Talk:Brent Corrigan

Article name change

I believe it is time to begin discussion on changing the name of this article to that of "Sean Paul Lockhart".

"Brent Corrigan" is a trademarked ficticous name developed by deceased Bryan Kocis at Cobra Video. With the end of Lockhart's career at Cobra, still the possibility of a trademark infringement ruling against Lockhart's use of the name and his mounting legal woes, this should be considered.

4.174.219.50 12:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I wouldnt use Sean Paul Lockheart, i would use Sean Lockheart, as you dont generally always use peoples middle name.

However, i do agree in principle of moving/renaming the article at some point. Of course, an admin should do this to save the history. And then brent corrigan can become a redirect to the new page.

I cant remember for sure, but i dont think Sean/Brent has formally anounced the changing of his name to that... Reedy Boy 18:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Naming conventions at Wikipedia have long since settled on the use as the article name of a person's name/pseudonym at the time notability was established, with the person's birth name leading the article. If/when a court of law or Lockhart himself makes an official ruling/change, the article can be moved. As for now, it should remain as is. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

If he is in some way "pertinent" to the continuing Kocis murder investigation, it will be as "Sean Lockhart" (as the local press is correctly reporting) and not as "Brent Corrigan".

4.174.216.111 21:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Height

How can you with any sense of rationality say height is irrelevant when you are publishing someone's penis size?

One is a pertinent as the other.

Why don't you work on improving the Bio Info boxes if you don't agree with these lsitings?

4.174.216.111 22:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

There has been a major back-and-forth about this in Template talk:Infobox actor; the result so far is inconclusive. However, let me point out the bananas v. coconuts comparison you've made: a male adult film star will unquestionably have a notable endowment, but his height is no more relevant than his hair color. End of story, sorry. (Even if it was demonstrably relevant, it's not verifiable.) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 23:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

..."his height is no more relevant than his hair color", but yet hair and eyes are listed here.

...and in the context of penis size, it is relevant to a person's height if it is, as you say, "a notable endowment".

..."(Even if it was demonstrably relevant, it's not verifiable.) Please explain how his penis size is verifiable

4.174.217.166 00:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

First, watch your edit summaries, that last could be construed as a personal attack. Second, hair and eye color don't belong there, either; we have an image, after all. Third, endowment is to height as coconuts are to their tree (in other words, not related in any way). Fourth, it was my understanding that his endowment was cited at one point; if it's not now, it needs to be. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." RadioKirk (u|t|c) 00:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

..."construed as a personal attack"; it is a reference to the page; and not to a person.

your thinking is confused--not to pursue a point--but a 7.5 inch penis on someone 5'7" has a different impact than on someone 6'4".

i will take the items out.

4.174.218.147 00:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The phrase "what a piece of work" usually describes the person; if that was not your intent, I apologize. To my "thinking", the, well, adult films I've seen have never done a height-versus-endowment comparison shot, instead focusing (pun intended) on the latter; while your reasoning is (arguably) anatomically accurate, it constitutes original research and its application to the industry is simply nonexistent. Still, since the measurement itself is relevant to the subject and his work, I'd invite its restoration with a reliable source. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 01:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

so be it.

please respond to the more serious last topic above, especially the last entry, regarding the name change.

it seems highly likely that someone will eventually be arrested in the Bryan Kocis murder.

even at this early point, it is apparent that Sean Lockhart (and not his alter ego "Brent Corrigan") will be testifying in court over this.

this will be a nationally-reported, most likely internationally-reported, trial with the press (as they are already) citing him as Sean Lockhart.

wiki is utilized by many press outlets. not to change the article name before that time will cause confusion (as it is already).

can we agree on that?

4.130.218.45 01:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

If you'll forgive me, I disagree at the immediate moment, subject to change. At present, he is still best known and most notable under his "stage name", and it should remain so until it changes. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 01:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

i have no problem with that; but can you at least agree in principle (should the situation change)?

4.130.218.45 01:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I do, and have, if/when that time comes. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 01:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

let it be known that on this day and at this time i came in agreement with RadioKirk (u|t|c)!!!

4.130.218.45 01:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

LOL!! RadioKirk (u|t|c) 01:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Bryan Kocis's name link

I, for the third time, have changed Bryan Kocis's name on the Kocis's Death section to a clickable link to Bryan Kocis's wikipedia article. I believe it should be kept as such since many people who are interested in searching Bryan Kocis but may not know his name, may search for it through the Brent Corrigan wikipedia article. Keeping Bryan Kocis's name as a link to his article saves people from copying and pasting his name. So please, leave it as such. JacobTwo 08:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

And I have, for the third time, removed it. Please see under the section "Alleged underage videos" where Kocis' name is already linked, and also the manual of style on overlinking. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 00:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Considering there is one link in the Kocis death section, I don't think that constitutes 10% of the document. One has to assume that many people looking for Kocis's name and only know Corrigan's name may not know anything of the "alleged underage video" and only of Kocis's death. I suppose having Kocis's name (which is the first thing in the section) as a link. 204.112.130.77 03:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The issue is that the name already is linked within the article, not that we're looking at sections. This also demonstrates that "more than once" can be considered "excessive". RadioKirk (u|t|c) 06:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous editing should be disabled

RadioKirk, how does one request this? There are too many spam-like entries being put on this article from anonymous sources. --Julien Deveraux 07:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)$Insertformulahere$

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)

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)

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)

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)

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).

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. —Angr 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. —Angr 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!" —Angr 04:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)