Talk:Michael Lucas (director)/Archive 1

External links

The link to "Pornstar Talk" took nearly 10 minutes to download on a DSL connection; please see Web accessibility. The link is to content that includes irrelevant information for this article (the show is not just an interview with Michael Lucas; it is a lengthy talk show that covers additional topics). If there is material that is relevant to the article that hasn't been included; quoting from a transcript of the show and referencing the transcript would be the way to go. (Additionally, use of external links should be limited to a small number—there are ample references. See Wikipedia:External links.)—Chidom ^talk  14:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit differences

• I agree; I was mistaken in using Lucas's blog as a source. However, I feel his model profile at Lucas Entertainment, a commercial company, is a valid resource.
• saying he "fled" to Germany is POV; he moved there
• "narcissim 101" is a POV blog that shouldn't be quoted or referenced
• "proceed at your own risk" falls into the same category
  • Just a note: Lucas's visit to Israel started on August 29 and ends on September 4—how is it possible to report on it in the past tense before it's over?
• what is the problem with the images? Image of DVD cover substituted for unsourced image
• calling the other porn studios "competing" is POV and unverifiable
• if we include the quote from the article about his hustling; we should include the positive review in the Adam Gay Directory for balance, or both should go. The Directory is an industry-recognized review and one of the few sources of information available for film/performer information. I've put the former back in; if it is deleted, so should the other reference.
• identifying his audience at the tea is a quote from the article—why can't it be included?
• as a point of editing, I generally include a space between the hyphens for a heading and the heading text itself; it's not an error, and doesn't affect the outcome of the page; it's a visual difference when editing

—Chidom ^talk  18:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Validity of information

From Wikipedia: Biographies policy:

"The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable third party sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves. The writing style should be neutral, factual, and understated, avoiding both a sympathetic point of view and an advocacy journalism point of view."

(emphasis added)

The Michael Lucas biographical information published at Lucas Entertainment's website would fall under this category. It is a valid source of information.—Chidom ^talk  02:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Validity of information

• It is common practice here at Wikipedia to include images of DVD covers for porn stars. It is not an advertisement for the product, but a way to identify the individual. Why is that a problem in this case?

• As to Mr. Lucas's bio, please see the policy excerpt above; and explain why a quote from the actual person regarding his career is inappropriate in this instance. Also, please see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources for additional information about using self-published information. I believe this information falls under that policy.

• The source for the criticism of his trip is a self-identified blog; and is not a valid source for an article. Please again refer to Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources for additional information about using blogs.

• Wikipedia:Verifiability is policy and governs here.

• I again state my opinion that who his audience was at the Tea is relevant; why do you feel it isn't? There is a difference in types of audiences; it is appropriate to document who the audience was, particularly for an address to an organization with which few people are familiar.

We obviously have a difference of opinion ; I have referenced Wikipedia policy in support of my edits. I would like to resolve this amicably; I hope we can do so. Please let me know what the rationale behind your edits is.—Chidom ^talk  18:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

To the anon editor who keeps removing this, he quite clearly calls himself Jewish here[1], regarldess of the opinion of Wiki editors on whether he is or not. I haven't seen any of his films (ahem) so I can't comment on the claim the anon editor made about whether or not he is circumcized, but, that's irrelevant and original research. Mad Jack 02:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comments

Disagreements with regard to the content of this article:

1. The validity of the Model Profile of Michael Lucas at the website at www.lucasentertainment.com as a source.
2. The inclusion of a photo of a DVD cover depicting Michael Lucas.
3. The validity of a blog "Sex, Lies and Videotape: How Myths Are Born", Proceed at Your Own Risk as a source.
4. The use of the word moved vs. fled to describe his leaving Russia and going to Germany. Statement is now changed and sourced.
5. The relevance of specifying the makeup of his audience at the Masters Tea.
6. The validity of "Step Right Up", Narcissism101, www.narcissism101.typepad.com as a source.

Comment

1. Looks like official company PR material. Acceptable.
2. I'm unclear on the issue here. Suggest bowing to precedent and using it unless someone expresses a particular reason not to.
3. A blog? No.
4. I'm unclear on the issue here. If there's a dispute among legitimate citations, suggest footnoting with references to each version.
5. I'm unclear on the issue here. Audience makeup doesn't seem very relevant. What's the argument for including it?
6. Another blog? No.

Also, regarding Jewish identification, the site referenced looks like it would (marginally) pass WP:V. Durova 22:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Elaborating on the above: official company press releases are generally acceptable for Wikipedia. I'd disallow the blogs with the exception of the official blog from Lucas Entertainment (which is essentially a PR release in blog format) and Mr. Lucas's own disclosures on his personal blog. Regarding a third site, that does not self-identify as a blog but that comes from a blog host, the burden of proof according to WP:V rests on the shoulders of whoever wants to include a source. I'll assume that's a disallowable blog unless proven otherwise. I did mention one site as marginal but allowable - it seems to be a minor web publication from a source whose primary business is a dating service rather than journalism. That said, it's been in business for ten years.

I'd allow the DVD image and I now understand the need to specify that the audience at the Master's Tea was a group of students (as opposed to faculty). Regards, Durova 07:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Request to revert version

Please revert this article to [2], with the last edits of user 205.188.116.9 at 13:17, September 6, 2006. The subsequent edits were made by an anonymous IP user that refuses to engage in dialog about the inappropriate content and sources that the anonymous user adds to the article.—Chidom ^talk  06:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Done: Technically, this was a meta:The Wrong Version revert, but I agree that the external link wasn't Wikipedia:External links compliant seeing as the link to www.pornstarstalk.com doesn't actually contain an actual interview. --  Netsnipe  ►  09:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

One more reference to go, please

Please remove the last item in the "External links" list, that for "Proceed at Your Own Risk", as per item 3 in the "Request for Comments" above. Thanks.—Chidom ^talk  09:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. --  Netsnipe  ►  09:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Fix link

In the Live event: section, please replace the text to the left of the pipe in "[[Joe Gage|Joe Gage]]" with "Tim Kincaid" to fix a redirect link: "[[Tim Kincaid|Joe Gage]]". Please keep the non-breaking space to the right of the pipe. Thanks.

This can wait until the page is unprotected; generally, pages protected due to disputes should not be edited. Thanks. JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Anon editor 216.57.17.234 Improper Activity

Anon editor 216.57.17.234 has historic and repeated improper activity with this article including deletions w/o explanation, improper citations, additions w/o citations, substituting or inserting new content in the existing text which is not found in the reference cited, etc. Most recently the anon editor has acted in a childish manner by copying-and-pasting this editor's previous edit summary in his/her own edit summary even though that summary does not accurately reflect his/her edits. 71.127.230.74 23:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

To Editor "Lucasent"

You and editor 216.57.17.234 have repeatedly reverted to a version which has blanked out large sections of the article. Those sections are properly cited from legitimate sources and are the product of several editors' work which has stood for some time. Your additions are not all properly sourced, some are not sourced at all; they add irrelevant info and only seek to promote the business of the sites you reference. Some additions are added to existing cited text: those additions are not found in the reference cited. Other additions contain errors in spelling and punctuation. Your deletions include large portions of the subject's bio including his work experience and videography: the subject's work w/Cadinot and Falcon Studios, and his work as a prostitute. On the surface it appears you to want to whitewash and sanitize this article, for whatever reason -- that leads to an imbalance in the content and violates NPOV. 71.127.238.169 16:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

To editor 216.57.17.234 re your additions

Your cooperation is noted. Regarding your additions: 1) Manhattan Heat: is the music for this film "from" boy George or "by" Boy George? To say it's "from Boy George" is to say that it's taken or borrowed from another work entitled Boy George -- to say it's by him is to say he did it. 2) Blade column: if the column will be a regularly occurring one, then it needs mention of how often. As it turns out the column will be monthly, but until the second column is posted, it can only be described as a "planned monthly" column, otherwise you're writing about possible future events. "New York Blade" should be italicized and there's no need to put a period after the footnote. And why not cite TNYB directly? [Blade changes are done.] 3) Intern movie: this is a possible future event -- filming has not yet begun. It can't be included in this article. 4) added quotes: in the Genre quote, is the quote taken from an interview? or an article? In the NEXT quote, why quoted? and, again, an interview? or an article? In the Advocate quote: you piggyback the reference to one that appears earlier in this article, but the date you list doesn't agree with the first reference (June 2005 vs. Aug 2004). Is it the same article? For all the quotes the date can be omitted as it's found in the references list. Genre and NEXT can be wikified as articles on both exist.

Please use the preview button to check edits before saving -- it'll save space on Wikipedia. OK, Andrei? 71.127.232.186 09:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comments

Editor 216.57.17.234's edits place most of the awards earned by the subject of this article into the Awards box format, while listing two awards outside the box. I suspect this is due to an absence of information on the "preceded by" and/or "succeeded by" winners. The subject earned two awards this year which will not be given again until next year; this results in having the two lower right compartments ("succeeded by") in the Awards box not filled in, giving a shoddy appearance. (I question the value of knowing who won the same award in the previous year or the following year, anyway.)

I believe the awards should be listed in the format of my 27 April edit. 72.76.91.5 16:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Response:

If you check out Chi Chi's entry and Johnny Hazzard's entry, they have the exact same format when it comes to their awards. Chi Chi's page, in fact, has other awards listed on top of that, not in the chart format. Perhaps you should write something on her Wikipedia entry about this "shoddy appearance" as well? And Johnny Hazzard's? I am trying to keep that specific format going so that it is easier for readers to navigate through Wikipedia. Thanks!

my reply: the fact that there's mediocrity elsewhere in Wikipedia doesn't justify including it here. the awards box does not improve the "readability" of Andrei's awards list; in fact, it makes it harder. the format I have restored is easier to read, is more "encyclopedic" in appearance , does not leave the reader guessing, and is not wanting of information to be filled in some time next year. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.76.96.177 (talk) 18:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

Editors 216.57.17.234 and Lucasent, improper editing and activity; protected page; editing conflicts

It should be noted that because of the improper edits and activity of editors 216.57.17.234 and Lucasent (possibly one and the same) that a request was made for full page protection of this article. Their actions are noted above. In addition, they routinely save test edits and even ignore the guidelines for dialogue on this discussion page.

I am not aware of the process for blocking editors and I honestly do not have the ability to inquire, but anyone who is knowledgeable or in authority here should undertake an investigation into the activities of these editors and determine if blocking is warranted.

Essentially, these editors wish to impose their own POV on this article and routinely ignore the rules to bring that about.

Editing conflicts:

- these editors have blanked out large portions of the article that refer to Michael Lucas' experience before Lucas Entertainment and while he was in Europe. These edits have excluded both Lucas' work as a prostitute (a fact certified by many reputable resources, including himself) and work with Cadinot.

- the anon editor wishes to exclude reference to Germany and France in the introductory paragraph, asserting that "it's redundant" because that time is mentioned again in the bio section. Reference to the two countries should remain in the intro because it establishes a sequence before his arrival in the US: where he went after leaving Russia and before coming here. It's expanded on in the bio section.

- an editor wishes to include a reference to a documentary on the making of "Michael Lucas' Dangerous Liaisons," and include that reference under his bio. This doesn't belong here and should be put in the article about the film: it's about the film, not Lucas.

- an editor wishes to remove reference to Lucas' intolerance for Christianity and Catholicism while leaving reference to his dismay at the intolerance shown gay people. Both references have stood for many months, the product of several editors' collaboration, and provide a good balance; both references should be included.

- an editor wishes to include an awards box, but not all the awards listed in the awards list above it were included. Lucas has a small number of awards, all should be included in the box before it's posted, or a notation should be made about what is or is not present in the box. 72.68.29.8 14:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

May 8 edits: rationale

Deletions were made based on the ff:

-- the film documentary belongs in the article on the film.

-- the reference cited for Boy George and Manhattan Heat makes only vague reference to music ("musical outing" and "contribution"). suggest citing Billboard directly.

-- the quotes from Next and Genre: the first is a free-distribution and the other an entertainment mag - not great sources to begin with. the quotes themselves are poor and really don't say anything. even Lucas must have said something more articulate on the themes of directorial style and "why his movies have plots."

-- the quote from Advocate: the same source for the quote is cited in the narrative of the bio re safe sex and anti-drug. the quote should be integrated in that paragraph, in narrative form.

With all good intentions,
I remain,

Most Sincerely Yours,
72.76.4.180 10:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Good work--keep it up. -Jmh123 17:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

TY. Nice work on the merge.72.76.91.165 15:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

June 8 edits: rationale

External links were added by 216.57.17.234 (whose previous improper activities are documented above) to michaellucas.com and lucasblog.com. These links are unnecessary. Lucasblog.com is referenced in the narrative (reference #10) and is mentioned specifically there, too; lucasentertainment.com (and Lucas's bio, specifically) is referenced three times in the narrative (reference #3: a,b,c) and provides an identical bio as that found at the link to michaellucas.com. The bio provides nothing more than can be found in the narrative of this article; it is noteworthy that neither refers to Lucas's being a prostitute in Europe and in NYC. If the objective were only to provide his bio, then his model profile at lucasentertainment.com would suffice, which is already referenced in the narrative. It appears that 216.57.17.234 wants to provide readers with a convenient link to michaellucas.com and the blog site so they can view the "films" listed there and make a purchase. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a conduit to retail sales. Based on the foregoing, the external links were removed and the interview with Hedda Lettuce was restored. The interview provides unique insight into the personality of Andrei Treivas, alias, Michael Lucas. 72.76.91.165 15:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, fine by me. Good work -Jmh123 16:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Reiterating the same points ^^^ to the anon who just readded links. -Jmh123 16:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Jmh123, thanks for keeping an eye on things here. It appears that 216.57.17.234 is up to the same old nonsense. What's that one definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over an expecting a different outcome? And it seems that the anon has a confederate in the form of 24.244.248.40. Let them both know: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; any attempts at advertising or self-promotion in articles will be removed.72.68.31.48 12:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

June 18 edits: rationale

Edits made for same reasons as listed above in May 8 edits:

-- the film documentary belongs in the article on the film.

-- the quote from Advocate: the same source for the quote is cited in the narrative of the bio re safe sex and anti-drug. the quote should be integrated in that paragraph, in narrative form.

In addition, the source cited for the new book does not say anything specific about the book: not the name, nor the publisher, nor the date of publication, nor the author. Following the introductory sentence in the paragraph on the book is a string of quotations -- that is most unencyclopedic. Using Treivas's blog as a source? -- it's his personal PR. Another independent source should be found, if anyone has written anything on this. Also, one never begins a sentence with a quotation. And, the signing party does not qualify for mention as a live event: it's simply self-promotion. 72.68.31.48 11:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

removed paragraph on the book based on the above.72.76.90.105 18:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

removed paragraph on the book added by 207.61.242.110 based on the above72.76.90.105 18:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

External links removed

The external links added yet again by 216.57.17.234 were removed as per "June 8 edits: rationale." 72.68.30.11 16:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

removed external links added by 195.65.93.84 (and earlier by 195.65.93.83) as per "June 8 edits: rationale."72.76.90.105 17:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The external links added yet another time by 216.57.17.234 were removed as per "June 8 edits: rationale."72.76.90.105 18:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

removed external links added by 207.61.242.110 as per "June 8 edits: rationale."72.76.90.105 18:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

External link removed

I've removed the link to the Hedda interview, as I don't believe that it is an actual interview, but just snark. If you can convince me otherwise, I'll support re-adding it. Thanks. -Jmh123 23:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Page protection

I inquired at the Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard about the potential conflict of Lucas possibly editing his own entry, and the sudden influx of new users today recreating the same edits. [3] The page was semi-protected without my asking. Please take note, and if Lucas is in fact editing here, I ask him to please observe these guidelines: WP:Autobiography#If_Wikipedia_already_has_an_article_about_you and Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest. The deleted miscellanea regarding a client will under no circumstances be allowed to return to the entry, as a gossip column is not a reliable source. Thanks. -Jmh123 00:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Page is now fully protected. -Jmh123 18:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Jmh123, thank you for your good work in ensuring propriety and balance in this article. I've posted some observations at your noticeboard inquiry; I hope it will help you resolve this issue. Take care. 71.127.230.77 18:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

216.57.17.234 and Lucas's column on the Ultra-Orthodox Jews in Jerusalem

The article quoted was written by Lucas about the Hasidim. He only mentions the extreme Christian right in the final paragraph: "What the extreme Christian right is to the U.S., ultra-orthodox Jews are to Israel; religiously deluded jerks who do not merit the political influence they alas enjoy." Nowhere in the column does he call the extreme Christian right "parasites," "vermin," "religious goons," and "anal warts on the body of Israeli society...[whose] main activities are praying and breeding." He said that about the Hasidim only. You have incorrectly listed those names among the the things he said when he compared the two groups, which is not written in the source. And you have wikilinked "Christian right" when it was the extreme Christian right Lucas wrote about, a misrepresentation on your part. You are distorting the facts, likely with the objective to sanitize and whitewash Andrei Treivas (alias, Michael Lucas), as you have done previously in this article. I strongly suggest that you read and re-read sources, and that you only add content accurately to properly sourced and quoted material. Or have somebody do it for you -- somebody who is forthright (you know anybody like that?) and who can comprehend what they read and knows how to edit properly and accurately. You should refrain from editing this article if you only wish to impose your point of view on it. 72.68.31.22 10:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

He legally changed his name to "Michael Lucas" earlier this year; it's not an alias anymore. If you actually kept up with his life, you would know this. Why do you keep changing your IP address to hide? It's obvious you are the one and only person imposing his point of view on this page. You are the last person to be talking about "whitewashing" when you're clearly out to smear Mr. Lucas' image due to what must be some anti-Semitic, homophobic, personal vendetta. -216.57.17.234 10:04, 11 July 2007

But do let's talk about the whitewashing and the sanitizing of the bio of the sleaze Treivas (Lucas): why is it that the only source for his alleged law degree is his own PR? -- sites copying his widely-circulated PR don't count. Why is that? It's because he never got a degree from Moscow State or any university anywhere. Can you prove otherwise? -- let's see a transcript. I guarantee there is no transcript anywhere that proves Treivas (Lucas) graduated law school. Second, why is it that there's hardly any info on his years with Cadinot? Those were the years in which he got his start, with Cadinot. Does he have something on Cadinot? Did Treivas set up Cadinot, worm his way into his life (and maybe affection), get something on him, then hold him to his silence? The lack of info regarding those years is conspicuous, and suspicious. So the bio is built on a foundation of lies, and omission. Ok, there's more, but beyond that: those two quotes you mentioned above were from plants that you yourselves made, even though there's wisdom in each quote. Also, there's no single editor at work here, more than one editor has battled the crap and distortions you've added here. And don't play the anti-gay card, or the anti-jewish card; those cards are so over played they're beginning to lose their significance. Nor is there any personal vendetta here, just editors trying very hard to ensure accuracy and balance in an article that if left to you would become one huge PR coup for Treivas. 71.127.229.169 17:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Both of you, stop with the personal attacks please, if for no other reason than that the eyes of the larger community might be cast upon you if there is a dispute, and neither of you would want to appear to be misbehaving. Be civil, please -Jmh123 17:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Understood, Jmh123. But this other user is clearly abusing the system. Even in this very discussion thread above it's clear that he is changing his IP addresses purposefully as to not "get caught" or "pinpointed" as he goes on to vandalize Michael Lucas' profile as well as those of others in the porn industry and Wikipedia at learge. As for proof that Mr. Lucas has a law degree, the Wall Street Journal itself reported this as fact, which means that the reporter who wrote that linked article has proof of Mr. Lucas' (then Mr. Treivas') law degree. I highly doubt the Wall Street Journal would publish lies. And the quote and appearance that myself and LucasEnt have continually tried to add are both relevant and properly cited. As so, they should be allowed to stay up. Lucas Entertainment was the first gay porn company allowed to have a live event at a Virgin Megastore in New York City. Relevant? It sure is. And Mr. Lucas is widely known for his pro-safe sex stance. His quote about being HIV negative is to-the-point and intriguing for many Wiki readers to know. The user above even admits that "there's wisdom in each quote." Balance is letting everyone edit this page, not just one user who thinks he can control all the content himself and hide behind different IP addresses. -216.57.17.234 10:04, 11 July 2007

Jmh, I understand why you removed part of my comment above, but I don't appreciate it! I wrote the truth, and you and others know it -- even though it might perceived as personal attack. Anyone interested in reading my comment can do so by clicking the history tab on this page and navigating to my earlier contribution today. For 216.57.17.234 to say that I abuse the system is a laugh; even her/his comments here are PR. The quotes to which I referred as having wisdom were those of the anon 75.4.76.231, which were planted by 216.57.17.234 to give the impression of vandalism. As for the WSJ certifying Treivas's law degree: their source is Treivas (Lucas) himself. They do not source any official documentation from any university -- if they do (and they don't) let's see it. The fact remains, there is no proof anywhere that Treivas (Lucas) graduated from any university, other than his own PR. So there you have the bio's foundation of lies. And of omission: notice how conspicuously silent 216.57.17.234 is on the subject of Cadinot. Treivas (Lucas) has something on Cadinot, for sure. How else was he able to leave Europe -- with money he earned as a male prostitute? The live event signing party at Megastore is PR self-promotion and does not qualify as a live event. Jmh, you say that "if there is a dispute..." If there is? -- there's already a dispute! The edits of 216.57.17.234, in this article especially, break every rule in Wikipedia's book, and are well-documented in comments on this page and can be found searching the article's history. I'm asking you to do something about it. If it's beyond your scope or purview, then please, take it to an authority here and have it dealt with. I'm not able to monitor this article forever and if left unattended this article will be manipulated by those "editors" into an ever-evolving PR instrument for Treivas, a.k.a., Michael Lucas. Thank you. 71.127.229.169 19:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

71.127.229.169, I only removed those sentences which I felt went over the line--name-calling is not acceptable. What I meant by a dispute being seen is if there is a request for comment, for example. This situation has already been reported to the Biography of Living Persons noticeboard, and the Conflict of Interest noticeboard, and people will be watching because of that. This is an example of taking it to an authority. Unfortunately, the situation can't be "dealt with" in the way you would like. There are lines that have to be crossed for that to happen. 216.57.17.234, should edit warring or sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry (that means getting friends/fans to edit in the way you prefer) begin again, you will be giving 71.127.229.169 exactly what he wants, so I wouldn't advise it. What I would advise is that both of you step back and calm down, and come back to this another day when you aren't so angry. This bickering is not achieving anything constructive. If you must continue, you can continue without my involvement. -Jmh123 20:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability

Two recently added quotes were removed under WP:Verifiability. The quote about "opening doors" was sourced to HX magazine. HX is not a reliable source, it's a free distribution -- a giveaway. The quote sourced to Advocate cannot be verified. That an interview took place can be verified from the page that comes up, but there's no content from the interview which can be verified. Though Advocate itself is reliable, the content quoted cannot be verified from the source. Under WP:Verifiability "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." 72.68.125.217 10:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

What if I have both magazines sitting right in front of me, and I see the quotes with my very two eyes? Do I have to make a scan of them and upload them somewhere? Do sources have to be online sources in order to be verifiable? I'm totally unclear about this and still unclear after your explanation and link to WP:Verifiability. I'm not trying to sound difficult, I'm just unaware at this point and would appreciate a clear explanation. Thank you. -216.57.17.234 10:34, 19 July 2007

Please read WP:Verifiability for an explanation of Verifiability. Please also read WP:BLP, Sources, for an explanation of reliable sources for adding biographical material about a living person. FX HX magazine is not considered a reliable source. Advocate is reliable, but you piggybacked the quote you added onto the reference that was already there. That reference cited the web, not the paper magazine. The interview itself is not found on the web source, only the fact that an interview took place. Looking at it another way: if the reader sees the quote from the Advocate interview, and he wants to read the whole interview, he will not find it at the web source, he has to go to the paper source to read the interview. If you want to use the paper magazine as a source, you must cite the paper magazine. And, if you can properly source the paper magazine, please do not start the sentence with a quotation, that's poor writing style, unworthy of an encyclopedic article. You can always paraphrase the quotation, just be sure to cite the source. It is your responsibility to correctly cite reliable sources if you want to add content. Essentially, you must properly source any content you add, or else it can be removed by anybody. 71.127.224.163 18:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Geez, who chose the shrillest template to put at the top of the page? Augurr 22:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Television additions

Kindly source the RuPaul addition. Also, the same reference for Ricki Lake was given for XXX -- kindly source this. Anything unsourced can be removed by anybody. The source for Ricki Lake is not that great: imdb is notoriously unreliable -- even the title on the page cited has four question marks after the title. What's up with that? Better to cite Lake's info if you can find it. 72.76.4.18 15:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Problem with penis size information

The information in this article is used as criterion for inclusion in the list at Human penis size#Men famous for their large penis as well as Category:Men with unusually large penis. Now, more than 50 names have been included, and there have been objections raised strong enough that both the list and the category are currently targeted for deletion. Placing this posting uniformly on the talk pages of the articles concerned, I would firstly encourage editors to make sure reliable sourcing is provided to support the claims regarding penis size. Secondly, editors might wish to involve themselves in the discussions taking place at Talk:Human penis size and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. __meco 13:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the J D Ferguson Interview cited by 216.57.17.234

The interview cited is part of a blog by J D Ferguson, posted at Paper Magazine. As such, it comes under the heading of self-published blogs as defined under Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Sources, and is therefore not allowable. You must follow the guidelines for reliable sources as established by WP, not by your self-serving and incorrect interpretation of those guidelines. Do not add this material again. 72.68.119.72 18:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Editor 216.57.17.234, you have twice added the material mentioned above and the material from gaycities.com which is sourced to blogs. Blogs are not reliable sources and are not allowable. This has all been said before, yet you persist in adding this material. If you should add it again, I will seek admin intervention. I don't care if you're Treivas, (alias) Lucas, or mucous, or if you're Reznor, Fink or stink -- this material will not stand in this article. 72.76.83.10 19:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Editor 216.57.17.234, you have twice added the material mentioned above and the material from gaycities.com which is sourced to blogs. Blogs are not reliable sources and are not allowable. This has all been said before, yet you persist in adding this material. If you should add it again, I will seek admin intervention. I don't care if you're Treivas, (alias) Lucas, or mucous, or if you're Reznor, Fink or stink -- this material will not stand in this article. 72.76.83.10 19:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

This is neither Lucas nor Fink. You are not reading the rules correctly. According to the rules, "self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs" are not considered reliable sources. The key word here is self-published. Lucas' own blog cannot be considered a reliable source, and all lifted quotes from it should be deleted. If your assessment that NO BLOGS WHATSOEVER can be sourced, then I suggest you remove the sourced references from GayPornBlog, Somethingjewish.co.uk, Gothamist, WallStreetJournal Blog, and others. If that truly is the case, that NO BLOGS WHATSOEVER can be sourced ever, Wikipedia would probably cease to exist. Read the rules again, and stop hiding under different IP addresses every time you post something in this discussion. It discredits you even further, dude. 216.57.17.234 10:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I would not talk about discrediting oneself if I were you -- one need only look at your editing history. Lucas's blog is allowable because self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs are not allowable "unless written or published by the subject of the article." Read the rules yourself, thoroughly, not just the parts you want to apply. Whether or not the content you want to add is self-published is irrelevant: it's sourced to a blog not published by reliable sources, as such it is not allowed. You have never been a good faith editor and you seek only to impose your POV on this article, that is, whitewash and sanitize the bio of Treivas (Lucas). 72.68.31.164 17:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

1 month semiprotection

I have semiprotected this article for one month. Please report future sourcing and biographies of living persons policy problems to the biographies of living persons noticeboard. Suggest article content request for comment to draw in broader feedback. Durova^Charge! 18:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Serious Problems with this Article

1) it contains way too many lists including 2 or more trivia sections! 2) It is written in many sections like an advertisement promoting Mucas Ent films, etc... this is unencyclopedic! 3) It has many areas of unimportant original researsch and is like a fan site. 4) It is missing quotes and many of the citations do not verify the text that they are supposed to reference! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.42.67 (talk) 17:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I find the above unsigned post troubling: it's so filled with inaccuracies and misinterpretations. The material presented in tabular form is best presented so. The article has but one trivia section named Miscellanea -- that section presents facts giving unique insight into the personality of the subject. There is no advertising of products anywhere in the article; simply listing product lines is not advertising them. There are no areas of original research: to say that the subject appears or stars in his own films is certainly not original research, nor are any of the other OR tagged parts. This bio is no fan site. To say that the article is "missing quotes" is meaningless. There is not a single instance where the reference cited does not verify the text. I'm reverting to the last good version, removing the ludicrous edits. --72.68.112.25 11:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I found a way to integrate most of the trivia into text, which is a better way of presenting this information. I removed the quotes section, though: WP is not a soapbox, and any quotes we do give without providing context had better be really significant: these were merely sourced. Mangojuice^talk 15:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I did some follow-up on the cite tags, and was able to verify some of the information. Some unverified info I deleted. In future, the Lucas team could just add the proper cites instead of deleting tags, ne? -Jmh123 19:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to the guy who has FINALLY started improving this article. The 2nd Anon comment is wrong... There is still too much trivia and if you read the citations carefully they do not always verify what the text says! Also anything linked to a"Lucas" website is a self-published source... There is still some clean-up to do here and still a lot of lists. Some creativity and mergin will make this more readable. Roz Lipschitz 01:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Please tag any statement which is not verified by a citation, and remove any incorrect citation. Be sure and check the form for lists of films directed/starred in and so forth when editing these lists. Try to be consistent with the entries of others in the applicable categories (see bottom of page). Thanks. -Jmh123 01:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The "Personal Life" section is still quite unencyclopedic - things that are happening in the present (this is not world politics boyz n gurls!) are not appropriate. Also, the comments about Viagra, sleeping pills, self tanners, whether or not he opens his window blinds, names of his pets, who he sleeps with and the street in NYC he lives on are totally inappropriate - - A MAJOR clean-up is still needed to bring this article up to WP standards! I do wish that all these articles on porn stars had some one like Jmh123 to help improve them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.42.65 (talk) 05:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm so not interested in the job.  :) I think a great many of the articles on porn stars in Wikipedia ought to be deleted myself, as they are simply not notable individuals. Just my opinion. I believe many of the articles are remnants from when Wikipedia was freely used as a promotional tool by some members of the porn industry. These days there is a sincere effort on the part of some editors to improve those articles, and I'll happily leave it to them. This entry could definitely use some unbiased revisions and improvements from uninvolved editors. It is essentially a foundation of self-promotion with some efforts to balance layered in by editors who are decidedly not his fans (but reliably sourced and verified, usually quotations from the man himself). -Jmh123 17:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I divided the biography section, and added a new subsection that contained a variety of material with a catch-all subhead. Feel free to refine that in any way that seems suitable. -Jmh123 19:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is still full of Orignal Researsch and still has Auto-biographical traits. "Lucas Blogs" and Lucas created websites and things that he says 1st hand that are not REPORTED by a reliable 3rd party are not acceptable references! Also the list is way too long and it needs external links listed so they can be verified. Afterall, anyone can just make up a list of titles. They need to be able to be referenced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.42.65 (talk) 20:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Please sign your comments with four tildes. Thanks. Material published by an individual may be used in an article about that individual in some circumstances. See WP:SELFPUB. Feel free to provide any reliable source that contradicts any information sourced to the individual. I agree about the lists, but that is just our opinion. There is precedent for such lists in other entries; see other porn film directors for comparison. Feel free to make any edits you think are appropriate. -Jmh123 20:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Please don't get carried away with the tags. Thanks. -Jmh123 20:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a VERY BAD article - my friend asked me to read it and I agree that EVERYTHING from Lucas Blog is totally and 100% utterly unencyclopedic and very inappropriate for WP -- this article should be cut by 60% -- most everything in here is hearsay, self-published and unimportant! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.86.123.229 (talk) 04:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Methinks there is too much protesting going on here. Would rather both extremes yield to a middle ground that will only be discouraged from getting involved by all this whining. Point has been made and acknowledged. -Jmh123 04:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Look, here's the deal. If this doesn't stop I'm just going to have to ask for the page to be protected. Putting tags all over the article isn't the answer to your problems here. -Jmh123 05:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's the deal -- this article has problems that are not being fixed and MUST be tagged until such time that it is! This is not a gossip magazine -- Many of the citations are not appropriate and this article still talks about things that are personal reflections and essays and they needto be removed! Protecting the page will only draw attention to the need to fix it... This page has been protected before! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.86.123.229 (talk) 12:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Please sign your comments with four tildes. The tags you added are inappropriate. As I have already told you, the author is an acceptable source in an article about himself. There are only three references to his blog. The other material is sourced to interviews with the subject, and is in sources relevant to the subject's career. I placed a notice on Conflict of interest noticeboard. One individual came and removed some material that was clearly trivial. I see no further action that I can take. Please look around Wikipedia and see what recourse you may have, since you disagree with me--Requests for comment, Articles for deletion, and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons noticeboard are possibilities. -Jmh123 14:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I have been trying to get pictures and other things to make this more interesting for a while. There were problems on here but what is left is minor.Roz Lipschitz 22:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Article has been improved. Please comment if you see remaining problems

Comparing a version from 29 August with the current version, I see an article that is well referenced, balanced, and free of most of the trivia. I still think the 'Credits' section is excessive and I'd shorten it if the information were well-presented anywhere else on the web. So far I haven't found an adequate listing, but maybe parts of the credits could be summarized, especially his appearances in films as a cast member. Certainly his individual TV appearances aren't notable, though the fact that he has appeared at all is. Please comment on the current version of the article. EdJohnston 10:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you about the credits, and this has been commented about before on this page by others. There's an exhaustive list here: [4] and it's linked as a reference in the entry. Could someone else other than me take on the pruning of this list, just so that's it's done by a completely uninvolved editor? Thanks. -Jmh123 03:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I considered various ways of shortening the credits, but I noticed that the list at www.lucasentertainment.com is a pretty good summary, that is, the list cited above by Jmh123. So how about replacing the entire 'Credits' section with a citation of that reference? The body of the article already refers to his more noteworthy films, so it's hard to see that a big laundry list is needed under 'Credits.' Please let me know your thoughts. EdJohnston 18:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Just as an FYI for the future, according to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pornography a maximum of six credits should be listed: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pornography#Filmographies. -Jmh123 23:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

That sounds great! There are some minor ways that the long lists of all the subject's works can be improved too (make it more exciting to the reader!). Also, the last few paragraphs of the article itself can be re-worded slightly to make them flow better and if words are selected a bit more carefully the "citations needed" can be removed as well as the "self-published sources" kept. (regardless there are SELF-Published sources in this as it is! But they can be made more appropriate for the article!); They just need to be presented properly. I personally would have loved to work on this article but I find that anyone but the select "approved few" who attemptes to write anything on this article gets attacked. I understand these people's enthusiasm for the subject but WP is supposed to be open to all. This article has improved so much and is so close to being just EXCELLENT -- please posish it to its finest! Robin Redford 18:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

No one is going to attack you for reasonable edits; excessive tagging is a different story. At any rate, I have done some further polishing of this entry, grouping topics together, establishing a narrative flow. I think it's looking pretty good now. We really need a reliable source for the anti-drug ads (and what publications they were in) & the Advocate interview link no longer works. Another thing: from what I've seen in the interviews and Blade columns, Lucas uses quite provocative language. There was some in the article, but it was removed as original research. He's caused a stir with his column on Islam as well as the ones mentioned in the article regarding Judaism. Some indication of the way he speaks is, I think, encyclopedic. -Jmh123 05:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, so if he makes tactless comments, we have no reason to exclude them. There would be more reason to actually *include* the comments if reliable sources had reported on them. Verbatim quotes from his blog are legal if they are germane, but I think that remains to be shown in some of the cases. His anti-drug campaign is notable because the The Advocate reported on it. EdJohnston 14:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

All you need is the ISSN number of the Advocate and the date of the issue. It is ok to reference things that can't immediately be found on the Net. Books, journals, magazines, newspapers as long as they are cited properly and can be looked up. Yes this article is looking so much better! Robin Redford 23:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Found it, thanks. I'd still like a source or at least some names of publications for these ads in national publications that are referred to. I have included a few comments from the NY Blade column he writes weekly (not his blog) to demonstrate his characteristic mode of speech and illustrate the controversies he has stirred up. If it's too much, feel free to prune. -Jmh123 03:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks to everyone who has been involved in improving this article, especially this week. Despite the various forms of gaming the system that were going on here, useful contributions came from all parties who regularly edit here as well as from many good folks who came to help.

Lucas, there's no rule against speaking up about what you would like to see or not see in your entry, but it's better if you don't enter it youself. See WP:COI and WP:Autobiography#If_Wikipedia_already_has_an_article_about_you which says:

It is difficult to write neutrally and objectively about oneself (see above about unconscious biases). You should let others do the writing.

Contributing material or making suggestions on the article's talk page is considered proper—let independent editors write it into the article itself or approve it if you still want to make the changes yourself.

Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it should be a secondary or tertiary source—it should not contain any "new" information or theories (see Wikipedia:No original research) and all information should have checkable third-party references. Facts, retellings of events, and clarifications which you may wish to have added to an article about yourself must be verifiable by third parties.

Someone who has strong negative feelings towards Lucas may be equally capable of having a conflict of interest and should also show restraint. -Jmh123 06:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Fix lede please

The first sentence is ok, the other two are dodgey and none of his extensive work is referenced or what if anything he is notable for. Benjiboi 01:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:PEACOCK?

I suggest that this edit might be reverted. One is not shocked to find that an entrepreneur is the founder and CEO of his own company. If we already know that he runs a small company that creates videos, it doesn't add much to his dignity, nor is it very informative, to give him the roles of writer, producer, director, etc. EdJohnston

done. Jeffpw 06:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I included it as being a producer and director are unique from owning a porn company and being a porn actor. The lede needs further refinement so perhaps that he is indeed a writer, producer and director can be reintroduced in future versions. Benjiboi 09:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Dead or Alive

There is an ugly rumor going around that Michael Lucas died. I have been trying to researsch any sitings or public appearances of this porn star / director and there have been none. I do not know how to confirm whether he is dead or alive but I hear that he has died. No references to a death in this article but it is important to know the truth. Fuzzyred (talk) 09:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't trade in rumors. I have searched all news sources and can'tfind a single reference to his death. Do not update the article with this rumor unless there is a reliable source saying that he actually died (and reliable sources do not include blogs or forum posts saying this. Let's wait until the NY Times or something equally as reliable says it). Jeffpw (talk) 09:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree. No rumors, as it's a Biographies of living persons violation (plus others) without reliable sources, and I can't find any either. — Becksguy (talk) 09:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

This rumor has been going around since Dean Johnson died, and at least since October when I interviewed Michael Musto. --David Shankbone 16:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

TO WIKIPEDIA FROM MICHAEL LUCAS

Hi Guys,

This is Michael Lucas, and I thought I would throw in my 2 cents, as I believe I am the one who knows the truth about myself better than anyone else who is commenting on this site.

First, I am not 6'2" tall. I am 6'.

Second, I never had the name "Andrei Treivas Bregman." My birth name is "Andrei Treivas." Treivas is my mother's name. She chose to gave me this name as my father's name Bregman was obviously very "Jewish" and my parents wanted to spare me from Anti-Semitism. Not that it worked. I have no idea why New York Magazine chose to give me the name "Andrei Treivas Bregman." I have recently legally changed my real name, Andrei Treivas to my stage name, Michael Lucas. I will be happy to produce my legal documents on any of this for anyone.

Next, my movie "Michael Lucas' La Dolce Vita" is not a remake of Fellini's film "La Dolce Vita." It has its own script, and if any of you ever saw the movie, you will see that the only similarity with Fellini's film is the fountain scene. The scene is a few minutes long, and it is less than 1 percent of the movie.

I am still fighting in court over this second issue. Wikipedia's editors, and I believe in particular one editor, make it sound like the court is against me and that I did something wrong. In fact, the judge so far has been ruling in my favor. The transcript of the ruling of the judge's decision against the injunction is available. Why did Wikipedia choose to only quote the attorney for the plaintiff and not my attorney? This is incredibly unfair and imbalanced. It shows me has the one who is wrong when I have never been proven wrong, and based on the way things are going, will never be proven wrong.

Also, about my articles on Hassidic Judaism and Islam.... the Wikipedia article says: "His Blade columns on Islam have also invited a negative response." With the word "also", you are uniting my trip to Israel with my criticism of Islam. Let me point out to you that this is absolutely not true. Simply go to Ynet: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3293013,00.html. The comments are both positive and negative. There are 107 comments. More than half are in support of my trip. I also have the most praiseful articles in the top newspapers in Tel-Aviv, as I did a press conference before my show. I have all the articles. And let me point out that I've performed in Israel at least 4 times in different clubs in Tel-Aviv and Haifa, and always to a full house. Same with my criticism of Hassidic Jews, I receive mostly supportive comments. You can check my blog, and there are many other sources which I will be happy to provide.

And last, but not least, I don't think it's particularly cool to start an article about a CEO of the biggest adult company on the East Coast by describing him as a "prostitute." I understand there are many haters out there, but I truly believe that Wikipedia does not reflect on anything positive that I did in more than 10 years in the United States. There are hundreds and hundreds of articles written in mainstream magazines that praise me for raising the bar in adult movie-making, for creating the highest quality films that won Best Picture two years in a row. I am recognized as the most mainstreamed gay adult model in the world, and here is just a short list of the mainstream sources I have appeared in (not including hundreds of mentions in adult magazines and blogs and covers of hundreds of adult magazines):

The Howard Stern Show, Late Night with Conan O'Brien, The Ricki Lake Show, HBO, VH1, MSNBC, and LOGO, and in HBO's documentary and book "Thinking XXX," The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, New York Magazine, GQ, The Village Voice, V Magazine, Out, The Advocate, Genre, Paper, Butt, Blue, Attitude, New York Post, NY Daily News.

I am sorry to see that this Wikipedia page is being hijacked by a few who hate me and want to degrade my image.

Best regards,

Michael Lucas

Michaellucas72 (talk) 05:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Hi Michael - we corresponded briefly before my own trip to Israel. The main problem you have here is that there are mainstream, reputable sources that state what is above. Wikipedia doesn't 'set trends' or spread rumor, but if information is well-sourced, you will have a difficult time asking it be removed, and the prostitute mention is in the Wall Street Journal, New York Magazine, and at least several others. In my e-mails with you, you didn't seem to have any idea how so many sources could print the same narrative, with no attempt by you to fix that very delicate information. Regarding the rest of your issues, I think there is a good deal of compromise, and the people on this article want to do you fairly, but unfortunately that includes info we find you may not like. But we'll work with you, and this is the way to do it on, the talk page. Unless someone reverts me, I will make a few of the minor changes. But just a caution: this is an article about your life we attempt to write in a neutral point of view, neither positive nor negative. Just the facts, and right now prostitute is too well-documented. I wouldn't think in your industry people would really care. --David Shankbone 07:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikinews interview with Michael Lucas

I'm interviewing Michael Lucas on Sunday. There are two purposes to this interview: 1. to clarify problems he has with his Wikipedia page (even if we don't remove info, we can give his side); and 2. to talk philosophically about the porn industry and life. If you have a question you'd like to ask Mr. Lucas, please leave it on my talk page. --David Shankbone 01:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Bregman or not?

Soviet passport of Michael Lucas showing "Andre Treivas".

Soviet shows that his born name is Andre Treivas (although it notes his father's name is "Bregman", although that name was never given to the child).

U.S. Passport of Michael Lucas

There seems to be some conflicting information about this name. First, most of the sources that use "Bregman" refer specifically to the La Dolce Vita case. According to Lucas, in the court papers they state that is not his name, and the Plaintiffs said they filed the papers using the name they got from Wikipedia. Second, in his blog Lucas says that his father had the name Bregman; there is no indication he ever adopted his father's name or that it was given to him. I don't know why Lucas would steadfastly deny that he is really "Andre Treivas" and not "Andre Trevias Bregman" (sic?). I will ask him on Wikinews when I interview him this Saturday. It's a question; but for now I think we should err on the WP:BLP side, and assume that since this person has publicly made an issue that some basic facts are wrong, and they are the best source, until the question is cleared up I think we should leave it just Trevias. Thoughts? --David Shankbone 00:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I mean, he says right above "Second, I never had the name "Andrei Treivas Bregman." My birth name is "Andrei Treivas." Treivas is my mother's name. She chose to gave me this name as my father's name Bregman was obviously very "Jewish" and my parents wanted to spare me from Anti-Semitism. Not that it worked. I have no idea why New York Magazine chose to give me the name "Andrei Treivas Bregman." I have recently legally changed my real name, Andrei Treivas to my stage name, Michael Lucas. I will be happy to produce my legal documents on any of this for anyone." Wikipedia generally sides with the person on issues like this, especially when they make public corrections, as Lucas claims to have done in the court proceedings. --David Shankbone 00:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing after looking at this [5], but I agree with what you said about erring on the WP:BLP side and leaving it out until the interview. I'm not sure it's that big of a deal anyway.--AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 00:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP means that we need to err on the side that is best sourced. This means using the New York Times rather than Michael himself. Also, [6] seems to indicate that the name "Bregman" comes up more frequently than just relating to the La Dolce Vita case. I don't care enough about this to keep warring, but if somebody else feels like changing it, they are in the right with regard to WP:BLP -Todd(Talk-Contribs) 01:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

That's absolutely ridiculous, especially when the person continually says, "Hello - you have no sources saying I said it is my name, but my father's name, and someone who used Wikipedia as a source in court filings." We do not rename people on this site. This is where people get ridiculous with, "Well, I found a source, so too bad Michael Lucas, you were born Bregman now!" Don't be preposterous. --David Shankbone 02:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing something like this can be difficult, but if the main source for "Andrei Treivas" vs "Andrei Treivas Bregman" is Michael himself, I'm afraid I would have to suggest that perhaps he is less than reliable. The Wikipedia edit that added Bregman to the article is right here, and the source used was published a day before this change, so this is not a case of Wikipedia being the active source in 'renaming'. If you can find a more reliable source than the one that uses Bregman, please cite it in the article. Determining what his true name is is beyond the scope of Wikipedia, we can only print what reliable sources state, otherwise we devolve into Original Research, which definitely goes against WP:BLP. As I said before, I don't care enough about this to continue editing in his father's last name, just find a resource that is at least as reliable as the current one used. I would prefer to have the version that Lucas approves of, as long as it is properly sourced -Todd(Talk-Contribs) 03:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No, you are wrong, and perhaps you should contact User:Jimbo or better User:Bastique about what they do when Wikipedia continually publishes incorrect information on a WP:BLP the person tries to correct. I personally know some stories-do you? The fact is, the source that is best to determine a person's birth name is that person themselves. Lucas has already come out and said, "Bregman was my father's name." So what is he trying to hide here, exactly, that you feel the need to call him a liar? "All his life Michael Lucas was known as Bregman but now he doesn't want it known that was his name from birth...but he'll admit it was his father's name." Is that really your argument here? You deciding the person is a liar is your own POV and it does not subscribe to WP:BLP, especially when the person gives a more than reasonable explanation both on their Talk page and with a trusted Wikipedian. Get real. You trying to ascertain there might be some reason he doesn't want to be known as Bregman is wholly unacceptable when the person reaches out. So, brush up on policy and guideline, and why don't you ask an admin or two as well. Better yet, ask the BLP board yourself if you think you are so in the right. I'd love to discuss it there. Yes, I'm challenging you, if that means we'll correct these incorrect notions you have in your head. --David Shankbone 04:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I really don't care enough about Michael Lucas to continue this conversation. User:Jimbo and User:Bastique only step in on a small number of articles, and very rarely to officiate this type of original research you speak of. I accept that Michael does not wish to have his father's last name in this artcle, and don't automatically assume that it is because 'it is fact'. I also accept that the anonymous troll most likely wants that information in the article simply because of the distant unlikely possibility that maybe perhaps Michael might lose a fraction of a second of sleep over it. Seeing as how you are a well-to-do gay male from New York, I suspect that you are friends with Michael's, and hence your interest in this is very closely aligned with his. I am of the opinion that Michael Lucas makes up trivial bullshit all the time for attention, and thus makes for a particularly unreliable resource. Thus it is my opinion that the troll is currently correct. As I'm not particularly fond of this troll, I would prefer somebody find a better source so that this does not end up going to the BLP board, where perhaps they decide to respect the subject's wishes, or perhaps they prefer to side with the more reliable sources (there have been plenty of cases where they have let blatant character assassination through). Would not the be the preferred solution be to find some better sources? As I'm not going to bother edit warring to include such trivial information, and the troll is blocked from making such petty edits, this gives plenty of time to find the stronger solution. The legal documents you speak of at the top of this topic could make a more reliable resource if you can find. Otherwise, if Michael really wishes to seal all doubt, I'm sure it would not be much trouble for him to get an article published about him in a reliable source that includes his birth name, if one does not already exist. Your case is currently not as strong as you make it out to be, and it would only take a little bit to make it bullet-proof. -Todd(Talk-Contribs) 04:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I no more know every gay person in New York City than you know every straight person in yours. What you are showing is that you are making a lot of assumption. You are assuming that Lucas is lying. You are assuming that NY Magazine did some kind of fact-checking. You are assuming to believe one source over another[7]. You are assuming there is some reason why 1. Lucas will admit his father's name is Bregman; 2. that Lucas would then say he never had his father's name when he really did. Why? What motivation would Lucas have? You are already assuming Lucas is lying - why not keep up your guesswork and try to formulate a reason why. These are the kinds of things that make us look ridiculous - giving a person a new name simply because erroneous information was printed in "reliable" sources (like NY Magazine, a local entertainment guide). --David Shankbone 15:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, okay then. You should probably change the reference to <ref>Michael Lucas told me so personally</ref>, and <ref>Somebody on Wikipedia claiming to be Michael Lucas said so</ref>, or you could go get some real sources like I suggested, as that would make the article stronger. But, whatever. -Todd(Talk-Contribs) 01:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

It certainly would be preferable than "I don't care that has never been his name, let's make Wikipedia look ridiculous and give him a new name because it's been erroneously reported." But I think photographic documentation on the Talk page is enough, and if anyone is confused they can be directed there. Or we can source to the sources that say "born Andre Treivas" - you simply were going off the sources you wanted. --David Shankbone 21:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I for one don't think we should give him a new name, and I don't see anything wrong with removing the name given the dispute. However I am uncomfortable with using a primary source in this matter especially one hosted on wikipedia, particularly when there is, from what I can tell, no secondary source which supports the name. If there was a secondary source and we were using the primary source to verify the secondary source because of a dispute between two secondary sources, that might be acceptable. Although even in this case, I would say it would be far better if we weren't the host for the primary source. Indeed it would be far better if rather then a birth certificate, it was something like a commentry from Michael Lucas on his blog confirming his real name (e.g. you may have noticed many sources quote by name as XYZ, but that source A quotes by name as XY, source A has it right). Or even better, a correction from a secondary source that they got the detail wrong. This isn't a matter of rules lawyering, simply that we shouldn't be publishing information from primary sources, especially not original documents like birth certificates. If other sources are getting the details wrong and the person cares, then they really should be complaining to the secondary sources, not us. If they don't then IMHO the best we can do is to remove the info until a secondary source publishes the correct info rather then using birth certificates we host to verify the info. And just to be clear, I find the conspirary theories just as bizzare as you. I'm not doubting the authenticity of the birth certificate just saying we need to be careful about using it. In any case, I've raised this issue at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Michael Lucas (porn star) which is the best place for such matters to be dealt with. Nil Einne (talk) 12:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

(de-indenting) Wikipedia can never serve as a reliable source for Wikipedia articles on topics such as this. I am aware that this sometimes defies common sense, but that is the consequence of our core content policies. If these photos or a third-party reliable source identifies him in his preferred manner, then I think we can surely cite that. We cannot cite ourselves as an authority. Even when we really want to. Nandesuka (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I raised this issue at ANI. --David Shankbone 18:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

This is one of the most absurd examples of rules lawyering I have seen on this project. We have a copy of Lucas' birth certificate stating what his birth name was. To suggest that this (an official document) is not more reliable than a piece written by a journalist (which reflects his own research) is self-manifestly ridiculous. It is exactly this sort of thing that gives Wikipedia a negative reputation among onlookers. Here we are able to establish the correct info, we should include it. WjBscribe 18:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

This alleged birth certificate is written in Russian using the Cyrillic alphabet. Who here aside from Bregman reads Russian to certify what it says? Plus the image can be doctored, and it surely is not a "certified copy."--72.76.88.140 (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

(Cross-posted to ANI) Hi, I read cyrillic, as a matter of fact. I transliterate his name in the documents supplied as "Andrei Lvovich Treivas" (or "Treyvas" would work as well), "Lvovich" being Mr. Treivas' patronymic. Also, did a quick search and found this link to a book that may help: [8]. Once you get there, click the "see inside" button at the bottom of the cover art. His name is mentioned in the first sentence. Hope that meets everyone's needs. IronDuke 23:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I also can read it, and am seeing the same as IronDuke. He seems to have a father Lev Bregman and a mother Elena Treyvas - not sure why he got the mother's name, but it's clear enough. I also agree with WJB regarding rules. Orderinchaos 10:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with WJBscribe here - this is farcical. Occam's Razor indicates that rather than hypothesising some sort of conspiracy involving, among other things, falsification of passports, we should accept at face value the identity and evidence as presented. Magazines get minor facts wrong all the time, painting ourselves into a corner rather than admit to this well-known truth would seem to be an exercise in self-delusion. Guy (Help!) 15:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to note that the IP is now vandalizing the photographs at Commons [9]. --David Shankbone 16:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

New photos from Lucas Entertainment

In case there are any questions: The new photos definitely come from Lucas Entertainment. When I went to interview him, I helped Michael Lucas pick out some good photos for the site (this one and this one and he apparently decided to release two more GFDL. I've been in contact with both Lucas and his PR people, as has User:WJBscribe. --David Shankbone 13:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Archive?

The page seems rather long and some conversations date back to 2006. APK ^{yada yada} 02:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, archive the entire thing. --David Shankbone 03:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Done. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Image issues

I know we have better images of Lucas. The lede image is particularly in need of replacing, we can't see his face and the flag should probably be editing out (if it's to remain in the lede). I suggest moving that down and adding a caption that he's political in regards to the flag to give it context.

The group photo is lovely but also unhelpful, as hot as some of those guys are Lucas is, again, hard to see, amongst the many. As a suggestion, photos with only a handful of people seem to get in closer.

I came here looking for a photo to use but these are not as good, IMHO, as the ones we used to have here. I'm guessing some were deleted but I'm unsure of that. Banjeboi 19:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the history of the article, the last image that was used is right here: [[Image:Michael Lucas 2 by David Shankbone.jpg]]

Of course that image might be too large if you plan on using it inside of Wikipedia, so something like [[Image:Michael Lucas 2 by David Shankbone.jpg|225px]] or [[Image:Michael Lucas 2 by David Shankbone.jpg|500px]] might be more appropriate. -Todd(Talk-Contribs) 19:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a great photo! Thanks for finding it. -- Banjeboi 00:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Heads up

Just to give anyone watching this article a head's up, the interview with Michael Lucas is up for deletion at Commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Michael_Lucas_to_David_Shankbone_on_the_Iraq_War.ogg#Image:Michael_Lucas_to_David_Shankbone_on_the_Iraq_War.ogg by an editor who claims it doesn't matter if Wikipedia is using a file, he can still delete it for being useless (which doesn't make sense, if a file is in use it's automatically useful.) -Nard 19:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

You're playing the mixer again nard.

I challenge the educational value of this file. It may will shock you that there are also files which are educational and in use in a wikipedian project but useless, because they are a copyrightviolation (just for info, because of "he can still delete it for being useless").

To all those people who watch this page: Please tell me what is the educational use of this file (I know that Michael Lucas is talking about the iraq qar, but again: I challenge that it is relevant what he thinks about the iraq war)

I'm sure some of you don't share my opinion.

--D-Kuru (talk) 12:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Get rid of the porn images

There is no need to show the "making of a gay porn film" in a Micheal Lucas article. Especially one that actually depicts a hardcore scene, I'm deleting the image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.237.18 (talk) 03:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

You might want to review WP:NOTCENSORED. The image in question is not overly graphic and barely shows one guy's butt. It is germane to the subject, too. No reason to remove it. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Not overly graphic? It shows three men undressed in an orgy. How is that not graphic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.113.180.236 (talk) 10:02, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty damn hot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.147.172.177 (talk) 17:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I just stumbled across this discussion and wanted to point out that a photograph, by definition, is graphic. Hypersquared (talk) 00:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

New York Magazine

The articles from New York Magazine are not all about "people who made it to the top, but arrived to the city with very little". It is more about various memories of their experience by the people who've made a name for themselves in New York. As an example, Diane von Furstenberg is featured in this article, and when she first arrived to NYC, she was a princess (after her marriage to Prince Egon Von Furstenberg). Shu ster (talk) 01:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

No move option?

Why is there no move option? I wanted to move the title to Michael Lucas (pornography) because he does more than directing. Asarelah (talk) 17:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Such as what? -->David Shankbone 17:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Such as performing and running a studio. Asarelah (talk) 19:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Directing style.

There should be a section on his directing style. Zazaban (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)