed fiction writer, [[2]] apparently are not. I have personally seen the Corrigan ID's showing 1985-INCLUDING a certified copy of his birth certificate-they are real. The government has obviously determined likewise as they have allowed the sale of his earlier titles in MARKED contrast to the Tracy Lords and Jeff Browning cases. You are a business and social partner of this admitted liar and you are obviously using this article as your latest work of fictional writing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.14.10.237 (talk) 18:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

Q.E.D.

Jodyw1 18:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree it has been proven-1985 or there is no way the government would allow them to be sold openly on Ebay. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.14.10.237 (talk) 20:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

John, as usual, you misunderstood.Jodyw1 16:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

For BLP and legal reasons, I suggest removing from the first paragraph: "Corrigan states that he was born on October 31, 1986," and moving this to the start of the current 4th paragraph, as follows:

Corrigan states that he was born on October 31, 1986, but this has been disputed. In September 2005, Corrigan said that he had falsified identification documents when he made his first films; the IDs he says were fake showed that he was born in 1985, which made him old enough to appear in the films. In fact, he now says, he was under-age at the time. This allegation has resulted in a great deal of controversy, causing many of his films to be voluntarily pulled from distribution channels. The issue has played a major role in an on-going legal dispute between Corrigan and Cobra Video, as well as debate among fans.

Then it should be removed from the infobox, and replaced with "disputed."

If we side with Corrigan and say 1986, we're accusing the film company of using under-age boys. If we side with the film company, we're accusing Corrigan of not telling the truth. It's therefore better not to take a position. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Why do that? The film company pulled the films and acknowledges the 1986 date. The language above "this has been disputed" is false, no reliable source disputes or even reports a dispute. As well, "debate among fans" isn't shown by a source. Just report 1986 date and tell the trolls to shove off. SchmuckyTheCat 23:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Wrong again, Schmucky. The videos remain for sale both in the US and abroad-even EBAY! The year of birth is very much disputed, [[3]] notwithstanding the tales of a fiction writer employed by Corrigan-Jody Wheeler, alias JodyW. See [[4]]. The first paragrapgh should read "1985 or 1986". He has provided 3 pieces of ID showing 1985 and 1 showing 1986. In my math class 3 was a higher number than 1.

They aren't for sale through official channels.

The url to the AVN article does not state a dispute ABOUT HIS AGE.

He has provided absolutely ZERO 1985 ID to a reliable source. SchmuckyTheCat 23:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that he has provided no identification that can be confirmed showing he was born in 1986. I'll look for the article that says that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

He has shown both California and Washington drivers licenses that show a 1986 date.

You mean on his website? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

And to radio show hosts, and to the police. SchmuckyTheCat 02:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

According to this article the issue is still in dispute, though it's from 2005 so it may be out of date. Did Corrigan ever supply a state-certified birth certificate? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

That article does not say there is an age dispute. It says there is a contract and trademark dispute. Who cares whether he supplied a state-certified birth certificate and to who was he supposed to provide it to? Cobra's PR about "we have three pieces of ID!" is CYA about their 2257 requirements, they've never publicly shown this ID to anyone either (and they'd be legally required to), similarly, "we demand he show us a birth certificate" and the "writ of summons" is about as worthless as my demand that you come to my house and show me proof you're not an alien. To my knowledge, there was never a real lawsuit filed. SchmuckyTheCat 01:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but that's your opinion only. You have to go with the sources, and this source says there is a dispute about his date of birth, and that Corrigan is claiming he lied earlier, but is not lying now, and appears to have failed to show anyone a state-certified birth certificate. He was asked to, but he didn't, and as I recall, his own lawyer confirms in that article that he didn't. Therefore, we do not know when he was born, and we have no reason to believe one side over the other. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

My opinion? No. The source does not say there is a dispute about his age. It does not say Cobra, or anyone else, thinks he is lying now.

We do know when he was born. 1986. He's said 1986, every commentator that he's spoken to has said 1986, his lawyer says 1986. Further, the WA state license he showed (no matter why he showed it on his blog, it is a primary source document) says 1986, and it is demonstratively accurate. We have no reason to disbelieve 1986 and the BLP problem would be to give credit to non-notable bloggers who've come here to Wikipedia to air their conspiracy theories. SchmuckyTheCat 02:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Slim, as SC has pointed out and as I have pointed out, there is no dispute over his age. Cobra said they were in possession of document(s) listing Corrigan's DOB as 1985. Corrigan stated he provided false documents to work in the industry. There's no further sourcing for a dispute. The legal conflict is not over his age but rather over contract violations and trademark issues. Putting the paragraph that you mention in the lead does take sides -- it says there's a dispute over his age when there isn't one. It runs smack into a BLP violation, that the subjects own statements take precedence unless there is a verifiable dispute over his actual age. There isn't one.Jodyw1 01:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a dispute over his age in that article. Did you read it, or am I reading it wrong somehow? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

You're reading it wrong somehow. SchmuckyTheCat 02:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Which bit of the following am I misunderstanding to mean that there was a dispute over his age, as of November 2005? [[5]

According to a press release issued by Cobra Video LLC today, the company filed a lawsuit here by Writ of Summons on October 27 [2005] naming Sean Paul Lockhart, a.k.a. Brent Corrigan, and John Doe as defendants in a case stemming from Lockhart's allegation that he had appeared in gay XXX videos for Cobra while underage.

Lockhart notified the press through his attorney Chad Belville on September 13 that he had been under 18 when he performed in four 2004 Cobra Video movies ...

The Cobra release states in part: "The Writ of Summons was filed through Cobra Video’s legal counsel, attorney Al Flora of Wilkes-Barre. Sean Lockhart has also been notified by Cobra Video’s legal counsel that he must appear in Luzerne County [Pennsylvania] on December 6, 2005 to submit to an oral deposition under oath regarding matters relating to his entry into a modeling contract with Cobra Video, the fulfillment or non-fulfillment of the terms of that contract, whether or not Lockhart fraudulently induced Cobra Video to enter into modeling contracts for the purposes of obtaining trade secrets of Cobra Video and whether or not Lockhart conspired with John Doe to engage in such fraud."

Reiterating its September stance, Cobra Video avers that it has "color copies of the three State-issued forms of identification that Mr. Lockhart presented, including a birth certificate, all indicating a birth year of 1985."

Lockhart and Belville have told GAYVN that Lockhart's birthdate is October 31, 1986, and that Lockhart obtained false ID so he could enter the adult entertainment industry.

"Since the September 13, 2005, announcement," Cobra's press release says, "all requests for a State-certified birth certificate of Mr. Lockhart from Mr. Lockhart's attorney have been rejected ..."

Are you saying this is not a reliable source, or that the dispute has been resolved since then, or what? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The dispute never existed. The dispute is about a work contract, not his age. "the fulfillment or non-fulfillment of the terms of that contract, whether or not Lockhart fraudulently induced Cobra Video to enter into modeling contracts for the purposes of obtaining trade secrets of Cobra Video and whether or not Lockhart conspired with John Doe to engage in such fraud."

In that article, which is just a re-word of a Cobra press-release, they are not maintaining the 1985 birthdate. You don't threaten to go to court to try and prove what year someone is born in. You go to court to get money. The dispute is that he signed a work contract, stating he was 18, and since he was not 18, they will file suit to get money for breach of contract. The ID they refer to does two things: it is CYA that they did their required paperwork to avoid child porn charges, and, it is their "evidence" of contract fraud.

The article does not say, and Cobra has not said, that they maintain the 1985 birthdate is correct and they dispute his age. They do not dispute his age. SchmuckyTheCat 07:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

He was born in 1985. Would you paid lackeys and fiction writers please scan the THREE government issued documents he provided to Cobra in 2005? Of course not. Cobra maintained, until the day he was murdered ... that the true birth date was and is 1985. http://www.timesleader.com/news/20070517_17kocis_ed_ART.html John celona 14:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Another URL that does not say there was an age dispute. SchmuckyTheCat 14:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

No, but this one DOES. [[6]] John celona 14:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

No, that says there was a contract dispute. "the fulfillment or non-fulfillment of the terms of that contract, whether or not Lockhart fraudulently induced Cobra Video to enter into modeling contracts for the purposes of obtaining trade secrets of Cobra Video and whether or not Lockhart conspired with John Doe to engage in such fraud." SchmuckyTheCat 15:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of interest, why does anyone here care so much about this guy's date of birth? There was clearly a dispute over his age, or as Schmucky might prefer to put it, there was a dispute over the validity of his contract based on uncertainty over his age. He admits that he lied about his dob at least once, so it's obviously a disputed issue. Why does this article have to come down on one side or the other? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Fans of the production company, and fans of Corrigan took their blog wars and brought them here. There doesn't seem to be consistency to why detractors want to insert the 1985 date, except that it is clearly detractors driven by agenda.

I'm not interested in the outcome. I came here about a year ago to mediate after a failed ArbCom request. After digging in and reading other stuff, I really think it's clear that there isn't any uncertainty about his age. The lie about the age caused a production company (which is really just one guy, who has since been murdered) to lose close to a years worth of work. So, lots of animosity.

The dispute isn't about his age, it's about the outcome from the lie. There isn't anything Wikipedia considers a reliable source that says the 1985 date is correct. There isn't a reliable source that says anyone thinks the 1985 date is correct. Wikipedia shouldn't be part of it. The lie is sourced. The contract dispute is sourced. That's where our involvement needs to end. SchmuckyTheCat 16:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering why you say it's detractors who are pushing the 1985 date. The people who say he was born in 1985 say he is lying now, and was telling the truth previously. The people who say he was born in 1986 say he was lying previously, and is telling the truth now. Both acknowledge he has lied about his age at some point.

That means there isn't anyone who is a reliable source who says what the birth date is. No one other than Corrigan and family know when he was born, it seems. And yet he has admitted to lying about it, so he's not a reliable source for it himself. We're simply left not knowing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The detractors want him to be seen as a fraud, a con, who lied about the date to shut down Cobra Video. There is also a little bit of bitching about it just to be contrary to what Corrigan said.

There is no reason to disbelieve the 1986 date. This issue is two years old. Since then he's shown both California and Washington state licenses. He's shown other ID to radio hosts. His attorney maintains the 1986 date. He's been pulled over and the tickets posted on the web, with the 1986 date. SchmuckyTheCat 17:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, well, it's up to the editors on the page to work it out, not me, so good luck. I'll leave the page semi-protected for a bit until things have calmed down. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

< Funny, I actually think it brings us right back to what started much of this in the first place -- the fact that Corrigan put a copy of his WSDL on his website, and the fact that the license number turns out to be accurate. It should all be part of the age dispute section. *sigh* Jodyw1 17:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

You are a paid fiction writer Jody Wheeler. Go sell your scripts somewhere else. WHY won't you or your business partners ... put the 3 REAL pieces of ID showing 1985 on the internet? John celona 23:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

John, please be civil. Don't make personal attacks on other editors and their associates. Contributions to Wikipedia must be attributed to a reliable source. If you want to insert the 1985 date, please find us a reliable source that make a claim to the 1985 date. SchmuckyTheCat 23:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Scmucky-I am going to say this one time only. You DO NOT have a right to remove a comment and link from this Discussion page. If you continue to remove my comments I will remove yours. You DO NOT have a right to pick and choose from verififiable sources and links. If you continue to remove my links and references to information on Kruezer's site, I will remove your links and information references from liar Corrigan's site. John celona 00:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Please read this Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. If you read nothing else about Wikipedia policies, read that. OK? The site you are mentioning is a gossip and rumour mill, it is not a reliable source. Wikipedia cannot and will not allow that kind of rumour unless it is sourced extremely well. SchmuckyTheCat 00:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

John, Kruezer doesn't meet either WP:V or WP:RS standards, so his wild gossip doesn't belong on the page. It opens Wikipedia up to defamation claims. Schmucky was right to remove it. Now, when you removed my comments from earlier today, that's a no-no. I'm assuming it was a mistake on your part... that whole Wikipedia "assuming the best intent" thing.Jodyw1 01:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

If Kreuzer's hard news site (he has been interviewed on mainstream media which is on his site) doesn't meet your definition of Wikipedia standards then Corrigan's own self-serving blog and the gaywebmonkey blog which advertises itself as "gossip" most certainly do not. The reality is that Corrigan's and Roy's business partner has been arrested for murder ... 68.14.10.237 11:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm taking it then that you didn't read the WP guidelines SchmuckyTheCat so helpfully left for you to peruse? Jodyw1 16:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

What specifically in the WP guidelines forbids me from linking to a respected news site while allowing you and Grant to quote paragraphs from a blog by an admitted liar and another which labels itself (gaywebmonkey) as "gossip"? As a paid fiction writer I can't wait for the twisted logic of your reply. John celona 20:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Because it is not a respected news site, when it is on one, it can be referenced, not linked to. SchmuckyTheCat 04:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer to have nothing more to do with this article, but I have to say if anyone else posts about the murder charge, other than to repeat what a reliable news source is saying, I'm going to issue a block. That is way too serious to be gossiped about here. And please don't post any more links to gossip sites. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Right now, the article, as written by paid fiction author Jody Wheeler, is mostly sourced from Corrigan's own site, which contains information which is 1. "self-serving". 2. "Involves claims about third parties". and has 3. "reasonable doubt as to who wrote it." This is in violation of the following Wikipedia regualtion:

[edit] Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves

Material from self-published sources and sources of questionable reliability may be used in articles about themselves, so long as:

it is relevant to their notability;

it is not contentious;

it is not unduly self-serving;

it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;

there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29

John celona 13:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, let's take it one step at a time. Please show me which sentences in the article are sourced to a personal website and involve claims about third parties.

Also, you keep naming or describing what you say is one of the editors here. We're not allowed to do that unless the editor has named or described him or herself on Wikipedia somewhere, so please use user names only. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, John. I for one am interested to hear your concerns, as weeks and weeks were spent hashing out the article by various editors and admins in order to meet wiki standards. In case you doubt, review the archived history of the page. Jodyw1 20:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, I don't think that the studio pulling the movies is confirmation that they accept his 1986 birthday, as any studio would pull a porn movie under such allegations for PR reasons, even if they knew for a fact that he was born in 1985, they have a compelling reason to pull the movies anyway. And that reason is their own image JayKeaton 03:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Brent Corrigan in Every Poolboys Dream.jpg

Image:Brent Corrigan in Every Poolboys Dream.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It is a DVD cover and/or a promotional image, there should easily be a rationale for using it now and keeping it forever JayKeaton 18:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV tag

Is there any reason to keep this on the article? I have no reason to re-ignite previous flame wars but they are stale and come to a pretty obvious conclusion. SchmuckyTheCat

I think the tag can be pulled. There's enough cited information here to meet Wiki requirements. Then again, I'm evil and biased, so there you go.Jodyw1 17:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Since no one posted an disagreement, I went ahead and pulled the NPOV tag. Jodyw1 15:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)