Talk:Sean Paul Lockhart/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Article name change

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

"Brent Corrigan" is a trademarked ficticous name developed by deceased Bryan Kocis at Cobra Video. With the end of Lockhart's career at Cobra, still the possibility of a trademark infringement ruling against Lockhart's use of the name and his mounting legal woes, this should be considered. 12:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I wouldnt use Sean Paul Lockheart, i would use Sean Lockheart, as you dont generally always use peoples middle name.
However, i do agree in principle of moving/renaming the article at some point. Of course, an admin should do this to save the history. And then brent corrigan can become a redirect to the new page.
I cant remember for sure, but i dont think Sean/Brent has formally anounced the changing of his name to that... Reedy Boy 18:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

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

If he is in some way "pertinent" to the continuing Kocis murder investigation, it will be as "Sean Lockhart" (as the local press is correctly reporting) and not as "Brent Corrigan". 21:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


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

One is a pertinent as the other.

Why don't you work on improving the Bio Info boxes if you don't agree with these lsitings? 22:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

..."(Even if it was demonstrably relevant, it's not verifiable.) Please explain how his penis size is verifiable 00:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

i will take the items out. 00:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

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

so be it.

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

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

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

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

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

can we agree on that? 01:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

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

i have no problem with that; but can you at least agree in principle (should the situation change)? 01:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

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

let it be known that on this day and at this time i came in agreement with RadioKirk (u|t|c)!!! 01:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

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

Bryan Kocis's name link

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

And I have, for the third time, removed it. Please see under the section "Alleged underage videos" where Kocis' name is already linked, and also the manual of style on overlinking. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 00:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Considering there is one link in the Kocis death section, I don't think that constitutes 10% of the document. One has to assume that many people looking for Kocis's name and only know Corrigan's name may not know anything of the "alleged underage video" and only of Kocis's death. I suppose having Kocis's name (which is the first thing in the section) as a link. 03:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
The issue is that the name already is linked within the article, not that we're looking at sections. This also demonstrates that "more than once" can be considered "excessive". RadioKirk (u|t|c) 06:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous editing should be disabled

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

Year Of Birth

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

Anon, I didn't "assume" that Corrigan's age has been established. I provided text, link and a cite for the 1986 date. There's a difference. This is a bio page of a living person, as such, unless you have a citation that shows their provided source to be false, it has preference.
Corrigan has stated on multiple occasions that his birthdate is October 31, 1986. Now, he's provided a source for that information. A check of Washington State's records reveals that the source cited is valid. That their remains some controversy around his birthday is mentioned throughout the article, both in the preceding paragraph and in the legal dispute sections. That some people will be upset by citing the 1986 date is unfortunate, but the discussion of the controversy in the article more than makes up for that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jodyw1 (talkcontribs) 20:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC).
This article has, since inception, shown both dates. Corrigan, by his own admission submitted "positive ID" showing the 1985 date- Why doesn't he post these on his website as well? PLEASE do not start an edit war. Both dates need to be shown. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 23:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC).
You can source that he used 1985 ID, which everyone else claims is false. You can't claim 1985 as an actual birth date. SchmuckyTheCat 23:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Anon, Corrigan states that his birthday is October 31st 1986. Corrigan provided a valid ID that his birthdate is 1986. Under Wiki's own guidelines, this is more than enough to establish that 1986 should be used as his birthdate.
The 1985 date needs to be mentioned and discussed in the article as a source of conflict and of a legal dispute. That is in the article. It has it's own sub-section in the article. Nothing is being hidden. Jodyw1 23:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
< Corrigan states that his birthday is October 31st 1986. Corrigan provided a valid ID that his birthdate is 1986> He has also stated that his birthdate is 1985 and provided 3 "valid Id's" to prove it. The article has had both birth dates in the lead paragraph for a LONG time. Now you seem determined to start an edit war to change that. The 1985 date seems more likely since the old movies have NEVER been ordered pulled by the government and remain for sale both in the US and abroad. I could, for $20, get a Cal. driver's licence in Macarthur Park with the name Mickey Mouse and any birthday I wanted -so Corrigan's scan is meaningless. He could easily have scanned any of the 3 "valid ID's" he provided Cobra.

You need to read the biographical entry again. Corrigan has never said that he provided three IDs -- Kocis' attorney's did. Corrigan stated that he provided copy of a fake ID to Kocis during the shooting of his first film. One of the issues of the legal dispute dealt with that.
Second, the citation for his 1986 birthdate is two fold: One, Corrigan himself, who has publicly said he lied to Cobra about his earlier birthdate and two, a Washington State Driver's license, showing the 1986 date and the WA registry, showing the license to be valid. While it could be a photoshopped ID, you need to provide a source showing that, in fact, the ID referenced is. A lot of citations in a lot of articles can be fake, but if you don't have a citation showing that to be the case, by Wiki's own rules, it doesn't matter.
Third, again from the Wiki article, Pacific Sun Distributing pulled all of their copies of the films from circulation here in the USA. Cobra pulled their copies from sale as well until the matter was resolved. The films weren't pulled from Europe, where the legal issue is different. That copies of the film are still in available in the USA means little, one way or the other, regarding Corrigan's age. Jodyw1 16:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
jody is starting another edit-war. The website does NOT prove a birthyear, it simply verfies that the license number is valid. The site does NOT provide the date-of-birth. Until a court of law establishes Mr. Corrigan's age, it is perhaps still better to put "disputed" or something similar in the birthdate. --Julien Deveraux 04:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
The AVN article says that his attorney, whose public statements can lead to disbarment if he lies, stated his birthyear as 1986. The drivers license, LOCKHSP141PU, states 1986 (because 2000 - 14 = 1986, 14 being the first two digits after the name). There is no source that says 1985, other than sources, including Lockhart himself, that said he lied about the 1985 date, but no source backs up that date. SchmuckyTheCat 05:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Also, his personal blog is a reliable source on himself. It's not a reliable source for say, the History of France. SchmuckyTheCat 05:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Schmucky, what the hell are you talking about? 2000-14 = ?? where are you getting that from? Again, since the birthdate is disputed, i don't see why you keep deleting the remark--just to be contrary? An article quoting an attorney?? This is pathetic; this article is trash and not reliable.--Julien Deveraux 22:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
You can decode a pre-2000 year of birth on a Washington state ID by subtracting the first two numbers after the name from 2000. The birth date isn't disputed. Who's disputing it? That isn't even clear to me. SchmuckyTheCat 23:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
This site: shows how Washington State creates its drivers licenses' numbers. The alpha numeric code on Corrigan's license matches the DOB information also printed on the license. Schmucky is right.Jodyw1 06:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
okay so now we're expected to believe a hacking site's word about how washington licenses are coded? You guys are pathetic, and your'e still quoting blogs as "sources." What about my blog? What about elmysterios blog? Can they now be quoted to just because they are on the web? -- 07:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
No, Corrigan's personal blog is being cited as a source about his own life. Corrigan is a living person. Under Wiki's rules he gets deference. And nowhere is the hacking site listed as a source for the Corrigan article. It is linked here in the Talk section, to illustrate what Schmucky Cat was talking about in his earlier remark about WSDL numbers. Big difference.Jodyw1 08:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Here's more information from Marist College that elaborates on the High Programmer site about how Washington State generates it's DL numbers ( Please note that this isn't being cited in the biography on Corrigan.Jodyw1 08:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Revert wars and NPOV Status of article

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

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

What is the source for the dispute? If you want to include that there is a dispute about his age, source that. I don't find any serious source that believes the 1985 date. Did he lie about it? YES! That is sourced. That is in the article. Does anyone think he was born in 1985? NO!
Blogs, such as the one he writes, can be used as a source to source information about the subject - in this case Brent Corrigan's blog can be a source about Brent Corrigan.
Blogs, by notable people in a certain field, can be used to source information about that field - in this case Jason Curious is a notable and reliable web-journalist on gay porn, and can be used as a source for gay porn.
I'll note however, that just about any "fact" sourced to either blog has also apppeared in AVN, which is a more reliable (by Wikipedia standards) source.
The drivers license number on the posted Washington State drivers license verification web page matches and turns up as valid. That is COMPLETELY RELIABLE and it 100% backs up the 1986 date, unless you think he lied to the state to get the DL. SchmuckyTheCat 13:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Schmucky, I invite you to check my DL number in colorado. It is 95-198-0787. I'll say i was born in 1856. The driver's license number is valid, so that does mean I was born in 1856? rest my case. Also, please do not move an entry in here to the bottom; there was no reason for that other than to be an a**hole. --Julien Deveraux 00:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Standard Wikipedia convention is that the newest conversations go on the bottom, not the top.
I don't care what Colorado says your DL number is. Does Colorado encode the birth year in the DL number? I don't know. I do know that Washington DOES. And that the ID posted is valid and says he was born in 1986.
I do not see any statement in the article that says the birth year is disputed. Not even by the dead guy. He sued for mis-representation. He wasn't trying to prove to a court that Lockhart was born in 1985, but that he represented himself as being born in 1985, and that the deception was the basis for a civil tort. WHAT IS THE RELIABLE SOURCE THAT SAYS THERE IS A DISPUTE ABOUT HIS BIRTH YEAR? WHERE WHERE WHERE? SchmuckyTheCat 01:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Schmucky, please source where a reliable source (as in the actual place of issue) states that Washington encodes its birthdates in its license numbers? You've only cited hacking websites :-) There does not need to be a source indicating that the birthyear is disputed. Why? well, for one thing the article even states that it was disputed and their has been no court finding indicating one way or or another. --Julien Deveraux 04:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
The Washington state bartenders guide to ID. Probably doesn't exist online.
The article doesn't state the year is or was disputed. It says he mis-represented his age to Cobra. Nowhere does it ever say that once he revealed the mis-representation that anybody disputed it. Was Cobra pissed off? Yes. Did they disputed the age? no. Claiming evidence of misrepresentation to avoid liability and criminal prosecution, yes. Claiming 1985 was correct? No. SchmuckyTheCat 08:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
In any case, the onus is ON YOU to show a reliable source that there IS A DISPUTE about his age. There are no sources showing anyone disputes the 1986 date. SchmuckyTheCat 08:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
The information you are citing "as proof" that his age is really 20 (as of today) is citable but not verifiable. The Washington State website does not include this "code-cracking" scheme on it; and even though the information is posted by some fly-by-night 199-a month "University," It can still be incorrect. I have not removed that information from the article even though I severely question its relevance but I have changed the language of that entry to language that does give the impression that its doctrine. There are sources to show that the age matter is under dispute but much like "" they are not appropriate to cite here. Yes, the article states that Corrigan CLAIMS that he falsified his age documents but this has never been proven. Un-verfied statements by attorney's are citeable but not proof, statements on personal blogs are citeable (??) but not proof. To that effect and the effect that there are many MANY bloggers out there who still don't believe this information since it has all come from someone who has already lied to the public once (and again for other reasons) it is valid and not misleading to include that this information is possibly suspect in the article without having all of you accuse the editors of brent-bashing. --Julien Deveraux 06:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Source the dispute. This has not been done.
Don't put "disputed see below" in the intro sentence until the dispute has been sourced.
The way Washington state encodes the birth year is a well known fact, whether some quickie internet search finds a reliable source for that or not. It is the kind of thing you can ask any cop, or any bartender, or probably half the state. It's trivia. SchmuckyTheCat 15:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Then source that too, chmucky, I mean really, if you are going to try and tell me to cite a dispute (he lied, now he's saying he isn't lying...what is there to cite besides gay blogs ..right?) then you can cite your "well-known" fact, you know as in..coming from the source itself--in this case, Washington State. --Julien Deveraux 18:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC) reference

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

Idiotic Reverts

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

Here is what we know.

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

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

Yes, if you write about yourself, you are a reliable source about yourself.
Yes, other blogs by fans and critics who aren't otherwise notable in their field aren't reliable sources.
I don't care about the image of the license. The number on the license verifies his age.
Of course no criminal charges were filed. It's really rare for any to be filed. The lack of criminal charges is a proof of "authorities don't give a damn" and not a proof of innocence. If Cobra kept selling the videos, or if a stack of them were found in a store where the store KNEW about the age problem, then charges might be filed, if anybody cared.
Lawsuit documents, no matter where they are posted, are primary sources, and can be sourced - very carefully.
There still is no source AT ALL, that says anyone thinks he was born in 1985. WHO THINKS THAT? How many times must it be asked of you to provide any source that anyone actually believes the 1985 date? SchmuckyTheCat 19:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Schmucky, your credibility is now shot down the toilet because you didn't answer my questions and you keep responding in the first person, indicating that you have personal reasons for making these edits. The fact that you're now defending your edits with opinions ("I dont care about this/It is just is because I said so") just basically tells me that you've run out of reasons for keeping the article biased. --Julien Deveraux 20:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

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

I just thought I'd point out that there's obviously a difference between a reliable source and a notable source. The fact that Corrigan makes certain claims on his blog is relevant, not gospel. -- Ec5618 20:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
WHAT BIAS? I have no interest in Brent Corrigan, or gay porn whatsoever. I came to this article to mediate a dispute a year ago. I saw another dispute, so I involved myself again. I have no bias and don't care one bit. What I see is disputes that don't exist, revert warring about height and weight, weasel wording where everything is "he said/she said" and blah blah blah.
Here is a question, Julian, that I have asked five or six times now. WHAT SOURCE is there that there IS A DISPUTE about his age? Show me any single reliable source that believes he was born in 1985. SchmuckyTheCat 21:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
The reference name "Cobra Strikes Back" goes to this url [1]. That URL does not state that anyone believes he was born in 1985. It simply quotes a Cobra Video press release that they were suing him, not that they believed the 1985 birthdate. I'll remove all of this again in 24 hours unless there is a real source. SchmuckyTheCat 23:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Schmucky, once again your ignorance is astounding, the article states that Cobra was provided with ID claiming an 1985 birthdate. Ergo, if they have this information and they believe it to be true, and all the customers who purchased the videos believed it to be true, and there has been no solid evidence indicating that it isn't true, other than photoshopped pictures of IDs on personal blogs, then common sense would dictate that a dispute exists. Just because an article isnt' cited in which a specific person comes out and says "I BELIEVE HE WAS BORN in 1985" doesn't make this a valid source for the claim. Argument destroyed yet again, you are reaching for straws. --Julien Deveraux 00:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Everything Cobra says after the revelation has been ass covering, not making a claim that the 1985 date is real. I see no dispute. SchmuckyTheCat 05:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
By your logic, everything Corrigan is CLAMING is also ass-covering. --Julien Deveraux 05:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
The article, other articles, as well as Corrigan's website all state that Corrigan admitted to forging his documentation. Neither the Cobra article or the lawsuit maintain that he was 18 at the time. You even have the provisional agreement between Corrigan and Kocis. In it, Kocis required Corrigan to issue a statement that Cobra/Kocis didn't know Corrigan was under age at the time of the film shoots. Corrigan's age is not in dispute.Jodyw1 05:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
It's not under dispute at this point, simply b/c you are stating it isn't. Since there was a claim made that he was born in 1985 and no reliable, verifiable, legal source has proven otherwise, I see nothing wrong with quoting both birthyears in every part of the article, rather than misleadingly positing the potentially false birth year as fact --Julien Deveraux 05:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
J, citations don't have to be "legally" proven. They don't even have to be *true.* They just have to be verifiable. See
"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed."
You don't understand Wiki policy as well as you think you do.Jodyw1 06:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
(unindent) There is still no claim anyone believes he was born in 1985. We have plenty of reference for the lie, but not that anyone still claims it. And yes, for the record, the WA state ID is reliable, verifiable, and legal (it is a state issued ID). SchmuckyTheCat 06:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)