Talk:Lightspeed Media Corporation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Furthermore, this article should not even exist as it's just a gossip, with little factual information

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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lightspeed Media Corporation article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Contents 1 Unverifable information 2 Stalker-Bait and Hearsay Removed 3 Argument over borderline 4 Personal details of porn performers - say what? 5 Template:Female adult bio 6 Midwest? 7 Tori Stone 8 External Links 9 Clean up 10 The road to hell is paved with good intentions... 11 Review sites 12 Wait a sec! 13 Jordan Capri 14 this is vital information 15 Why does this exist? 16 Removal of personal details 17 Remind 3rd parties who use your articles to update 18 Linked articles 19 Most anything can be interesting 20 what the hell

[edit] Unverifable information

"She announced her retirement from the industry in September 2005 to focus on her education and part-time jobs."

This never happened, she had a fit on the forums and claimed the industry was negative. http://www.dazereader.com/24000880.htm

[edit] Stalker-Bait and Hearsay Removed

I've removed all the unfounded hearsay in the discussion page, pending permanent purge by the administrators. If it is even true, for which there is no evidence other than "some dude on an internet site said its true"... then its exposing this woman and her family to all sorts of problems. If its not true, its gossip. Either way it serves no purpose on Wikipedia. Murple 21:58, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Argument over borderline

-Listing what schools she went to in the past is definitely *not* 'stalker-material', it's simple biographical information. We try to include the same on many biographies, so this is no different.

-We always list the "real name" of people using pennames, see John Wayne for example.

-Listing her employment as a teenager is no more stalking, than listing any other actor's youth employer, and it's common to see that "such and such used to work at McDonalds" or such. Sherurcij 17:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

John Wayne wasn't in danger of being stalked because people knew his real name. If you disagree, well, you have other avenues at your disposal. Personally, I fail to see how she's notable, and propose an AFD. AND STOP LINKING JORDAN CAPRI WITH HER REAL NAME, there's no reason for that whatsoever and THAT is why I call your motives into question. --Golbez 18:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

You're more than welcome to start an AfD, or ask for a peer review or any other course of action you deem necessary. But you simply removing information that is NOT out-of-place only hurts the Wikipedia. If I wanted to hear that Tawnee Stone is a Texas girl who can't pay the pizza deliveryman, she has websites I can pay $20 for. If I actually wanted her biography, I'd come to Wikipedia. Going through the Page History you'll see I have been adamant about making sure the 'stalkers' don't add unnecessary information to the article, so I'm well aware of your position. However I feel you're being too draconian by claiming we can't list her actual name or past history. Don't mention her current school/work, but what she did in the past is a valid part of a biography. Sherurcij 18:43, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Tawnee Stone and Jordan Capri are not real people. They are fictiuous identities invented by the studio that promotes them. These roles are well-known and encyclopedic. The actresses that play they are not well-known, rarely verifiable (save extraordinary effort), and not encyclopedic. Real life details about the actresses assumming the identities of Tawnee and Jordan do not belong in this or any other encyclopedia. Having such information here represents a serious invasion of their privacy and in some cases a significant risk to their safety. Dragons flight 18:37, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Dante Hicks is not a real person either, he's a fictiuous identity invented by the studio that promotes him. Brian O'Halloran isn't well-known, but because he was the actor who played the well-known role, he has an article on Wikipedia - that's the way it works. Sherurcij 18:43, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

But I suspect O'Halloran openly shops his resume under his real name and has his actual name appear in the film credits right? How many pornographic models do that? Pornographic actresses go to considerable lengths to ensure that their real life indentities are not connected to their screen identity and we should not be making that connection for them, regardless of how good some of us might be at ferreting out those details. Dragons flight 19:04, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Thats messed up Sherurcij. Brian O'Halloran probably doesn't go out of his way to keep people from knowing he's Dante Hicks. Also, this discussion page and (before I editted it) linked to personal details on the girl's brothers. How is that at all relevant? There is absolutely no excuse for putting someone in an encyclopedia saying "this guy's sister does porn, that's the way it works"... That's disgusting and indefensible. Also, even aside from all the ethical issues, the information presented here is all hearsay. It's little more than "this guy on the internet said he knows who she is!" Until Tawnee Stone publishes an official biography and makes a public statement that she is so-and-so and wants to be identified as Tawnee Stone... hell, there's just so many things wrong with this article on so many levels. It ought to be deleted, and its history and talk pages purged of personal information. Murple 02:16, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Those parts are non-notable. The other parts are endangering.Vizjim 10:33, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

You're sort of ignoring that most of the other porn stars in the Category:Porn stars have real biographical information listed for them, including birth names, cities, and years. Why should Capri and Stone be any differet? Riobranden 10:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Some choose to use their real names, that is fine and their choice. Some do not. Before it was deleted, Wikipedia was literally the only site in google claiming to know Jordan Capri's real name. We are not here to out these women. For Tawnee, the only connection we have been her and the real name being attributed to her are several postings on web forums. That fails that standards of Wikipedia:Verifiability. Encyclopedia are not a source of primary research. If a porn star's details have already been made public we should (and do) use them, but we shouldn't be relying on web gossip to do so. (It's just one point, but imagine how ugly it could get if we made a wrong association). Dragons flight 10:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I take your point, though, and I'm trawling through for other instances of this. When a porn performer has continued with her career well into her twenties, has made it her primary source of lifetime income, and (crucially) has revealed her "true" identity voluntarily, then those details should be left there. Otherwise, I'll raise each point with admins as and when I find it. Vizjim 10:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, if there is no good, hard evidence of her real name and her personal life, obviously it has no place in this article. But withholding information from the article just because it supposedly puts her in danger of stalking is just ridiculous. She picked her profession and knew what she was getting herself into. No wikipedia rules or laws are being broken by posting her personal information. Some of you seem to feel you have some kind of agenda to fill protecting porn star identities on the internet. Great! But go elsewhere, because wikipedia is not a place for concealing information from the public for your own personal or other people's benefit. Buzda 03:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The issue about protecting her is debatable. However, the various postings have yet to provide a credible source for what her alleged real name is. All the "sources" are typically blogs, which are about as credible as the Loch Ness Monster. Wahkeenah 09:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal details of porn performers - say what?

I've added to the incident discussion over at the incident log and would welcome additional feedback. The evidence given above amounts to no more than hearsay anyway (and as such violates no original research), but even without that element it is simply wrong (and not encyclopedic) to be listing private details of people whose private identities are meant to be private. If even one person identifies the people involved from this kind of detail, they could lose their jobs, homes, friends, or be stalked or attacked - and Wikipedia would quite possibly be liable. Vizjim 10:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Based on what I read to be broad support among administrators for not keeping records of unverifiable personal details, I have now selectively deleted those portions of the history claiming to identify Tawnee's real name, past and present places of residence and educational history. Dragons flight 00:15, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Female adult bio

Now could someone please explain why Template:Female adult bio has a birthname parameter after all, if we're not allowed to use that parameter? --2004-12-29T22:45Z 19:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Because it's useful for some performers that are famous enough that it doesn't matter. However, it should probably be removed, those names can be in the text. --Golbez 19:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Midwest?

I don't care about Tawnee's bio info or her real name, but it's funny that her own page says she's from "The Midwest" while also claiming to be Texan. Texas is most decidely NOT part of the midwest. But these "unconfirmed" writeups claim she's from Illinois or some such, which obviously is in the midwest, so they might be on to something. Wahkeenah 19:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tori Stone

This article was nominated for deletion on 031205. The result of the discussion was no consensus. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

[edit] External Links

Please see: WP:NOT.

I checked and most of the links are nothing more than commercial spam sites. Heck, most of the "information" in the article is a joke anyway. The links add nothing and a majority of them are not references. Peyna 14:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Unless there is something that I am not aware of, I thought that references were pretty important, otherwise it cannot conform to WP:V. I have nonetheless trimmed the page of doubling references (same content repeated twice). Other porn articles have explicit content in their links, so I see no reason why this one shouldn't. Unless there is some rule prohibiting such sites to be able to used as references, I cannot see how there can be any justification in removing them. Remove them and you have no article. The article passed AFD. If you think that the article is a "joke" then you should renominate it. Otherwise it will look like personal bias to make such descriptions. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 20:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The article passed the AfD, so that's fine, but right now the "information" used to assemble the page is loaded PR BS and hardly qualify as "verifiable" references. Considering that I don't think this article should exist at all, I'm not going to take the time to clean it up, but if other people think she is worthy of an article, perhaps they ought to make the article more worthy of Wikipedia. Peyna 21:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

As a general rule, the pornographic sites you refer to happen to fall under one of the following: a) official sites, which directly pertain to the person in question; b) filmography sites, notably IAFD and IMDB or c) sites which contain information used in the creation of the article in question. Picture galleries or "reviews" should be avoided, as most of the reviews (sans a few) are likely paid for by the owners of the website receiving the "review". Anything else is just linkcruft and should be removed on the spot. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 22:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

So is it preferred to have no references? All of the sites listed there are either official sites or else reviews of the site. Whilst the reviewers may well have been paid for it (although it seems odd that they were, since they gave far from flattering reviews), its as good as you'll get on this. Removing references could considered to be WP:POV. And as for me having to clean up the article, well, I have no interest in the topic. I just noticed that she was very definitely notable. That's all. If you want to renominate it then go ahead and do so. I don't see why you should demand that I clean it up just because I already did some work on the article. It shouldn't be a requirement that someone who works on an article does more. That's almost like punishing you for good work. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 02:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clean up

I did some more trimming; removing links that were duplicative in nature; as well as repeated information. Reworded anything that was confusing or worded as to give more authority than possible (Nothing at any of these websites can be treated as "official" or "true" in any sense). Also chopped out some POV stuff. Peyna 04:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The road to hell is paved with good intentions...

I think this article should be renominated for deletion again... and, to be quite honest, it's my fault. I didn't nominate it properly the first time as my reasoning was the whole notability thing, which backfired in a way I had never expected. Honestly, this is all right by me, because it is a lesson to be learned and learned well. Now as for the content of the article... Quite frankly, the content of the article is, for lack of a more specific term, unencyclopedic. (I can think of other words, but good decorum and my personal standards demand that I keep those unsavory terms to myself.) In my informed opinion, the reason it is unencyclopedic is due to the inherent fact that Tori Stone is nothing more than a manufactured personality. She's nothing more than a gimmick and this article was saved for the wrong reason. Now I will fully concede that porn stars are manufactured personalities, but including Tori Stone in Wikipedia is stretching the band beyond the pont of elasticity. I simply find no encyclopedic reason to include Tori Stone because she is a Lightspeed model, or that she appeals to those looking towards incest lesbian pornography. (Which seem to be her "notability" claim to fame, as it were.) Also, unless someone can correct me on this, I don't believe that having an entry on her simply because she demands more money for her websites is encyclopedic...

My other issue is that this article reads less like a biography and more like an article on a business. Therefore, is it possible that we could just rewrite the article to explicitly show how Tori Stone is a paradigm of the manufactuered porn personality? Thoughts, anyone? -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 22:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Review sites

I own/operate Adult Site Surfer, one of the review sites listed in the Tori Stone entry. I have to say I found it very interesting when I discovered on a recent trip to Mexico City (my wife is from there) that Wiki has entries for porn 'starlets' and models who have their own sites. Anyways I can attest to the fact that we do NOT get paid for doing a review, we never have. I'd say at minimum 30% of the sites in our 1,200 site database have never paid us a penny, they may not even know we did a review of their site. We obviously make money through affiliate programs where available, but it certainly isn't a requirement. A little story, the first adult conference we attended a few years back was in Miami. We met Steve, the president/owner of Lightspeed and he directly told us to remove all of his reviews from our site. We obviously said no. There's simply enough good sites out there nowadays that we have no need to be biased. I'm very happy our site survived the 'cleanup'! Parasocks 01:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wait a sec!

"By July 2005, 2 months after entering the industry, Tori Stone had produced 15 solo pictorial sets, as well as 10 videos, of combined length approx 30-40 minutes."

There is no way this statement is true. I remember seeing Tori Stone nude as early as 2001, if not earlier. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Buzda (talk • contribs).

[edit] Jordan Capri

	This article was nominated for deletion on 22 June 2005. The result of the discussion was KEEP. An archived record of the discussion can be found here.
	This article was re-nominated for deletion on 21 September 2005. The result of the discussion was KEEP. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

Uh, the latter half of this page basically amounts to gossip-mongering. Anyone else think so?

You know what I think? If the second paragraph is "gossip-mongering", then the first paragraph's too. Basically, there's nothing to say about the model. "Oh, she's that many inches high, and weighs so-and-so pounds." I mean, if you don't gossip on this article, you've got nothing to tell, just the birthdate and the model's measurements and nothing else. If you don't like the second paragraph, why not dislike the first one too? What does the reader learn from some stupid statistics about the model? Nothing. She's then just a number like anyone else in the porn industry. That's the honest truth. Hey, if you don't like the second paragraph nor the gossip, you can just put the article on the votes-for-deletion list at once, 'cause an article just with stupid statistics about the model just makes her another nobody in the porn business, which means there's nothing substantial to write about her. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 23:30, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

'...she has been deemed as "The Queen of Cute"' is a weasel sentence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_words#Generalization_using_weasel_words) and should be changed so as to mention who/whom has deemed her this...or deleted. User:Hypnopedia 13:54, 9 July 2006 Hypnopedia (UTC)

• Done... and she's not all that cute, either, even if she is the size of a munchkin. Wahkeenah 12:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] this is vital information

This is vital information. I didn't know that Jordan capri wasn't her real name and she's not in the industry anymore, If anything the porn industry makes her another statistic. another picture or movie for pleasure. good thing she is/was a lesbian though, If she wasn't she'd probably have aids or some desease by some sick, disgusting mother $%#%ing bastard. But it's nice to know she actually has a life and is doing okay. :D

Whatever made you think she is/was a lesbian? She said she didn't want men in her photoshoots, but I think that was only of fear of being harassed. I have looked at a few Jordan Capri porn galleries, and while she appears nude with other women, I don't remember her ever actually having sex with them. If you read her blog (whose address I won't give here), there is a distinct impression she has started some sort of affair with her former photographer, who is very clearly male. — JIP | Talk 19:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh well, shows how much the porn inudstry tells you.. Don't ask don't tell I guess.

[edit] Why does this exist?

How does this qualify as encyclopedia-worthy? Also, since she's out of the business and her blog there says she didnt want the kind of exposure she got, it seems kind of unethical to put her real name, employer, and other personal info in this article. This should be deleted

[edit] Removal of personal details

With support from the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Jordon_Capri, I have deleted those portions of the history of this article and its talk page that gave identifying information for the actress who plays Jordan Capri. Editors should not attempt to readd this information. Dragons flight 18:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Remind 3rd parties who use your articles to update

Right now I found all the personal information you struggled to remove from the article on ######################## With all the time passed by now, I believe the damage is already done, but I think it is in the best interest of Wikipedia to do this properly. --Sarkazein 22:01, 23 September 2005 (UTC) An afterthought: If I find the above link still viable after 24 hours I will delete it myself.

When the mirrors update with the latest version of the Wiki database, that won't be a problem. --Golbez 22:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Though I have no clue when some mirrors update, but we have to take the risk that some mirrors might never update. Zach (Sound Off) 23:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Linked articles

Two new articles link to this page - Suzanne Harman and Jodie Andrews. Both mention Jordan Capri in them. --Showthemthemoney 13:19, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Please reply now someone. --Showthemthemoney 13:24, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe I take orders from you, and I wasn't drinking soda. We are allowed to wait more than five minutes before answering your royal decrees, sire.

Now, um.. so? What's wrong with articles linking here? --Golbez 13:34, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I have removed Jordan Capri's real name from the Jodie Andrews article and purged the history. Linking to her stage name is all OK. I have also infinitely blocked the user who originally created the Jodie Andrews article (see block log for details). Admins who disagree with the block can unblock him. — JIP | Talk 13:36, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, wait, lol, showmethemoney is a sockpuppet of a known vandal :) well that's fixed. And I'll check that JIP, thanks. --Golbez 13:37, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I have added the Suzanne Harman article again - maybe the old one could be undeleted? My version isn't as good. The deletion was not necessary for the Suzanne Harman or Jodie Andrews articles. Can someone bring them back? --The Big One Is Out And Eating 13:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Didn't I just block you? --Golbez 14:02, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Most anything can be interesting

I think that most any article deserves to be kept. I think it's great that one can look up just about anything and find info on it. I believe that most articles like this aren't getting in people's way or causing any harm. I like to imagine a wikipedia one day were every imaginable noun is listed without the feeling that it's not encyclopedia worthy.

Minshullj 04:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] what the hell

are you nerds actually sitting here arguing about girls who do internet porn, jesus christ neeeeeeerds 64.251.143.126 08:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep calling His name and He might just show up on your doorstep. Meanwhile, if the rest of us are "nerds", what brought you here, Annie? Wahkeenah 21:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

He's calling you a nerd because, reading through these discussions, it's unbelievable that you people have this much free time to spend arguing whether articles should be deleted when you're not even getting paid for it. Also I can tell you're a huge tool.

• zomg sockpuppet!!!!11 69.108.116.208 07:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)