Talk:Brent Corrigan/Archive 5

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)

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, [] 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)

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:

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, [] notwithstanding the tales of a fiction writer employed by Corrigan-Jody Wheeler, alias JodyW. See []. 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? [

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. [] 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 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)

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 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)