Talk:Brent Corrigan/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Italics

  • Thany you Radiokirk. I was unaware of how to use italics. I believe I have now changed all my capped titles to italics. Please don't confuse lack of knowledge with deliberate flouting of Wiki rules. I will take orders from you-if you tell me not to do something I will not repeat my error. Thank you. 68.9.171.207 15:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)Tommy
Well, thanks, but I'm hardly giving "orders" to anyone; merely demonstrating the conventions determined by Wikipedians before me who researched style guides and determined a Manual of Style (bits of which I disagree with, BTW [grin]). Meantime, I did not believe you were deliberately "flouting" Wikipolicies. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 16:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Fuck Me Raw

Please correct to show that Fuck Me Raw was released in July, it is not "to be released in September" as the article currently (innacurately) states. Also, Take It Like A Bitch Boy another Corrigan bareback video, will be released on September 1. Source-Cobra Video website.68.9.171.207 13:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Tommy (UTC)

Until now, the Fuck Me Raw DVD is only available in pre-order on the very few online stores that sell it. (To be honest, I have been able to find only one online store that propose that DVD). Even the VOD websites don't propose it. As soon as this title will be available to the public on more websites than Cobra's, the "to be released" note will disappear. --Sam67fr 09:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. Some people on this board really seem to thrive on posting demonstrabaly false information and then when someone posts the right information they are accused of being "stalkers, defamers", etc. The facts are that Fuck Me Raw was released 3 weeks ago. It is available for immediate delivery at the producer's website. I ordered my copy in the normal course of business and received it in the mail over a week ago. The title is in such widespread release that it has already hit the secondary market, appearing on Ebay. (I would post auction links but I would undoubtedly be accused of stalking, defamation, promoting a commercial site, copyvio and taking a shot from the grassy noll.) It is also available at other web merchants for immediate delivery. I will gladly provide these links to a moderator upon request-or anyone can easily google the title and the star and find them for themselves. (Tommypowell) 68.9.171.207 15:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I am proposing that the grossly inaccurate phrase "to be released in September 2006" be removed from the entry for Fuck Me Raw in the Videography section of the article. Reasons: This video was released on August 1. It has been available for immediate delivery for over 2 weeks on the manufacturer's web site. It is now available-for immediate delivery, not pre-order at other major web sites. It is available for immediate purchase at at least 2 internet auction sites. It is a travesty to pretend that this video will not be released until next month. Sources; (Included for source use only and not to promote commercial web sites) 1. https://www.cobravideo.com/catalog/videoINDEX.htm 2. http://www.radvideo.com/list.php?STORE=&TITLE=fuck+me+raw 3. http://www.redlightvideo.com/index.cfm?method=Product&ID=234629 4.http://shop.freyacomm.com/badpuppy/index.cfm?method=cart 5. http://www.adultdvdnow.com/dvd/Fuck_Me_Raw_49165.html 6. Ebay auctions: (must be logged into Mature Audiences) 130017822342, 130016897374, 130016567633, 130016402565, 130016324311, 130015876765 , 130015092154. 7. Naughtybids auction 3947138. Tommypowell 15:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Please show a source for this claim. Which website is offering this video? -- Ec5618 15:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Ebay, Naughtybids or click any of the links above. Rad Video, Badpuppy Video, Cobra Video,Redlight Video and adultdvdnow.com.68.9.171.207 16:33, 17 August 2006 Tommy (UTC)
The Redlight Video and Badpuppy Video pages (essentially the identical page) say "Available 8.17.06, preorder today." Obviously, that's today's date, and the page source shows it was written that way, not with date coding. Adult DVD Now says "In Stock!" The others include no date. As a result, I believe "(released August 2006)" would have sufficient sources. The article currently does not include any date (except the year) at all, which also is sufficient. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 17:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Atleast one of the links prominently proclaims that the video is 'in stock'. To me, that's good enough. Whether or not this video is actually currently available is also rather irrelevant, as this issue will resolve itself automatically in a month or so. Let's leave it at this, and look at the rest of the article. There are still a number of things to be sourced, and a little NPOVing to do. -- Ec5618 21:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
No problem for me with that.--Sam67fr 22:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Updated Picture and Information

I just revised the page with a new picture and a with new information from various sources. The picture is used with permission of Brent Corrigan. An emailed statement of this permission is being sent from him, and should arrive by 8/15/06.

I sourced the additions to the recent GayWebMonkey article about him, which includes more detail about his situation prior to his first porn films, the circumstances around his decisions to do those films, and what happened to him afterwards. Given the strong words on this page, hopefully this sourcing will help prevent another war from erupting.

Additionally, I also added more subheadings to make the article easier to read. I removed the "likes to skateboard" in the introduction as, according to my reading of Corrigan's website, this doesn't appear to be the case. I also removed the "double penetration" reference from the introduction as well. It just didn't seem to be relevant to the entry, as the major points of Corrigan's story is that he was underage when he made the first films and that those films were primarily bareback.

I placed a new, recent picture at the top of the article and moved the DVD cover picture down to the section about his underage porn films. It seems to be more germane that way. The new picture does seem a bit large for the page. I don't know if there is a way to size the picture down a bit.

I wasn't sure how to do "ibids" so the GWM article appears several times in the references section.

In the interests of disclosure, I also wrote the GayWebMonkey article. During my interview with him, he provided even more detail about everything that has happened over the past few years. I didn't think that there was a way to source it without it looking like simple partisanship and violating Wiki neutrality.--Jodyw1 07:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice work, though it will need to be cleaned up. Statements such as "He believed that at 16 he 'knew everything.'" are quite unfactual. You may not agree with the way Cobra has handled this situation, but the article will have to give them every benefit of the doubt. -- Ec5618 07:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. That needs a source after it as well. It was quoted right out of the GWB article.--Jodyw1 08:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, even with the source, it's still an opinion stated as fact. Something along the lines of "Corrigan stated in an interview that, at 16, he thought he knew everything." is encyclopedic language, as it is completely factual. -- Ec5618 09:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Writing "He believed..." followed by a citation to the interview where he stated this belief is the same thing. The "interview" text is redundant. But I'm arguing over a quibble. I made the change you requested. But I am right. Always. Even when I'm wrong. --Jodyw1 09:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • You've got to be kidding Jody W. This listing has now been completely re-written into a biased piece of crap. It will not last. Virtually all reference to what has been fundamental to Corrigan's success (bareback receptive sex in almost -all- his scenes, semen eating and double penetration) has been deleted. It's like and article on Brando that fails to mention that he was an actor. Furthermore, despite Corrigan's claim to be born in 1986, he has refused, for over a year, to produce a birth certificate in the litigation with Cobra. His early films continue to be sold on Ebay and Naughtybids. The bald faced statement that he was born "on October 31, 1986" is totally unproven except out of the mouth of a self-admitted liar. Enjoy your biased revisions while they are up; as soon as I get a chance I will be making my own -Factual revisions.
Be certain that any and all of your "own -Factual revisions" WP:CITE a WP:RS or they will be removed per WP:V, the backbone of Wikipedia, which states, "[t]he threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." RadioKirk (u|t|c) 13:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Anonymous, you are welcome to make whatever revisions you'd like. However, you'll need to cite sources for your revisions, as I've done, or your changes will be switched right back.--Jodyw1 15:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


Added Information

  • I have added the words "coupled with his "no holds barred" barred sexual practices (bareback receptive anal sex, semen eating, rimming and receptive double anal penetration)" which provide a glimpse at some of the reasons behind Corrigan's popularity I have also added the word "all" to clarify that Corrigan has performed in nothing but bareback scenes in all his released material, except for his bottoming scenes with Brent Everett. I will, of course, abide by the moderator's opinion on this added material. Sources-all of Cobra's released videos as listed in the videography; brentcorriganxxx.com which features free clips of Corrigan engaging in rimming, bareback receptive anal sex and eating the semen of another model from Fuck Me Raw and the upcoming Take It Like a Bitch Boy;Corrigan's website on his double penetration-http://www.brentcorriganonline.com/blog/?page_id=5
I moved the list of sexual activities down to the more logical section of "Underage videos," changed the wording to be more NPOV, and linked them to other sections of the Wikipedia. "Eating semen" is part of the definition of "fellatio" and "double penetration" is a bit euphemistic. I changed those parts as well. Lastly, I modified the introduction paragraph so that it now summarizes his sexual activities as being "extreme" and shows that he released documentation to the media about his age. The validity of that documentation is for a court to decide.--Jodyw1 03:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Corrigan's semen eating is what is "extreme" not fellatio which is in every gay movie ever made. I will, of course, abide by the moderator's determination on wording and placement. Tommypowell 13:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)Tommy
"Cum Eating" is part of fellatio. I linked to the Wikipedia entry on this as reference. It's also not that uncommon in bareback porn videos. Jodyw1 17:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Semen eating is certainly not neccesary in fellatio; in fact it is very rare in gay porn. Can you name a single Falcon video which shows it?

Please stop vandalizing the article to present your sanitized "pro-Brent" party line. All your vandalizing will be continiously reverted, pending the moderator's final judgement on wording and placement, which I will of course abide by. 68.9.171.207 21:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)Tommy

Please stop referring to others' edits in a content dispute as "vandalism"—if you need a refresher course, please read WP:VAND. Meantime, if you're going to assert that Corrigan is famous as a result of semen consumption (which would be my preferred term; it's neither sanitized nor in-your-face blunt), you'd better find a reliable industry source for the assertion, something I cannot recall seeing during my short time watching this article for neutrality. Meantime, I'm going to take "voluntarily" out of "pulled by Cobra" because it's redundant (that's what "pulled by Cobra" means) and reads like a pro-Cobra press release, a problem of which both sides are guilty. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 22:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Videography

Ended August 19. 2. Ebay auction 130015879037 http://cgi.ebay.com/Bareboned-Twinks-original-version-GAY-DVD-Cobra_W0QQitemZ130015879037QQihZ003QQcategoryZ4802QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem Ended August 13. 68.9.171.207 22:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)Tommy

http://listing-index.ebay.com/actors/Brent_Corrigan.html Reedy Boy 21:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Julien Deveraux's Edits

First of all, I find it very repugnant that people are using webmonkey as a "source." Give me an f-ing break. Anyone in the "industry" should be quoted as a potential source but not a reliable one. GAYVN is perhaps the only "respectable" source you're going to find on this article.


This article was very very anti-Cobra and very Pro-Brent. The fact remains that there is considerable debate about whether or not Brent Corrigans actions were a form of entrapment to the producers of Cobra Video and whether or Cobra Videos subsequent actions have harmed Corrigan. I know there are several fans of his work on this site, but your job is to report information neutrally and look at all facts, please don't bolster Corrigan just becuase you all think he's hot. There are always 3 sides to every story! --Julien Deveraux 07:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Haven't you heard of Jeff Browning! Over 50 titles pulled amidst a major controversy so I am removing that language regarding "first underage gay porn star". Of couse, I will abide by the judgement of the moderator on this. Source: http://atkol.com/zine/h-az02a.htm Tommypowell 13:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)Tommy

Tommy, sorry, I am not that old.. (just kidding). RadioKirk deleted my additions to the article that talk about the emails from "King Cobra" that are sent out, as well as the fact that CobraVideo's entire marketing approach has changed considerably (in regards to Corrigan) since this whole drama began.----Julien Deveraux 16:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem. If I knew how to start a page from scratch I would start one on Jeff Browning. He was very cute, judging from the post-18 year old pics of him here: http://www.gaypornblog.com/archives/2003/07/2257.html68.9.171.207 16:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)Tommy

Julien, I modified some of your edits. There were several sections that were unsourced so I pulled those.. One of your changes from "Cobra producer" to "Cobra producers" was factually incorrect. That wasn't what the sourced article said. I left in your requests for citations regarding Cobra's emails and the XXX website. I too have heard of it and have seen such things on occasion. One of the WikiWizards will no doubt know how to do this and do it NPOV style.. Jodyw1 17:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
JodyW, you didn't just MODIFY some of my edits, you REMOVED most of them. Your disputes based on factual accuracy are again, showing bias becuase you keep saying you "heard." I work in the adult entertainment industry and have copies of the stuff I'm saying exist. If there is a way to cite it, please...someone tell me. Other

rwise, I will load the items as images. --Julien Deveraux 19:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I too, can't believe this

This article is laden with bias. I realize that the main point of the article is to talk about Brent Corrigan, but all the edits and reverts that they seem to cause are all based on whether or not ALL of the information is presented in a pro-Corrigan light. Let's get some facts straight.

1) This person appeared in a relatively "new" type of gay pornography (bareback, non-safe porn that featured younger looking guys instead of guys who actually looked like men) 2) The guy who produced the movies has been in trouble for pedophilia before 3) Corrigan has CLAIMED that he was underage when he made a few of his movies (but no independent, oustside VERIFIABLE source can either confirm or deny this) 4) No one seems to know, for sure, WHY he has made this claim but the results have had profound effects on Cobra Video and Corrigan himself 5) The majority of the debate in here is coming from the fact that this revelation has caused a lot of controversy.

Can people at least agree on these propositions? or are even those debateable? --Julien Deveraux 23:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree there's a serious issue with NPOV in this article, but it's hardly one-sided; at least one person seems to want to make this article as pro-Corrigan as possible while at least one wants to make it as pro-Cobra as possible. The solution lies somewhere in between (present and rebut that which is demonstrably notable) but, as Julien Deveraux notes, no matter which "side" the data takes, it must be something that the average reader can research for him/herself. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 00:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
No Kirk, I want the article to be *accurate*. If Corrigan is lying, deceiving, or the like, I want it to come out. Yeah, I know the guy, I like the guy. But if he's lied, he's lied. I'm not going to cover for him.
I've referenced my sources. I've made sure there are references for others' sources. I've even stuck "citation needed" by items that are probably true and that Deveraux should be able, with a little bit of help, to provide a link to. It's what Wikipedia [[WP:Verifiability| demands.] Sometimes neutrality really does point one way and not the other.Jodyw1 00:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
If Corrigan is proven to be lying then (and, as yet, I see no proof), yes, it should be noted; absent that proof, however, an encyclopedia demands the most accurate data possible within WP:RS. The very first sentence within WP:V reads, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth (emphasis from the page)." Meantime, the fact that you "want it to come out" belies an emotional attachment to this article that argues against your neutrality. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 01:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Jody- you say that "if he's lied, he's lied. I'm not going to cover for him.". But since he once provided documents stating he was born in 1985 and now provides documents (California driver's licence-you can get one for $50 in Macarthur Park in the name of Mickey Mouse) stating he was born in 1986 there is no "if" as to whether he has lied. He could not have been born in both 1985 and 1986! Ergo, he is a proven liar.68.9.171.207 14:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)Tommy
Is there evidence other than someone's assertion that they've seen the documents? Not that I've been made aware of to this point. Until and unless those documents are made public, he apparently lied about his age, and even that must have proper attribution. This is an encyclopedia, not investigative journalism. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 14:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • You are quite right Radiokirk. I was merely pointing out to the "other camp" that someone who maintains they were born in one year who has peviously maintained they were born in another year is a liar, as both statement cannot be true. This This is simple Logic 101. As you point out, the issue is not fit for inclusion in an encyclopedia format.

Request For Citation

  • Someone has requested citation for the following pragraph in the article: "Corrigan started his career in pornography in 2004 at Cobra Video, as a young twink model in Every Poolboy's Dream. He quickly became one of Cobra's most famous performers, where his youthful looks and and his apparent display of pleasure when having anal sex; coupled with his "no holds barred" sexual practices (bareback receptive anal sex, semen consumption, rimming and receptive double anal penetration) made him very popular" I will be happy to do so if I can be told which fact the citation is requested for.Tommypowell 15:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)Tommy
I can tell you from the standpoint of someone who's been through the WP:WIAFA ringer three times what two things struck me: One, "most famous performers" to whom? Industry experts and/or video sales figures must be cited or "one of [the] most famous" anything is comprised of no more than weasel words. Two, not everyone who reads this article is aware of what constitutes a success in this industry and why (myself included); the second sentence above asserts Corrigan is "very popular" because of these sexual practices and, once again, only expert opinion and/or video sales figures can back that up. What may be a given fact to one person may be controversial to another; that's why WP:V (of which WP:CITE and WP:RS are parts) exists. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 17:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The original wording was not mine; it had been there previously. I have the following link which states " Corrtigan's movies, “Bareboned Twinks” ; “Casting Couch 4” ; “Every Pool Boy’s Dream” and “School Boy Crush” all got 4- A ratings and are some of the most popular gay movies out there". I do not know how to add numbered footnotes and links to an article. http://www.adultfyi.com/read.aspx?ID=11702 68.9.171.207 00:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)Tommy

Ascap,FSC as non-government private groups

Unsigned comment by User:Tommypowell

Videos Still on the Market

I dont think that that comment is relevant/Valid

Some resellers of XXX dvd's may still list them, but they are stock unavaliable.

From what has been told here, the items are sold on eBay and such, where, if you check the link i posted above, are illegal on eBay. If reported, they would be dealt with and removed accordingly...

Reedy Boy 21:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Where is the link that says they are "illegal" on Ebay? Private organizations do not declare something illegal! I can say Deep Throat is "illegal", have a press conference, etc. That doesn't make selling the video "illegal"! The Corrigan videos have been sold repeatedly on Ebay and other auction sites. Just because one person or group cries "wolf" does not mean the rest of the Cosmos must tremble. Where is the article or press release where someone in the government says these titles are illegal. Do you have such a source? Methinks not. 68.9.171.207 00:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)Tommy

ebay... Thought i posted this [1] Reedy Boy 08:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Nowhere in the article does it say the videos are "illegal". Indeed Ebay has continued to sell them with no problems for anybody.68.9.171.207 12:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)Tommy
    • Hmm... Yeah... True Reedy Boy 12:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup and Sources

I can't believe what happened to that article. It is now filled with non verifiable informations and unsourced claims. I see that [citation needed] has been included but, until now, none of the editors have added a source/citation. More than that, there is too many paragraphs and headlines with no more informations than 1 month before. I think that article needs a good cleanup. --Sam67fr 07:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

You are right Sam, the problem is that there are several disagreements on "sources" in this article and whether or not they are valid. In particular, there are people who are using an article in a gay porn magazine, which lacks journalistic credential, as "evidence" that claims made by Brent Corrigan are indeed, fact. Meanwhile, Cobra Video, has spoken publically on this topic but only through its email-list-serv which, unless a moderator/admin can tell us how to cite, remains impossible to cite. --Julien Deveraux 23:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

In line with the [Biographies_of_living_persons|Biographies] section, I pulled the negative statements that weren't sourced ("Criticism should be sourced... Responsibility for justifying controversial claims rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim.") and linked sources that were provided here in the talk section to their appropriate sections (popularity of Corrigan's videos, still for sale on ebay, etc.) It started out as fixing one thing, then morphed into an ongoing series of cleanups and links... I also added the blp tag to the top of the talk page.
Since it's going to come up, I pulled the "semen eating" etc again. Why? Because it has no source. The popularity of Corrigan's films due to his barebacking does. I also added in an article about the age dispute from the Cobra Video entry.
Julien, there was no controversy around the sourced claims, merely the unsourced ones. Since most of the unsourced claims were inserted by you, provide the sources when you put them back in.
Jodyw1 01:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Reversion of 17 biased edits

Just when we had a consensous version of this article along comes ol' Jody with 17 edits in one day to shatter the NPOV and turn it (very temporarily) back into an anti-Cobra spin page. Here is the source for Corrigan consuming semen-http://www.brentcorriganxxx.com/ After the age pages click the red "Click Here Exclusive Fuck Me Raw Clip gallery" You will see Corrigan eating another models semen. Jody, you falsely state that Corrigan made 4 Cobra videos. In fact the videography lists 7 already released plus 1 being released this month. Here is one of many source showing California drivers licenses are available day and night in Macarthur Park with any name/birth date you want. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/06/02/state/n100321D11.DTL&type=politics If you want to make edits please make them 1 at a time so that they can be properly researched and moderated. Tommypowell 19:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)Tommy

Tom, I sourced everything I put up. There was a link back to what external, verifiable source any third party could go an see. I created links to your sources -- something you couldn't or were unwilling to do. The whole "cum eating" et.al, as a measure of his popularity isn't mentioned in anything you list. Jason Sechrest discussing Corrigan's barebacking, the top rated reviews of those first four movies, and the sales figures, in an on-line publication that can be clicked on and verified is a source. Find a source that says Corrigan big gulps of goo is what made those movies successful.
Second, it's those first movies he made -- in the section called "Underage Videos" -- that are the subject of controversy. I've added text to indicate it's the videos those scenes appear in that are in question -- something you could have done but chose not to.
Regarding his age, unless you have a linkable source that shows Corrigan is lying -today- about his age, you are speculating. Further, you are opening Wiki up to liable libel. Read the Wiki section on biographies of living person. I had the tag at the top of the talk page. You give the benefit of the doubt to party in question unless you have a source to the contrary. Linking to a source where you can buy fake IDs is great -- if you are writing a Wiki article on fake IDs. You are saying that Corrigan is lying today about his age. That's your opinion. What's verifiable is that he states he lied about his age in the past, that Cobra wanted legal documentation provided to their attorney, and that Corrigan responded publicly through a porn columnist. Anything above that is speculation or opinion. The Court is going to weigh in on the final truth of the matter. Not you and not me.
Anti-Cobra. If you have links to the material Cobra has published, above and beyond what is now in the press, then by all means provide it. You haven't done this. Nor has anyone else. The Wiki biography page says if you can't provide a source, pull it immediately. It's up to the presenter of the negative information of a living person to provide a link to it, not the rest of us to say "Well, it prevents an edit war if we leave that unsourced material in, so be it."
Provide some verifiable sources, Tommy. Jodyw1 20:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, not too sure where to put this, so I thought I would put it under the cleanup. One paragraph is stated twice:

Drivers license

"On March 14, 2006, Corrigan showed a California Drivers License, which he stated was his, to columnist Jason Sechrest (of jasoncurious.com) at the GayVN Awards. Sechrest then wrote on his website that he had inspected the driver's license and "...he [Corrigan] was born in 1986."[9]. The legal veracity of Corrigan's age remains a subject of the continuing lawsuits. Outside of Corrigan's actions through Jason Curious, no other physical documentation of his date of birth has been released or viewed by the wider media. News agencies in California have reported on the ease with which fake drivers licenses can be obtained.[5]

The legal veracity of Corrigan's age remains a subject of the continuing lawsuits. Outside of Corrigan's actions through Jason Curious, no other physical documentation of his date of birth has been released or viewed by the wider media. News agencies in California have reported on the ease with which fake drivers licenses can be obtained.[5]"

As I cant change it with the locked article, perhaps someone else will.

Would someone repost the consensous pre-Jody Page?

Could someone with more Wiki knowledge please restore the consensous version of this article before the 22 (yikes!) biased POV Jody revisions. I am thinking of the pre-Jody version posted, not by me, but by Majestic on August 29. I tried but just garbled the article. Thanks Jody! Tommypowell 01:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Tommy

If this degenerates into a revert war, any and all "warriors" will be blocked from editing. This discussion page is designed for people of differing opinions to find common ground; rather than to presume any person is somehow not part of a "consensus", assume good faith and work to build a new one. As Wiki is a living encyclopedia, there can be no other way. End of speech. ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 01:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted the article back to the last readable version. I have no comment on the veracity or bias of the information currently on the page. Wempain 01:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Jody you just shot yourself in the foot again. The "negative" information. You are biased and are editing the article to be some sort of pro-Corrigan hero. 'Nuff said --Julien Deveraux 09:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Sources

1. Corrigan's uninhibited sexual practices: Every Poolboy's Dream, 2004 (Cobra Video) Schoolboy Crush, 2004 (Cobra Video), starring with Brent Everett Bareboned Twinks, 2005 (Cobra Video), starring with Brent Everett Casting Couch 4, 2005 (Cobra Video) Cream BBoys, 2006 (Cobra Video) Naughty Boy's Toys, 2006 (Cobra Video) Brent Corrigan: Fuck Me Raw, 2006 (Cobra Video) Clips from Take It Like A Bitch Boy, 2006 (Cobra Video)-www.brentcorriganxxx.com

2. The ease of obtaining counterfeit California drivers licenses:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/06/02/state/n100321D11.DTL&type=politics

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommypowell (talk • contribs)

Sexual practices line removed. That he does it is not the point; it must be demonstrated through a reliable source that those practices are the reason he's "critically top rated and commercially top selling" or the data is superficial. Please see Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 14:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

"Stated" vs. "Claims"

Tommy, I changed "claims" back to "stated." According to Wikipedia, it's not up to us to verify the absolute truth of statements, only to verify that they were stated and to link to that source. Corrigan stated that he grew up in Seattle, he stated he had an affair, he stated he lied about his age, etc. The sources for those statements are linked. They can be verified by any Third-party. If there is another verifiable source that you can link to that shows he did not grow up in Seattle, etc., then add it to the entry.Jodyw1 17:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Please, all, avoid attributing generalities to me following my specific changes. Thank you. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 23:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Need Advice From Moderator

Am I to understand from your deletions that I am barred from posting even a one line sentence stating the unusual sexual activities Corrigan engages in on film even if I am making no claim linking them to his popularity? This is like an article on Hendrix which forbids stating that he played the guitar with his teeth unless there is some specific link stating "he was popular because he played with his teeth". But if that is your decision I will have to abide by it. Secondly, if you are barring any mention of Corrigan's sexual practices on film from the article as (your words) "superficial" and that " Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" what pieces of information may I delete from the current article as "superficial" or "indiscriminate collections of information"

  • 1. A full paragraph discussing Corrigan's as yet unrealized alleged rationale for moving to San Diego-"When I moved originally, my biggest excuse was I had serious interest in film," said Corrigan. "I wanted to direct and I had a lot of interest in the artistic side of it. I figured if I'm going to do it anywhere, southern California is the fucking place to do it. That was my big lure so I thought I'd come here, do my two years in high school, get residency established then go to UCLA or something of that degree."
  • 2. His alleged abandonment by his unnamed mother.
  • 3. His alleged dating practices in high school-"Brent also stated that, at 16, he met and began dating an older man who introduced him to an unhealthy social scene.
"[My boyfriend] introduced me to a lifestyle that wasn’t very fitting of a 16-year-old. He was nothing but the worst influence on me. But I thought this is what gay people did. I didn’t know that most of the gay community isn’t into drugs and being evil to each other; that there is a side of the gay community that actually takes care of each other
  • 4. His allegations that he never met his unnamed father.68.9.173.186 12:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Tommy

Since no moderator (or anyone else) has objected I will remove the above superficial and/or indiscriminate collections of information from the aricle on Monday, provided no moderator forbids it. Tommypowell 15:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Tommy

Tom, providing information about a subject's family, about their own view of their motivations for their choices, and about their self-professed justifications for their actions, is far from being "superficial." It's biographical -- as in the kind of information found in biographies? As in the kind of information found in biographical encyclopedic entries? There's a whole section on biographies here in Wikipedia. Take a gander.Jodyw1 17:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Since I am being barred from even the briefest mention of the things that make Corrigan stand out in the porn universe; double penetration, semen eating, etc. I will, unless specifically barred by a moderator remove trivial items such as who he allegedly dated in the 10th grade or his pie-in the sky pretensions to be a film director. I don't think too many Wikipedia articles concentrate on who the subject dated in the 10th grade, or their teen-age pretensions to careers they never realized or their unrelated views on how communities are "not all into evil and drugs". Jeez-maybe we can hear about his favorite color and sports team.68.9.173.186 13:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)Tommy

Tommy, since, in his own words, "the 10th grade" is the age when Corrigan got involved with porn, the older boyfriend is the one who had a hand in getting him involved in that porn, and his desire to be in the movies were part of his justification for doing that porn, the information is germane.
Swallowing cum and taking two cocks up the ass? No so much.Jodyw1 17:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

His sexual practices on film is what makes him notable, not his alleged 10th grade dating practices, his completely unrealized alleged goal of going to UCLA film school, his alleged problems with his (unnamed) parents, or his less than awe inspiring philosophic thought that "not eveybody is all into evil or drugs". I think you would agree that his videos sell because of his sex scenes; his philosopical musings, 10th grade dating habits and sob stories concerning his childhood have never been published to my knowledge, unless you have a link? LOL68.9.173.186 20:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)Tommy

If there was no controversy around his age then, much like Johan Paulik or Kip Knoll, his family background and general beliefs might not be necessary to his article. Debatable.
However, given that most of his notoriety is because he was, or states he was, underage at the time of his first videos, then his relationship with himself, his family, peers and lovers, just like the details around age verification documents, lawsuits, or dueling "official" websites, are all on point.
Lastly, it's your knowledge of -- and not the published information -- that is deficient. Verifiable links to the sources of the information in question have been provided. Since you seem to be slightly confused, for your edification, that little raised, bracketed number at the end of a sentence? That's called a citation. If you use your mouse and click on it, it'll take you to a text summary of the source text. If you use your mouse again and click on the text summary, you'll go to the source itself.
Hope that helps.

Jodyw1 21:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I have provided numerous verifiable links (8 Cobra Video films plus free online clips) to a one sentence line of Corrigan's unusual sexual practices on video. You have repeatedly deleted that single sentence. Now I am deleting the trivial, superficial and/or indiscriminate collections of information you have added. I don't think there is any doubt that his videos are notable because he is the only (glad to hear any other name you can come up with) twink porn star of this millenium who barebacks bottom and swallows semen and does internal cum shots and rims and accepts double penetration. I am sure you know that these are the reasons his videos sell not his resentments against his parents or his failed ambition to enroll in UCLA film school or his deep (LOL) philosophical wisdom that "not everybody is all into evil and drugs". Tommypowell 13:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)Tommy

One Moderator's advice

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." This is policy, not a guideline. All the sources in the world stating that someone does something do not necessarily make that person famous for that something—a recognized industry expert has to say so, or it's one editor's supposition, which can be removed at any time. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 13:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I accept what you say Radiokirk, it also follows that, absent any link to the contrary, Corrigan's popularity is not verifiably linked to his grudges against his parents, his dating habits in the 10th grade, his unrealized wish to enter film school or his less than earth-shattering philosophy that "not everybody is all into evil or drugs". If anyone can provide a source linking Corrigan's popularity to these trivialities I would welcome them-LOL. Otherwise, I think it is safe to assume that few, if any of his videos sales buyers are even aware of Corrigan's parental spats, 10th grade dating habits, film school fantasies or truistic philosophical musings. Tommypowell 15:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)Tommy

At the risk of causing a war...

...I once again removed the "Cobra video response" subsection. This is the second time I've fixed an undocumented and unexplained revert.

The information in the "Cobra video response" section is already included in the "Dispute over age verification documents" section. In fact, it's the same lines of text -- only without the link to the source article and without the "tit for tat" nature of the dispute. In other words, it is less clear. Jodyw1 06:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I have restored the Cobra Video Response. As it stands now there is NPOV-Corrigan's statement then Industry Response, then Cobra Response. Sounds neutral to me. If I didn't know better (LOL) I would think you are determined to bury the very much sourced information regarding Cobra's response in another paragraph dealing with drivers licenses. Here is the source for the Cobra Video Response section-http://www.avn.com/index.php?Primary_Navigation=Articles&Action=View_Article&Content_ID=24547168.9.173.186 14:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Tommy

Tom, you missed the point.
Finally, you are on record as copping to the prior, undocumented reverts. More importantly, you are now on record as saying why you made them -- something you hadn't really done before. Now, anyone else can come along, compare the versions, read the reasons behind the versions, and be an arbiter between them. Even better they may come up with a better way of stating the information.
You know, what Wikipedia is supposed to be about?Jodyw1 15:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

New Challenge

Okay, how about this. The sections claiming that there are "ongoing lawsuits" should be deleted. Why? Because no one on either side of this argument has provided a clickable link to what should be a public matter. Legal records anyone? --Julien Deveraux 09:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Julien, scroll to the "Lawsuits" section of the article. There are several verifiable sources showing the lawsuits began. There are no sources showing the lawsuits have ended. If you know of any, including from the Viperlist, add them to the article.Jodyw1 05:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Copies of E-mails

Vipemailer.com provides archived copies of the emails sent out by Cobra Video to their fanlistings and can now be cited as a source, right Jody? LOL --Julien Deveraux 09:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I would appreciate your help on this article Julien because this Jody is really turning this article into a POS hack page for Grant Roy.68.9.173.186 13:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Tommy

Tommypowell: Cobra Video Response

Hi, You've got a day or so to provide a citation of the source before i am removing this as per the blp at the top

Reedy Boy 22:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is the citation: http://www.avn.com/index.php?Primary_Navigation=Articles&Action=View_Article&Content_ID=245471

You've got the citation. Now what is a blp-bacon, lettuce and a pickle? User:Tommypowell

Please sign your comments

{{Blp}} = Biographies of living persons

Thanks for the citation - Can someone add it? Jody??

Reedy Boy 12:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. But it still "reads" poorly. :^)

Jodyw1 17:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiProjectBiography

Began process to bring this article more in line with Wiki Project Biography standards, which included adding dates and location to intro paragraph, the appropriate boxes and fields, as well as listing Corrigan with the biography work groups. The info box for pornstars only allows one link to the "official" home page. Since there are two dueling pages, I left it out, but did add the link to the imdb home page.Jodyw1 05:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Notability vs. Superficiality

Tom, as I'm sure you wanted, I've reverted your changes.

As RadioKirk noted, your cum eating business was removed because you failed to provide any source to make it more than supposition for his "fame" on your part. It wasn't a personal slight against you. Nor was it a reason for you to be vindictive.

I've explained that Corrigan's state of mind is appropriate to a biography article. He states that his "excuse" for moving to LA was that he wanted to be a movie director. It was, again, in his own words, and taken from a verifiable source, part of his rationalization for doing porn. Whether you think that's a valid rationalization for doing porn isn't the point. It's not your bio page. It's his.

His family life also is germane to the topic. The fact that, in his opinion, his mother wasn't there and that he never knew his father, are important to his story. He's mentioned it in two different interviews. It's verifiable. It's not superficial. It stays in.

I've clarified that the boyfriend he met when he was 16 was also the one who got him into porn. You could have pointed out that connection was vague. You, yourself, could have made the connection clearer. How? The references were right there. All you had to do was click on them...

Lastly, once again, in your zeal, you crapped the page formatting. I've lost count of the number of times you've destroyed the html/wiki code on the page. I understand once or twice, but at this point, to me, you don't care about the page being correct but rather only you being right. Jodyw1 14:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

  • If there is any verifiable source which shows that he is famous for his 10th grade dating habits, parental spats, failed film school fantasies or mind numbing philosopy that "not everybody is all into evil or drugs" please provide those links. Otherwise this is just trivial, superficial and indiscriminate collection of information.

See Radiokirk above in "Sources" chapter- "That he does it is not the point; it must be demonstrated through a reliable source that those practices are the reason he's "critically top rated and commercially top selling" or the data is superficial. Please see Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 14:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)" As you would have the article, the unique on-screen sexual acts of a porn star are non-germane, but his 10th grade dating habits, parental grudges, film school fantasies and bathetic philosophical quotes are!

  • As far as the page formatting, I am a complete novice on this. All I am doing is deleting the text of your suppositions. Again, if you have a "recognized industry expert" that says Corrigan is "famous for" his dating habits in 10th grade, parental spats, film school fantasies, etc. please provide them. Otherwise, this your "supposition, which can be removed at any time".

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." This is policy, not a guideline. All the sources in the world stating that someone does something do not necessarily make that person famous for that something—a recognized industry expert has to say so, or it's one editor's supposition, which can be removed at any time. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 13:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC) Tommypowell 16:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)Tommy

Tom, you don't seem to understand. RadioKirk pulled your text because you never provided verification for what you were asserting -- that BC was famous for the acts you mention, or that he rose to fame for those same acts. RadioKirk's statements applied to your claim, because you didn't meet the burden of verifiability Wiki sets forth.
The quotations I inserted, about the reasons why he moved, about the person he dated who got him started, about his relationship with his family, all speak to the reasons why he got involved in the business in the first place. They can be verified by interviews from two different sources. I'm therefore reverting your edit.Jodyw1 20:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it that's the case I will add a single sentence to the article regarding his on screen porn acts with no claim that they are the cause of his fame. Hopefully this will end the dispute.68.9.173.186 23:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)Tommy

I'm going to take this moment to remind everyone involved with this article that, in the spirit of a Wiki, the goal is to work together to create the best, most accurate source of data possible within the policies, guidelines and confines of an encyclopedia. If it becomes clear that anyone intends to violate WP:OWN and/or WP:POINT and/or WP:3RR, the ability to edit this page will be restricted. Let's find some cooperation, please. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

First Ever Double Penetration

Corrigan swallowing semen-http://theater.aebn.net/dispatcher/movieDetail?movieId=58391&tab=Reviews&theaterId=7205-"It didn't take long for Connor to squirt his cream deep down Brent's throat" http://www.maledvd.ca/product_info.php?products_id=3124 "Connor pulls out and jacks a bit to squirt his cream deep down Brent's throat". Tommypowell 14:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)Tommy

I sure ive read it somewhere, but the double penetration was/is a fake i believe Reedy Boy 15:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Definitely not faked-see links above under Sources. 68.9.173.186 17:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)Tommy
Ah ok, may have been something else similar... Will have to read them when i have moer time Reedy Boy 20:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Reedy, BC has written that most of the double scene was faked. It was a few seconds of footage looped over and over again. He's also written about how much he hated some of the other activities too. There's probably a way to put all of that into the Wiki article. Jodyw1 20:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Brent Corrigan, the peer-review an editor asked, for my comments on your dispute.--Yannismarou 18:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Responded to you there.Jodyw1 20:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Revert War

I saw Jody's response. I'm not sure I want to get involved in this article. But I'm really sorry, when I see Users quarreling for minor issues, when they can collaborate to improve the article. I've expressed my opinion and I resume it as following:

  • I donot think "semen swallowing" is worth mentionig, since I do not believe this is a particularity of Corrigan. My impression is that other pornstars are doing the same thing. So, why is it worth mentioning?
  • "Cobra Video's first-ever double anal penetration". This could be worth mentioning if a verifiable source is provided. I donot regard the current citated source as valid and verifiable. It is an unsigned advertisement for commercial reasons. Excuse me, but I donot trust such sources. And, by the way, even in this source, where is the "first-ever double anal penetration" exactly mentioned?
  • "[Corrigan] dated in the 10th grade or his pie-in the sky pretensions to be a film director". I regard this information, if citated and verified, as important and relevant. This is a biography and such information is useful for the understanding of Corrigan's temperament and choices.
  • If you can't find a solution, follow instructions from Wikipedia:Mediation. But I strongly suggest you reach a Consensus decision-making. Don't regard each other as an ennemy. This is the wrong philosophy here. You are both interested in improving the article. You are both there in improving Wikipedia. When an article gets better, everyone wins, and Wikipedia wins; that's what really matters here.--Yannismarou 07:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is the three! sources I have given for the double penetration scene, including Corrigan's own site Sources: Corrigan as first ever Cobra double penetration scene-http://www.adonisent.com/graphics_pages/dvd8004.html Also, see Corrigan's own site-http://www.brentcorriganonline.com/blog/?page_id=5 " Though I wasn’t in complete pain, I was uncomfortable. Will I do it in the future? Possibly." "Corrigan underlined his role as bottom boy in anal sex in a double penetration scene in Schoolboy Crush" http://www.gay-porn-stars.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=22&Itemid=31. Here are more:http://www.adultdreamhost.com/user/menofp/2005/sept152005.html. From interview with Brent Everett- "Your double penetration scene with the other Brent is one of the hottest things ever captured on film. What are the odds that you would ever be the recipient of such action in a video? wow thanks man:) as far as the odds of me being the recipient of a double penetration, very low..lol..very very low" http://www.shareprovider.com/edonkey-cat-27-hitsD.html. In conclusion, a whole lot better sourced than your uncorrobarated, self-serving statements by Corrigan, especially with his own website statement that " Though I wasn’t in complete pain, I was uncomfortable." If you have a link to any other Cobra performer bottoming for a DP in a Cobra video please provide that link. Of course there is none, as you well know. It does seem bizzare that you want to censor a one-line NPOV sentence describing the on-screen sex performance of a porn star. If that is your agenda then go to every page of a gay porn star and censor any mention of their on-screen sexual activities. These are porn stars, not poets or historians. Their on-screen sex acts are their raison d'etre.68.9.173.186 13:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Tommy

These remarks are intented for the one user who keeps obsesiveley editing, chopping and re-editing this article , sometimes with 22 edits in a single day; all with a sadly obvious agenda.68.9.170.21 12:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)Tommy

Pal, I think you are talking to the wrong person. And yea! The best thing I have to do in Wikipedia is to censor pages. If I wanted to interfere, the easiest I had to do would be to edit, since I am an established user. And you don't answer to most of the points of my statement. If you want to continue revert wars with other users, go on, I don't care! And if you want to keep the article as it is now, keep it! But which are the "uncorrobarated, self-serving statements by Corrigan". Did I provide such statements? To whom are you talking? Are you a bit confused or I'm wrong? Anyway, I'm out of the article. I've better things to do in Wikipedia. My only intention was to help, when a peer-review was asked. If you don't want once other Wikipedians' help and assessments, I don't want twice to help. Especially, when I have to do with persons, who don't understand other people's statements and intentions. Go on as you wish! Your problem! You know everything and everybody else is wrong and ignorant.--Yannismarou 18:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the article advice though, Yannismarou! Much appreciated. There are some users that dont make life easy! Reedy Boy 19:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

It is respectful of adult performers to omit their real names from public documents.

This is an encyclopedia; unless it can be sufficiently demonstrated that the disclosure of already cited public information is damaging, Wikipedia is not censored. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 04:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Not everything needs to be open for public discourse. Be respectful of others rights to privacy otherwise make yourself look like a jerk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.232.63.191 (talk • contribs)

The unnecessary censorship of public information, absent a demonstration of the damage you claim, creates quite the opposite impression. RadioKirk (u|t|c)
Given that Corrigan has recently discussed using his birth name of "Sean Lockhart" on his webpage, I think any argument that his real name needs to be hidden is moot.

Jodyw1 04:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Cobra Web Site

If someone wants to delete the Corrigan/Lockhart link please provide a rationale here. Tommypowell 12:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)Tommy

Tommy, I probably agree with you that the the Cobra website needs to be a part of this article. It's relevant to everything that's gone on. Jodyw1 04:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Jeremy Carson

Is having Carson's name in the article relevant? I don't see the point, unless people think there should be a section devoted to his business partners? If not, and if people don't want to delete it, then the sentence needs to be changed to something more manageable. As it is, it reads awkward. Jodyw1 04:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Revert War

For Gods sake

Why is this happening again...

We're gonna have to get it protected again if this carries it on....


Reedy Boy 21:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Cheers to radiokirk for the protect again Reedy Boy 10:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Radiokirk for keeping this article relatively neutral. Please keep semi-protection in force 68.14.22.161 13:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)Tommy (UTC)

YouTube links

Info icon
Info icon

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message on the talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material violating someone's copyright. If you are not sure whether the link on this article should be removed or if you would like to help spread this message, contact us on User talk:J.smith/YouTube Linklist. Thanks, ---J.S (t|c) 00:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Stop creating trouble. Youtube links are not being used as a "source" but as additional clips on the subject; much like a list of recomended books and articles in an appendix. As for copyrights I marvel at the concern disinterested parties seem to show for others presumed copywrights. I suggest that unless a valid source indicates that material is a copywright infringement we presume that the clip is public domain, posted by the copywright holder or licensed for free use like Alex Jones does for all of his videos. Furthermore, non-copywright holders like yourself should keep their nose where it belongs and spare us these false pieties regarding other peoples property rights which they have NO true knowledge of. Maybe you should spend your life patrolling local supermarkets for shoplifters if you have such concern for others alleged rights. Makes about as much sense as what you are doing here. 68.14.22.161 13:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)Tommy Powell

Copyright infringement is serious business; per WP:COPY, we can presume no such thing: "Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page in question is not violating someone else's copyright. If it is, please do not link to the page. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry)." This is policy, and cannot be circumvented. To "presume that the clip is public domain" without verification is to expose Wikipedia to legal action by copyright holders; to do so repeatedly demonstrates a wanton disregard for policy and US law and is a bannable—not just blockable—offense. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 17:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
The link is to a trailer I created and put up on YouTube. The link neither violates my copyright nor is used as a source, merely as an illustration of a fact, as evidenced by comments and statements on Corrigan / Lockheart's own page. The link to the trailer should be returned to the article.Jodyw1 05:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
If you "created" something using copyrighted materials (any such footage, no matter how it's edited/manipulated), full copyright is retained by the materials' owner. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 17:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Kirk, it's my work from start to finish. I wrote, shot, edited, scored and uploaded the trailer to YouTube. I hold the copyright on every piece, element, frame, tone and morpheme of the trailer. In otherwords, it's okay to link to the trailer.Jodyw1 18:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay. It would have helped considerably to have included that information in the trailer and/or the description... ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
RK, I haven't found a bot yet to conform my every last word, deed and activity to Wiki policy. I'm told there's one coming, but I'm skeptical. :-) Would you restore the link in the article? Under those Wiki standards, it would be a bit uncouth for me to do so. Jodyw1 21:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

(reduce indent) Not yet, there's an additional issue: per WP:EL, we should only be adding links that "contain information that can't or shouldn't be added to the article." This link is to a teaser trailer that gives very little, if any, data that cannot be written into prose, and I'm inclined to argue that merely showing his made-up face does not satisfy that requirement. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 23:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I reworded and relinked the information regarding his non porn role, moving it out of the exterior links and into information contained in the body of the article..Jodyw1 01:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
A question: Jodyw1, you own the clip of the person running down the hallway? You own the rights to music used in the trailer? You own the still shots of Brent? If you do... then great. Shame it doesn't say so on the youtube listing.
All the copy-vio concerns aside, there is a question of value. Wikipedia's long-term philosophy is to limit external links to those that provide useful information about the subject of the article. The video, however well made, provides no information.
I'm sorry, but long-held policies and guidelines are against the inclusion of the link. ---J.S (t|c) 06:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
There is also a mild Conflict of interest/Original Research concern here. (since you linking to something you created...) ---J.S (t|c) 06:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I own the clip of the person running down the hallway. I shot it. Yes, I own the rights to the music used in the trailer. I recorded it, from an old drinking song. Yes, I own the still shots. I made them, from footage I shot. I have paperwork covering all of the above. I've made note on the YouTube page for people to distribute the trailer. I've made note on this page as well that it's okay to link to the trailer. I can't do much more than that.
As to the noteability, I think anytime a pornstar does a non-porn role, it's notable. Anytime a non-pornstar does a porn role, it's notable. Any variation there-in is also notable.
As to my COI, I made note of the film and told people where to find it. The link was for others to return -- which someone else happened to do. Jodyw1 08:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I'll take your word for it that you own the copyrights, but I am still unconvinced that your trailer adds anything of value to the article. The trailer is basically fan-art... and it provides no information. Yes, his non-porn role is notable, but that's not the issue being discussed. ---J.S (t|c) 22:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

J, it's not "fan art." It's a trailer for a short film he acts in. And the reason the trailer provides "no information" is because...it's a trailer. It's there to tease the audience with what is to come. The project is a bit behind it's original completion date, but it will be done soon. Your stated standard is unrealistic.Jodyw1 01:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It's the definition of fan-art... An unofficial trailer created by a fan.
Now that my concerns regarding the Copy-vio have been satisfied, it's basically a content dispute.
Jodyw1, external links should contain valuable information for someone wanting to know more about the subject. I just don't see how it adds anything. ---J.S (t|c) 02:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
J, it's not "fan art." It's an official trailer -- I made it -- for an official film -- I made it -- staring official actors -- I hired them -- using an official camera -- got that too -- with an official crew -- hired them as well --- with official locations -- permitted, all.
Six months ago Corrigan/Lockhart hadn't done anything but porn. Now he's done something more. If you are coming to an encyclopedia looking for information on Corrigan,that's the very definition of the kind of information someone would want to know.
I've admitted that I have a bias in favor of Corrigan. You haven't admitted yours yet: your assumption that your estimation of worth holds true for everyone.Jodyw1 11:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
This discussion has gone on a bit longer than I had expected. J.S is right, while the fact that Corrigan has expanded his acting repertoire is interesting, the video doesn't add to that information. Simply adding a short blurb, to the effect that Corrigan has recently starred in a low budget horror film should be enough. -- Ec5618 17:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I still disagree. Be that as it may, on 11/13/06, I changed the text of the article to only mention the apperance in a film. Jodyw1 18:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brent_Corrigan/Archive_2&oldid=1133914134"