Talk:Brent Corrigan/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

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)

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)