Talk:Debbie Does Dallas

Debbie Does Dallas and Video Playback Recorders (VCRs)

Debbie Does Dallas was the beginning of the pornography industry that could be shown at home. VCRs were brand new technology, and it was a tease to watch Debbie Does Dallas where this had not been seen in the home in the past. The home recording and viewing industry changed everything in the American Way of Life and perceptions of the American Way of Life.

Debbie Does Dallas is not hard core porn, and Debbie Does Dallas is not soft core porn in the modern 21st century home viewing and entertainment environment, but Debbie Does Dallas was there first. I watched it with a bunch of teenage men at eighteen years of age and under twenty-one years of age, and it was one of our first encounters in the technology frontier of home viewing, and we were excited. The innocence lost in America cannot be begun to be expressed, since the perceptions of the United States have dramatically changed--we grew up with Hee Haw and we were excited with Barbi Benton on Hee Haw, among the other Hee Haw women, and we grew up with individual smuggled Playboy photos cut out to be shown after school. In short Debbie Does Dallas was there first as the all-American-girl cheerleader who liked to get sexy to get her way with her friends.

Thanks for this exciting perspective on Debbie Does Dallas. I, too, remember my first viewing of the movie, when me and my family recieved a VCR and this single VHS for Christmas one year. We were enthrawled by the all-encompassing magic of the home viewing experience and the tape would go on to be played time and time again by all members of our rural Kentucky household. When I watch Debbie Does Dallas today, it reminds me of a much simpler time, when keeping enough logs on the fire and watching Bambi Woods exchange sexual favors with her boss were our only concerns through those cold Kentucky nights. Debbie Does Dallas is truly a timeless film that, to this day, echos through the ages. Iodyne 18:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Significance?

I don't think this article captures the significance of this movie or why it is considered one of the "classics" of porn over any other movie. Was it the timing, as suggested by the above comments, coinciding with the debut of VCRs; was it the subject matter? the marketing? the casting? What was it that make this almost the "definative" porn title that I would say more people unfamiliar with porn would know over any other title (I don't think any other porn title would be/has been referenced in sitcoms or other TV shows). 74.102.220.89 10:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Debbiedoesdallas.jpg

Image:Debbiedoesdallas.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Law suit?

As I recall the Dallas Cowboys sued over this, and I suspect lost... anyone have any information on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.128.138.232 (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Yup. A little digging using Google turns up this page of a review of the documentary Debbie Does Dallas Uncovered which says this:

"First, the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders filed suit against the film’s producer... The Cowboys Cheerleaders lawsuit, for instance, is simply mentioned as a source of notoriety for Debbie, but Hanly doesn’t even bother to tell us how it was resolved. Three minutes of internet research turns up a court decision upholding a Cheerleaders injunction (citation for the investigative: 467 F. Supp. 366, affirmed, 604 F. 2d 200), which means some financial arrangement was presumably reached..."

So there is something there. Tabercil (talk) 23:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Not reliable source

I removed a reference to "John D. C. Bennett, John Riddington Young (2001). Offbeat otolaryngology: what they didn't teach you in medical school. Thieme. p. 54. ISBN 1588900533." from the introduction's statement that the movie is not set in Dallas. This book and its author are clearly not a source of reliable information about movies in general or this one in particular; the reference itself is merely a footnote presented as a casual aside.

The statement is undoubtedly true, but this reference doesn't suffice to support it.24.7.121.60 (talk) 16:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

new kindle ebook on amazon

[1] Buffalocannon (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The book is sold by "Amazon Digital Services, Inc" without a listed publisher, which I believe means it's a self-published source, and the author does not appear to be notable, meaning this source is ineligible to be used as per WP:RS. Freikorp (talk) 23:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Censorship of article

An editor has repeatedly removed an embedded full length copy of the film hosted on Wiki commons. The various reasons given are as follows:

1. [2]: Other than it being porn, and while Wiki isn't censored adding porn files is a step too far. Even song articles only post a brief snippet.
2. [3]: Posting a full pornographic film is different to posting a film in the Library of Congress. Seek a third opinion rather that reverting again, per WP:BOLD.
3. [4]: Then get a third opinion, and have them agree that we can add pornographic films in full to articles.

• The editor's reasons for removing the video are clearly motivated by censorship, and Wikipedia has a WP:NOTCENSORED policy. It is not up to editors to determine what is a "step too far". United States law and Wikipedia policy decides what is "too far". The reason Wikipedia has such a policy is precisely for these reasons.

• The editor's argument that music articles only usually include "snippets" is also based on false logic: most music (and most films for that matter) are usually still under copyright so we are prohibited from embedding them in our articles. The film is in the public domain and is legitimately hosted on Commons, and as such it is a legitimate supporting material available for use on Wikipedia.

• It is a fairly common practice to link to media that is the public domain on the main article, or indeed embed them in Wikipedia articles if they are hosted on Commons (such as with Night of the Living Dead and Foolish Wives). The fact that the editor does not question the legitimacy of including full length films on those articles betrays his true motivation here: the only difference is that Debbie is a pornographic film. Inclusion of supporting materials is dependent on encylopedic merit and nothing else, regardless of whether something is pornographic or not. Betty Logan (talk) 22:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Betty Logan. Music samples are limited to "30 seconds" or "10 percent of original length" because they are protected by copyright. That logic does not apply here as this film is in the public domain. It is a film of high-importence to pornography, and wikipedia is not censored. If non-pornographic films contain links to copies of the full film that are legitimately hosted on commons (which I wasn't aware of prior to this discussion) then I see no reason that we shouldn't be allowed to do the same here. Freikorp (talk) 23:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I was also unaware that Commons had full movies. And I agree that it should be in the article, linked or embedded. Dismas|^(talk) 01:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I think a link to Commons in the External links section should be adequate. It's still on a Foundation website, whether its actually in the article directly or not is semantics. But in the interest of not stirring up controversy, having it embedded is probably asking for a kind of attention that we do not want. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 04:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

It should definitely by a specific external link at the very least. If such a important resource is available I don't think it is adequate to have the only link to it being the generic link to related media at commons, which doesn't specify that the entire film is available. I rarely go to look at the related media at commons at your average article, and neither will most readers here; if we don't link to it specifically it's a wasted resource. I am in two minds about embedding it, as while we are certainly in our rights to do it and I personally think that it's a convenient (and progressive) idea, it's only a matter of time before a more conservative person/media outlet or parents group complains about it. And while normally i'd be happy to tell such people to grow up and get over it, i'm also not one for needlessly causing controversy when there is a less problematic alternative. All things considered I have a weak preference for embedding it, but a strong preference for specifically linking to it somehow. Freikorp (talk) 05:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

@Scalhotrod: Rather than revert your edit a second time i'll comment here. You're correct in stating it's "literally the first thing" on commons, but it's also the ONLY thing on commons relating to this film. The other 18 search results for 'Debbie Does Dallas' have nothing to do with this film. What is the purpose of linking to commons as apposed to the film directly, when the only thing on commons is the film? Freikorp (talk) 05:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, from a technical standpoint, that's easily resolved if we just create a "Debbie Does Dallas" category at Commons and then link to it. Then the video is the only thing that will show up when the link is selected. Considering that the file is a bit of a "raw capture" with no associated screen grab as a cover image, its kind of a lousy graphic to include in the article from a layout standpoint.

By the way, since the movie is in the public domain, that means screen captures are free as well. So we have that at our disposal as well. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 06:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Link fix (arbitrary break)

@Freikorp: try it now, I think I did it correctly, but I'm not as well versed with Commons as I am with the Main site. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 06:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not well versed with commons either. Yes it's a much better link now, but that wasn't what my problem was. My issue is that considering there is only one related media file at commons, having a link to commons when other editors clearly want to link to the video itself seems unnecessarily complicated. Why not just link to the video directly? This will advertise to the reader that the film is available; there's currently no way to realise such an important resource is available, therefore this important resource is going to be under-utilised as most readers won't click on the commons link just to have a look at what might be there. Freikorp (talk) 06:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

There should definitely be an explicit link to the film itself in some form, so that readers can see the film is freely available. We can either embed the film, or provide a direct link, but hiding it beind a link to Commons is basically removing it from the article. Betty Logan (talk) 14:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Just for the record i'm very pleased with this latest change. Freikorp (talk) 15:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I still think the film should be embedded in the article itself, but I can live with a straight link to the film on Commons. My commitment in all of this is to disseminating freely available works rather than shoving porn down people's throats, so provided it is obvious the film is freely available I am happy to draw a line under this debate. At first I didn't realize the Commmons link actually linked to the film so I have taken the liberty of rewording the link to make that clear. Betty Logan (talk) 15:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: @Freikorp: for the record, I like the change above [5](Nicely done Betty!) and I am personally NOT against having it embedded in the article, but I think we need to look beyond the article. (Getting on my Soapbox...) Quite frankly WP gets bashed enough for it "adult oriented" content even though its mostly no more "racy" than the average issue of National Geographic or old editions of the Sears and Roebuck catalog. I feel it would be borderline negligent of us not to discuss the fact that having a full blown porn film in Mainspace will not be concerning to several watchdog groups. (Stepping down now...) Then there is the matter of the associated graphic just being ugly in my opinion which does not contribute to the article's quality either. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, thanks. Freikorp (talk) 23:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Unrelated discussion

Hi Betty Logan, why set the dead links redesignd? If I open the links, I see nothing relevant.

rame.net : iafd : invalid or outdated page You have reached a page on our site via an outdated link. We think the data is still around here somewhere... but it's possible we deleted it. Your best bet is to try your search again.

Best regarts. Roberttomsons — Preceding undated comment added 19:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

BEING CENSORED FOR ADDING FACTUAL INFORMATION REGARDING DEBBIE DOES DALLAS MUSIC (SEPTEMBER 2015)

Currently being censored for adding proper information to the page of Debbie Does Dallas. First watched DDD in early 80's. Have always wanted soundtrack which has never been released on CD as its great music. After many false leads have correctly identified DDD music. Nice to listen to without the actors & porn dub. Change got kicked for no references. Accept this, so I got some. Have listed them correctly. Short of rerecording the tracks, issuing them on CD myself and giving the moderator a a her her, what I am I supposed to do? I thought Wikipedia was against censorship and nobody has had the decency to check before censoring my information. No wonder people give Wiki a miss. I was only trying to pass on valuable information. I am no scholar, so has Wiki failed Debbie Does Dallas?

This is what I wrote:

Debbie Does Dallas is also very memorable for its soundtrack music. Over the years, the puzzle of who composed and played the background music has entertained many a film viewer. Some of the background music comes from a British vinyl LP, titled "Heavy Group Activity/Light Group Activity" by the English musicians "Midas Touch". "Midas Touch" were in fact, an in-house group that produced background music for the television and film industry, during the 1970's. The "Heavy Group Activity/Light Group Activity" LP, was released in England during 1974. It had a catalogue number of ESL128 and was pressed by the Standard Music Library.[9] It is notable that this Midas Touch album's release was well before Debbie Does Dallas, which itself premiered around five years later. Although the album itself contains 16 tracks, just 5 however are used to great effect for the film. They are, "Dad's A Peregrinator", "Sulphur Flowers", "Harvey", "Tea At Ronnies" and also the track, "Doodles".

Other music includes a stock piece of marching band music used on the titles and an uplifting version of the track "I want to Live" (aka Plaisir D'Amour) by Jean Bouchety from his 1971 vinyl album "The Rhythms,Sounds & Melodies Of Jean Bouchety". This was released on Major Minor Records, again from England, with a catalogue number of SMLP60.[10]

PLEASE CHECK FOR YOURSELF. Both albums are on Loungechair blogspots for download. Some of the tracks are on YouTube.

Sheesh, give me a break.

Asking for a fair go for my research and a fair go for readers, that might just actually like to know.

14.200.242.49 (talk) 08:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

It looks like you were reverted [6] because the source you used, Discogs is WP:USERGENERATED.220 of ^Borg 23:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Music section

An anonymous editor has recently added a "Music" section, and subsequently restored it after I removed it. While I do not oppose such a section in principle, there are numerous problems with the claims it makes, how they are sourced and how the secion is worded:

1. There is a problem with the sourcing. The only source used in the section is Discogs, which is a user-generated database much like the IMDB; per WP:USERGENERATED such resources are not acceptable for sourcing content on Wikipedia.
2. The above point about Discogs is largely moot however, since Discogs does not back up the claim that the pieces of music cited in the section are used in the film. Neither [7] nor [8] mention Debbie Does Dallas at all, so the claim itself is not verifiable. If the editor is personally identifying pieces of music through their own efforts then this amounts to WP:Original research.
3. The section is not particularly well-written, either. Phrases such as "Debbie Does Dallas is also very memorable for its soundtrack music. Over the years, the puzzle of who composed and played the background music has entertained many a film viewer" and "It is notable that this Midas Touch album's release was well before Debbie Does Dallas" are clear examples of WP:EDITORIALIZING since they do not maintain a neutral tone. That said, if this were the only issue I would have fixed the phrasing rather than fully deleting the section.

I have no problem with having a section that identifies pieces of music, but the claims must be attributed to a reliable WP:Secondary source, which is why I have removed the section. Betty Logan (talk) 08:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• http://ditc-radio.blogspot.co.uk/2014_06_01_archive.html

Arguably the record and the film would provide sufficient source. I posses neither so cannot verify the claim, but the claim is certainly verifiable. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC).

But the film is on Commons of course. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:37, 9 February 2016 (UTC).

Link to full film on Commons

This article used to include the full film (now in the public domain) embedded in the article. This was removed by Darrenhusted. A compromise was reached at #Censorship of article whereby a link to the film on Commons would be included in the article, thus making it clear in the article that the full film was freely available without shoving porn in readers' faces. It was also decided that the link should be direct to the film, rather than obscuring it behind a general link to related media on Commons, and thus a compromise was reached. Subsequently Yann has converted the link to a general Commons link (going against the above consensus) and the embedded version of the film has been restored to the article in the interim.

This brings us full circle. I appreciate that consensus can change, but I would like to point out to Yann that ignoring a talk page consensus and simply doing your thing is not an appropriate course of action for effecting such change. I am also pinging @Freikorp, Dismas, and Scalhotrod: since they were part of the original consensus, I would like to see if their views have changed at all since the last discussion. It will only be a matter of time before another editor comes along and removes the thumbnail, so I'd like to see which version everyone stands by. Do we stick with the current version with the film embedded in the article or do we return to the previous version which just provides a direct link to the film? Betty Logan (talk) 20:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, All film articles link to the Commons category. I don't see why this one should be different. There are already 3 files in the category, and there are potentially more. This is an article about a porn movie, so one shouldn't be surprised about the content. Now Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, and we are in the 21st century where streaming movies accross the Net is common practice. Many articles about films have already the film embedded. This should be the standard if the film is in the public domain, or under a free license. I hope you won't argue that we have to go back to paper encyclopedias, where the film is only available elsewhere. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, this is stupidity. Yes, wikipedia isn't censored. But neither is it a porn site. Do you seriously want porn on the articles, just because some rule states that you can put it there? Is there some benefit for our readers to have it there? Or are people just trying to prove a dumb point. A link is more than sufficient. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

This is not about you adding a link, it is about you removing an existing link that has the backing of a consensus. Furthermore, there is no established standard for providing access to free materials: some articles embed a film if it is freely available, others do not. As you can see from the discussion above there is no consensus either way on embedding the film, but there is a consensus for the direct link to the film on Commons that you removed. You are more than welcome to field another attempt to obtain a consensus for embedding the film if you believe that is in the interests of the article but please do not unilaterally reverse an action that has the backing of a consensus. I have restored the link and kept the separate link to the category so I hope that will be the end of matter. If this is not acceptable to you then please discuss the issue here rather than simply reverting. Betty Logan (talk) 01:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Consensus may be needed to exclude the film, but it is certainly not required for inclusion. In any case, I think you will find that consensus has changed, as it does. Also, Scalhotrod is banned from all WMF sites, so don't wait for his opinion on this matter. Right Hand Drive (talk) 04:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, To fight a prudish agenda, you should start here. If you don't want to see a porn movie, do not read this article. Beside, it only shows a thumbnail. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you look through the diffs: you are the only person to remove content from the article. Betty Logan (talk) 19:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the problem here. The film is embedded in the article. There is no need to also have the link to the same file on Commons. Can someone explain why this is even being discussed? Right Hand Drive (talk) 21:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

The film should be posted as is. If you are against porn then don't go to a page about porn, its that simple. ContentEditman (talk) 00:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

To add the film and link should both be in it. The link page offers more options. ContentEditman (talk) 00:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• @ContentEditMan and Right Hand Drive: please get consensus for including the embedded video before adding it back to the article. Previous consensus was to include the link only and there needs to be new consensus if you want to overturn that. Edit warring will only result in blocks. clpo13_(talk) 05:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• (Alerted at ANI, originally wrote this for there but the thread was closed just before I finished writing it):

Completely ignoring what the film is or it's content, it is a notable film in the public domain and does not contain any material that would cause legal trouble for the Wikimedia foundation. As such, it is appropriate for us to at least link to for the sake of completeness. Regardless of what other sites do (they may come and go, but hopefully we, archive.org, and Google Books will last until the singularity), it's a good idea for us to provide some kind of access to public domain films, just as we provide access to public domain books and other works of art. (@Yann:) Everyone in this thread seems to agree on all that, so any accusation of prudishness is nothing but a violation of WP:NPA.

Embedding Debbie Does Dallas compares to the image in Cunnilingus about as much as as embedding Night of the Living Dead compares to the image in Zombie (yes, I'm aware it starts off with a still from that very movie). The image illustrates a general concept to better identify it. You do not need the whole movie to identify the movie, it's perfectly fine to have a few stills and/or a poster. If that is not true, then we're gonna have to start pirating a bunch of copyrighted works. So, while it is good for us to link to public domain movies, we do not actually need to embed them into articles for illustrative purposes.

Like it or not, WP:NOTCENSORED applies only to us. It does not mean that we have the right to force readers to disable their own censorship.

For users who want to watch that movie or any other movie, there's no appreciable difference between hosting a movie here or on Commons. It can be accessed either way.

For users who do not want to view the movie (it is their right to say "no", even for something as insignificant as this), it is better if we place the movie on Commons. That way, "moral" crusaders (real prudes, unlike anyone here) cannot pretend that they opened the video by accident without presenting themselves as technologically-illiterate idiots. More reasonable individuals can still view Wikipedia while simply avoiding or blocking Commons -- which means that there's less censorship of Wikipedia. Bottom line: Hosting on Commons instead of Wikipedia actually brings about less censorship for more users and so follows WP:NOTCENSORED better than embedding it in the article.

(In response to something I'm seeing here): @ContentEditman: and @Yann: Some people do actually read articles about things to decide if they want to be involved or to find out why others are involved (despite a personal desire to not get involved), so the argument "If you don't want to see a porn movie, do not read this article" makes about as much sense as saying "don't read the Cricket article unless you've got your ball or bat ready," or "don't read the Islam article unless you've recited and truly believe the Shahada," or "don't read the Suicide article unless you want to die." Ian.thomson (talk) 07:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

That is about my thoughts, too. All else aside, it's hard to see what the benefit of embedding it in the article is -- is anyone actually likely to watch it here in a tiny embedded box? Nobody disagrees with the fact that we could embed it, and most people seem to agree that we ought to link it, but I'm just not seeing any particular arguments for embedding it beyond what feels like a desire to "take a stand", which isn't an encyclopedic argument. --Aquillion (talk) 10:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

There is an article about the movie "Charade". We have the full public domain movie available on Commons. We include the movie in the article. This article is about the movie "Debbie Does Dalla" We have the full public domain movie available on Commons. Why would we not include the movie in the article? Other than you don't think anyone is likely to watch it in a tiny box, whatdo you have any policy-based argument for not including the movie? Right Hand Drive (talk) 14:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I think it is unnecessary to host Charade here when it is on Commons. As I said, it is unnecessary to include a whole movie in an article about the movie. In fact, it seems kind of unencyclopedic, akin to posting a whole book in the middle of an article instead of just linking to Wikisource. There is no policy on the matter either way, but we do need to remember that this is an encyclopedia, not the Internet Archive. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

EDIT: wait, I forgot about WP:NOTREPOSITORY. Not including full-length public domain movies in any article is the only logical conclusion to be drawn from that. From an information perspective, there's no difference between hosting all of a movie or posting all of a book in the middle of an article. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

We are dealing with a digital file here, not text. The differences between including an embedded file and the entire text of a book are obvious. Right Hand Drive (talk) 15:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Ian.thomson you misread WP:NOTREPOSITORY. It apples to content that is not appropriately embedded in an article. Particularly note where it suggests consider adding it to Wikipedia:Images with missing articles. It's saying the content can and should be uploaded, and that it can and should be included in an article once an appropriate article exists to include it in. Alsee (talk) 14:50, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because one film has its entire length embedded doesn't mean that all films should have their entire length embedded; embedding the full length of movies that are in the public domain definitely doesn't strike me as "default" or as policy, just as something that people did in one or two places. I'm not seeing any arguments for why it should be done here. --Aquillion (talk) 23:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I think the film should be embedded, but if there is a majority thinking otherwise, we could embed the trailer instead (no porn in this 3 min extract, and better quality), and link to the full movie on Commons. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine with this. Trailers are good for identifying the movie (assuming they're legally available), like quoting the back cover of book in an article instead of posting the whole book in the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The only difference between embedding a trailer and embedding the full movie is the content. The reader sees only a single frame until they choose to start the movie playing. Your acceptance of the trailer but not the movie suggests that your objection is to the content of the movie. Right Hand Drive (talk) 15:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

That's like saying "the only difference between hosting a quote from a book and the whole book is the content." No, it's the focus, and per WP:NOTREPOSITORY we should not be hosting whole documents when we only need a quote (or trailer, or photo). And read WP:AGF (another policy, that word you've been enjoying using despite an apparent lack of familiarity with it), because I've made it quite clear that I don't think we should be moving other public domain movies (no matter their content) from articles to Commons as well. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry. Ian.thomson. I am assuming good faith, but your arguments suggest that your issue is not atechnical one but a content concern. I'm not sure what "focus" means except in regard to the content of the file. Right Hand Drive (talk) 16:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

If that's the conclusion you're drawing from my arguments, then you're reading stuff into it that I'm not saying -- i.e. not assuming good faith. If it was this movie's content I had a problem with, I'd be saying "take it off Commons too," and wouldn't have a problem with full-length movies in other articles. Instead, I'm actually suggesting that we withdraw all full-length movies from this site and focus more on being an encyclopedia instead of being Youtube. By "focus," I mean that this is an encyclopedia that only describes what a thing is, rather than distributes that thing. We do not host source documents of any other kind, and you've presented reason why movies and only movies would be exempt from that policy. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:46, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Ian.thompson, can you please acknowledge that you understand that Wikipedia does not host the movie? Right Hand Drive (talk) 17:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Right Hand Dribe, will you please quit focusing on semantic quibbles that are irrelevant to what I'm actually saying and address my main points? Ian.thomson (talk) 07:37, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

It is directly relevant to the application of WP:NOTREPOSITORY. If you started this discussion with a misunderstanding of how the embedding worked, that's fine, just say so and we'll move on. I am honestly not sure what points you think you have made other than vaguely waving a hand at WP:NOTREPOSITORY. You have failed to explain how that section policy applies and several people at the Village Pump have disagreed that it applies at all. Right Hand Drive (talk) 15:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment/Request: I think it's fairly obvious that we're going to need a site-wide RfC about hosting porn movies on Wikipedia article space. Someone please notify me on my talk page when this occurs. Softlavender (talk) 05:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• SPAs: Johnuniq has noted that "Right Hand Drive was created on 14 September 2015 and has a total of 31 edits, all concerned with adding the film to the article. ContentEditman was created on 4 February 2016 and has a total of 5 edits, all supporting adding the film." Softlavender (talk) 05:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Relevant Village Pump discussion

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Should_we_move_full-length_movies_from_article_space_to_Commons.3F. I don't see why we're hosting full movies of any kind in any article, when we have Commons for that. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:10, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

RfC about embedded pornographic movie in A Free Ride

A hardcore pornographic movie has been embedded in A Free Ride since 2012. Rather than just remove the movie as was done here, I have started a request for comment. I assume that the results of that RfC will be useful in guiding actions here. Right Hand Drive (talk) 00:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

What was the previous consensus?

I've read the earlier discussion wherein the claimed "consensus" to not embed the movie was reached. Four editors participated. The editor who started the discussion was Betty Logan who uploaded the movie to Commons and embedded it in the article. Betty Logan said "It is a fairly common practice to link to media that is the public domain on the main article, or indeed embed them in Wikipedia articles if they are hosted on Commons". User:Dismas explicitly supported embedding the movie. User:Scalhotrod (who is now banned by the WMF) suggested "in the interest of not stirring up controversy, having it embedded is probably asking for a kind of attention that we do not want". That seems to be the root of the issue here. Not including the movie in the artcile about the movie seems to go pretty clearly against WP:NOTCENSORED. The previous consensus was not based on policy and is founded on disingenuous premises. Right Hand Drive (talk) 14:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Keep reading. There were also changes being made to the article while the discussion was going on, and Betty was one of the editors who stopped adding the movie while instead adding a more specific Commons link. It's also not uncommon for an editor to not say something when another editor has already made their point for them. Scalhotrod is banned now, but was not then, and his ban does not retroactively affect past consensus. Including a whole movie (any movie, doesn't matter which one) goes against WP:NOTREPOSITORY. The only logical conclusion that can be drawn from WP:NOTREPOSITORY is that we cannot host a whole movie in the article (any more than we can post a whole book), but only link to its page on Commons or other sites (e.g. Internet Archive). WP:NOTCENSORED only means that we do not remove the link to the copy on Commons. It is not an excuse to include any and all content no matter how unnecessary it is to the encyclopedia.

Also, policies (and even guidelines) don't cover everything. This is intentional, and why we rely on consensus. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Despite your assertion that we we cannot host a whole movie in the article, that is exactly what we do in other cases. Your comparison of including the full text of a book in an article is specious at best. The reader of the article sees only a single frame unless and until they choose to play the movie. It is intended as a convenience for the reader, so that they may view the movie (perhaps while they continue to read the article). Note that this is the case whether it is the full movie or the trailer. If you support including the trailer, there is no reason not to include the movie. At least none based on anything you have offered thus far. Right Hand Drive (talk) 15:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

There are mistakes throughout a number of articles, that does not justify making the same mistakes elsewhere. We have the capacity to host a book in a similar frame where only one page at a time shows, so there really is no difference. You have yet to explain why you need a whole movie to identify it when the trailer suffices. Claiming there's no difference between the trailer and the movie makes about as much sense as saying there's no difference between a quote and a whole book. The Wikimedia Commons link also fulfills the convenience aspect, without making the article less encyclopedic. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote again. To the reader, both the trailer and the movie appear the same. They see only a single frame of either until they choose to start the file playing. In that sense, there is no difference. If you support including a trailer (as you have done), there is no reason not to include the full movie, unless your objection is the content. Since you are the one arguing for exclusion of content, you should be the one justifying that exclusion, with reference to policy. The reasons for including the movie should be obvious (the artciel is about the movie). Right Hand Drive (talk) 16:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

So three minutes equals two hours now? Policy states that we do not include whole source works here, only snippets to identify it and (if available) links to legal copies of it on Wikisource, Commons, Internet Archive, or elsewhere. That's true for everything else, and movies are the only things that have fallen through the cracks (just because a mistake occurs elsewhere is no reason to repeat it). You've yet to explain why movies would be exempt from WP:NOTREPOSITORY. You talk so much about policy, but consistent application of it would be to exclude all full-length movies because they are source works and you only need the trailer to identify them. You've yet to explain how a trailer fails to identify the movie. Linking to Commons/Archive.org/whatever is just as good as hosting it here, and you've not shown how it's any worse. You cannot say "there's no reason not to" without addressing those points.

WP:NOTREPOSITORY is a policy, part of one of the five pillars. Just because you don't like the logical conclusion of consistent application of it doesn't mean that it's suddenly not a policy.

And drop the false accusations about feelings about content, because the accusations could very easily go both ways, but I'm actually going to follow WP:AGF here. My argument is based on consistent application of policy (remember policy? The thing you were calling for earlier?), and it is immature and paranoid to say otherwise when I've gone so far as to suggest that we should be removing all full-length movies from all articles here and elsewhere. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I have asked to you specify what part of the policy applies here, but you have yet to do so. The policy simply does not say what you claim it does. I think you may wish to read points 3 and 4 more closely. I don't think the intent of the policy is to exclude relevant and helpful inclusions in articles. I am neither immature nor paranoid and I ask you to stop namecalling like that. Right Hand Drive (talk) 17:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Both the movie and link should be included. I agree I do not see a policy to not include. ContentEditman (talk) 22:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment/Request: I think it's fairly obvious that we're going to need a site-wide RfC about hosting porn movies on Wikipedia article space. Someone please notify me on my talk page when this occurs. Softlavender (talk) 23:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• SPAs: Johnuniq has noted that "Right Hand Drive was created on 14 September 2015 and has a total of 31 edits, all concerned with adding the film to the article. ContentEditman was created on 4 February 2016 and has a total of 5 edits, all supporting adding the film." Softlavender (talk) 05:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• I'm seeing all kinds of bogus arguments here:

• A playable link to Commons is not the same as hosting the film on Wikipedia. It just means that the user has more direct access to the linked content. On a related note, the nonsense misinterpretation of "NOTREPOSITORY", if applied to anything but this one example, would lead to some pretty damn absurd things, like banning the Mona Lisa from Mona Lisa. Nobody believes this argument, and I suspect that includes the people making it.
• User:Herostratus's recent claim that "Redlinked IPs dabbling in porn matters... not a good idea" has no basis in policy. IP editors are supposed to be treated equally; and even if we don't treat them equally, there is no provision that says they have to start off writing only articles about unicorns and rainbows. Also, IPs are all blue-linked; none have user pages. The ones with blue "talk" links usually have those because somebody with an agenda has gone all puff and bluster at them over something, so what does that prove?
• Calls for a site-wide RfC are absurd. This talk page is where the issue is supposed to get settled. You can't just go and claim "I appeal unto Caesar, so for the next three and a half years I win!" Whoever has consensus here is supposed to have that consensus respected. You can try to propose a brand new policy somewhere, but it's probably not going to happen, so there's no reason for us to dwell on the possibility.

My opinion is that the directly playable version of the link is the most straightforward thing for readers, and that's what we should do. Wnt (talk) 19:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

My ears are burning, so here's what I'd say:

• First of all, I'd like to see an RfC on the matter. An organized discussion where we can see see where large numbers of people stand and and where positions can be examined in detail while people can make a stand and be counted on is what's needed here; the current discussion is rather inchoate for my taste and not likely to lead to any useful conclusion. The article's now in protection, which means that we the community are in failure mode right now. I think an RfC is the best way to get out of failure mode.
• Whether the RfC should be local, or more global -- addressing either the question of whether entire movies should be hosted, or the narrower question of whether entire pornographic movies should be hosted -- I'm not sure about. Probably a more global RfC, I guess.
• Absent an RfC, I'm not sure any discussion is going to move us forward and get us out of protection, so I'm not sure how useful it is to say stuff here now. I will say one thing anyway: Wnt's says that what y'all call WP:SPA's (what I called "redlinked IPs", basically the same thing) aren't strictly forbidden by policy from meddling in matters at the margins (pornography being one of these and the issue here)... maybe that's true, but it has nothing to do with the price of eggs. Forget "policy" and come with me to the sunlit uplands of reality: such people are trouble, period; they're generally trolls just here for the LULZ (or for the darker purpose of actually embarrassing and damaging the project). I've been here ten years and I know: this is just a fact. It's a fact you can ignore, if you like ignoring facts or you find it helpful to live your life that way. I don't. Herostratus (talk) 20:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Well obviously the question of hosting porn films on Wikipedia article space is an entirely different question than the general question of whether to host full films at all on article space. One is a subset of the other, but common sense dictates that it is a more pressing and divisive matter and should not be subsumed under a more general RfC. Therefore if necessary two RfCs should exist if one of them is going to be the wider set of "any films". Softlavender (talk) 01:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I've seen people dragged off to ArbCom for casting general aspersions on conspiracies of editors out to get them. I think the admins get rather too carried away doing that. But I'm not convinced that taking an editor who sees some broadly advertised issue they care about and calling him an "SPA" because it's the one issue he commented about under that particular IP address is useful. If you want to say that IP votes should be viewed with a little skepticism when weighing "consensus", well, at least there's some rationale for that; but to say (as you seem to be doing) that anyone who disagrees with you is a troll -- no, I don't think so. Wnt (talk) 02:24, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Video RFC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There is significant agreement above that an RFC is needed here. The film Debbie Does Dallas is in the public domain and the file is hosted at Commons. The dispute is how it should be included it in this article. One version of this article[9] uses [[File:Debbie Does Dallas.ogg|thumb|right|''Debbie Does Dallas'', full film]], making it easily visible and accessible as a one-click video player directly below the infobox. The second version[10] uses {{ sister | project=commons | text='''[[commons:Debbie Does Dallas|Full film]]''' available at Wikimedia Commons.}} to place a low profile box in the external link section, where the video can be viewed after clicking to commons and a second click to play.

Note that the essentially identical issue is being debated in this other RFC regarding a 1915 pornographic film. Alsee (talk) 17:40, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support direct inclusion (i.e. first version). When we have a public domain copy of a film available it is standard practice to link it directly in the article. See our articles on Night of the Living Dead and Foolish Wives as examples. The sole motivation I can see that THIS article is being singled out, and trying to bury the link, is in direct violation of WP:NOTCENSORED policy. Anyone SEARCHING for the article on Debbie Does Dallas can hardly be astonished to find content here related to Debbie Does Dallas. The video is obviously useful and relevant to the article. The link to the video shouldn't be buried behind an obscure Commons-box in the external link section, merely because of ridiculous concerns that someone SEARCHING for Debbie Does Dallas might be offended by actually finding it. Hiding it behind an indirect link, where most readers will miss it, is just a silly game and it does a serious disservice to our readers. Alsee (talk) 17:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand WP:NOTCENSORED. Nowhere does it state "Material that some readers might consider objectionable or offensive should, if included, be featured as prominently as possible". It's a common mistake. Herostratus (talk) 18:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct that WP:NOTCENSORED isn't any argument for inclusion of anything. The basis for inclusion is that it is relevant and valuable for (at least some of) the readers of this article. Direct clear inclusion of such exceptionally valuable content is affirmed as routine at other articles such as Night of the Living Dead and Foolish Wives. Do you have any argument for why this article should be treated differently than other articles, any argument where WP:NOTCENSORED is clearly not relevant? Alsee (talk) 19:48, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I do, and it's this: After looking over it carefully, it seems to me that's there's no rule (policy or guideline) which militates either for or against any particular placement for movies in an article (I'll expand on that below). In such instances, we usually go case-by-case. Some articles have a lot of images scattered throughout the text, other articles have a similar amount of issues but mostly segregated into a gallery section -- and so on and so forth. How come? I dunno -- it's probably usually a matter of the personal tastes of the article's main developers. But some articles just work better with their images segregated, and others work better with their imaged integrated. And that's OK; let a thousand flowers bloom. Wikipedia:Other stuff exists addresses this, somewhat. It's not that your point -- that other articles do such and such -- is devoid of value. It's a data point. It's not the only data point, but it's a useful thing to know. If you're correct that your favored placement ought to be a rule-by-precedent and/or is overwhelmingly popular, you ought to be able to include it in the MOS. It's not in the MOS now, though, so we are thrown back on case-by-case. Herostratus (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Let's keep the thread open, OK?

Well, first of all, User:Right Hand Driveb decided to shut down this discussion.

Let's see, first of all, User:Right Hand Drive is a new editor, is a Wikipeda:Single Purpose Account by any definition (he has 70 edits (at this writing), and all 70 are about or related to placing this movie in this article); he made one edit on September 14, 2015 (adding the movie into the main body of the article) but his second edit was on February 2, 2016 (with an edit summary of "Wikipedia is not censored. Please find a policy-based reason to exclude this instead of claiming that consensus is needed to include it. Thanks.") and 68 more edits on the subject in this month.

Whether or not User:Right Hand Drive is a sock puppet and/or a troll I leave to the reader to form his or her own opinion. He is at least a very very fast learner with quite an interesting gap between his first and second edits. (I've been here ten years and I've seen a lot, and I have my own opinion which I'll keep to myself for now). But even aside from that he is a new single purpose account, and new single-purpose-accounts are not encouraged to be closing down RfC's and so forth, which is usually done by administrators, and if not administrators then experienced editors.

In addition the shutdown was presumably tactical. Let's just say that shutting down this thread would be consistent with a tactic of trying to leverage the situation at A Free Ride to affect this article. As all know, getting consensus for changing anything is very very difficult here. A Free Ride has an existing embedded movie, and a clever person could try to leverage lack of consensus to change that (a very very likely result as I said) to affect this article. But it's different articles and different movies and, since there's no policy really militating either way, it's gonna have to be an article-by-article discussion. So let's. Herostratus (talk) 16:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I reinstated Right Hand Drive's close. It was perfectly reasonable. There is no rush here, and a clear outcome one way or the other in that RFC may simplify things over here. If this RFC were to be reopened you should have also restored the {{RFC}} template. It activates systems to notify and bring in random uninvolved editors. That helps avoid local discussions from reaching some random biased result based on the small group people that happen to be already-present on a particular talk page.

I'll also note that Right Hand Drive is very clearly an experienced editor and I see no indication of abuse here. See Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Legitimate_uses. It is absolutely acceptable for an editor to create a dedicated account (for example) to deal with porn-related articles, so long as they don't also participate in the discussions with their primary account. Alsee (talk) 17:27, 13 February 2016 (UTC)