Talk:Brent Corrigan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] See comments
	This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
More information about this article... This article has been marked as needing immediate attention. This article is a candidate to be the Biography WikiProject Collaboration of the Fortnight. Please comment on the nomination. This article has had a peer review by the Biography WikiProject, which has now been archived.

Contents 1 Archive 2 Revert War 3 Deletion of Cobra Web Site 4 Jeremy Carson 5 Revert War 6 YouTube links

[edit] Archive

• Talk:Brent Corrigan/Archive1 - Talk Pages Archived up to Start of August - Was starting to get in a mess Reedy Boy 11:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Talk:Brent Corrigan/Archive2 - To end of September Reedy Boy 21:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] YouTube links

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)