Talk:Debbie Does Dallas/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Debbie Does Dallas. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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)

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

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. : 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. : 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. : 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 (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 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 nor 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).

Yikes, what a mess

I just honestly don't think there's anything else to do here then to just cap this and start fresh. User:Alsee is determined to withdraw her RfC to the point that she's struckthru her original post, which makes it very difficult or impossible to continue. That being the case, let's hat this and I'll do the honors myself. (If you want to read the mess for some reason, it's in the history or included in the collapsed section below.

Yikes

Video RFC

{{rfc|media}}

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 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 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) This RFC has been closed as well as and withdrawn by me, the author. Herostratus has been repeatedly Edit warring to revert the close as well as deleting my comments from the page. When I politely asked they restore the comments they deleted and stop editwarring the close they declined. The RFC template really should come down, but I'm not going to editwar it. I invite anyone else to do so. Alsee (talk) 04:17, 14 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.

• Comment There is an existing RfC at A Free Ride that is about an extremely similar issue. The result of that RfC will be useful as input to a discussion about embedding a movie here. This RfC should be shut down until the first RfC has finished. There is no point in having the same discussion in two places at once. Right Hand Drive (talk) 00:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Let's keep the thread open, OK?

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

Let's see, first of all, User:Right Hand Drive is a new editor, is a Wikipedia: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)

Editors are being insistent, but let's not edit war over this, people. You don't get to early close an RfC because you're afraid it might not go your way, sorry. Restored per WP:BRD. Per WP:BRD, if you want consensus for an early close, make your case here. Don't edit war, please. Herostratus (talk) 17:35, 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)

And BTW and FWIW, the film under discussion at A Free Ride is 9 minutes long while the one here is 83 minutes, almost an order of magnitude difference, and a fair reason for a person to possibly consider the two cases separately, I would think. Herostratus (talk) 23:27, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Herostratus, first of all, please stop your disingenuous insinuations. It is clear that you think I am a sock puppet and a troll. I am not bothered. I closed this RfC because it is not useful to have the same discussions happening in two places at once. An RfC will very likely be required here if the result is that the movie is kept in that article. The editor who started the RfC appears to agree. The only impediment to closing this RfC is you. Please close this RfC instead of being pruposefully disruptive. Thanks. Right Hand Drive (talk) 00:30, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Herostratus I suggest you take a breath before you dig your self into a deeper hole.

1. I object to you blanking my comments from this page in violation of Talk page guidelines. I offer you a chance to fix your improper edits yourself. Please restore the comments you deleted.
2. I told you if the RFC were to be reopened that the RFC template should have been restored as well.
3. Edit warring a close of an RFC that was withdrawn by the author is not going to fly. I strongly suggest you voluntarily restore the close you removed.

I can't stop you from opening your own RFC, but I do suggest you take a breath and try to work with us. I remind you that the article is currently at the version you prefer. Your edits may be viewed as unreasonable or even disruptive, particularly when your "opponents" aren't trying to change the article away from what you want. I believe the video should be directly included in the article, but in the interest of Wikipedia being a collaborative project I may voluntarily drop the issue if the active RFC goes clearly against that position. Alsee (talk) 02:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, come on, let's not fight over this. You opened an RfC. Right Hand Drive, not liking this closed it down, and I reopened it. Then you shut it down again. Why? I don't know and never will, but it looks to me like it could be because it might go against your preferred result. Relax. It's not such an important issue! I really isn't. Just let it play out and let the chips fall where they may. And no, you can't claim that refusing to let anyone shut down an RfC on the grounds that they're afraid of how it might turn out is the same as deleting normal talk page comments. If I made a mistake, fix it.

Do you get this? Surely you can see that, purely as a technical matter of running the project, allowing editors to be like "Closing this RfC because I don't like it" would not be helpful. Right? Even if you're the initiation, you don't have special standing. "Closing this RfC which I initiated because I changed my mind" doesn't necessarily fly. It could in some places; it doesn't here. I think an RfC is probably a good idea. Yours is worded OK. If you shut it down then I'll just start an identical one, I guess. Let's not be silly about this. Let it ride. Herostratus (talk) 02:37, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I restored the RfC template, and I hope I did that correctly. If there's any other damage and confusion left behind by you and Right Hand Drive in your attempts to back away from your contributions, you are probably more familiar with it than I and would you please clean if up yourself, and if you we could now move forward to the merits of the motion I would consider both a kindness, and functional from a project management viewpoint. Herostratus (talk) 02:47, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

I went through most of the threads and I concluded (just my opinion, but I did analyze this some) is that there's no policy prescriptions regarding this question. In particular, WP:NOTREPOSITORY doesn't apply, according to most folks (see Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#RfC: amendment to WP:NOTREPOSITORY). WP:NOTCENSORED doesn't really get into the level of detail of talking about placement of items. Anyway WP:GRATUITOUS militates against giving especial consideration to potentially offensive material. WP:ARTICLESIZE I raised, but on further consideration it doesn't really apply either I don't think. And no other rule does either, I don't think.

The Principle of least astonishment would probably apply if clicking on the thumbnail (which is certainly possible by accident or not understanding what it entailed) brought up pornographic material; but is was pointed out that the movie begins with some anodyne non-porno scenes, giving the user plenty of time to get out if she wants, I guess.

So IMO it's just a matter of personal taste, or anyway one's personal application of information design principles. Precedent is something worthwhile to look at here. IMO since there's no rules in play, the arguments for/against embedding come down to:

• Why not embed? I like it there, and besides

1. We put still-image thumbnails (which the user is invited (or anyway allowed) to click on to get a fuller experience) in other articles.
2. And other articles embed full motion pictures in the body of the article.
3. And it's good page design, good information design. Put the subject of the article front and center.

• Enh, I don't like it embedded, and besides

1. Full-length motion pictures are different from still images. They just are. They take two hours to get thru, and that's more like putting thousands of images or a short novel in the body of the article.
2. Other articles do it, but so what? Other articles do lots of things. We're trying to make this article optimal. Besides which, this is a porno film, so we should look at how other porno films are handled, and there's not enough of those to be statistically significant.
3. No it's not good information design. It's better information design to put it down in the External links section, the "Here's something you might want to look at if you want extra enrichment on this subject" section.

It's not terribly important, you know. Arguments for both sides are reasonable. I'm not gonna vote until I see which side is winning and join that side (since its more important to get a final decision that what that decision is IMO). Herostratus (talk) 17:32, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Herostratus, you have already made your position clear - [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29&diff=prev&oldid=703623829 "my real reason for opposing it is because I don't want us to host pornographic movies". The real discussion is at A Free Ride. If you have something to say, please say it there and close down this RfC. Thanks. Right Hand Drive (talk) 00:34, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

But I can't close down the RfC! I don't have that authority! RfC generally run at least seven days. I understand that you are a new editor, may I suggest reading WP:RFC. The movie at A Free Ride is an order of magnitude shorter than the movie under consideration here, which may matter. I understand that as a matter of procedural advantage you would really really really like that article to decide what is done with this article. Sorry! I know it must be really frustrating, as a new user not familiar with our procedures and policies, to come to understand that one can't always get one's way here. It's a group project! We all work together to discuss and work things out. I'm confident that when you have more than a couple weeks experience, and have contributed on more than one narrow subject, that you will come to understand these things. It takes time and patience. You'll get there!

On the merits, yes it doesn't help my mood that this movie is pornographic, anymore than it helps my mood to be lectured to by WP:SPA. That aside, though, after considering the question at some depth, I've become more skeptical of the idea of embedding entire feature films into the body of any article. (A Free Ride is not a feature film so maybe that's different -- not sure, but IMO I guess not.) Herostratus (talk) 03:00, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Herostratus, I'm not going to waste any more energy discussing this with you, but please read this section of WP:RFC]. Alsee has agreed that a discussion about this article should wait until the RfC is finished at A Free Ride. You, as the only other particpant, can close it if you wish. If you insist on keeping it open, stop making comments about me. Thanks. Right Hand Drive (talk) 03:38, 14 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)

Wnt, the user is called an SPA and rightly so: they are an SPA. In itself that's not bad, but you can hardly deny an obvious truth. And "under that particular IP address"--that's kind of crazy, as if you're suggesting the editor has other accounts from which they edit other things so they're not really an SPA. Very unproductive. Drmies (talk) 16:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies: Maybe you have someone else in mind, but my comment above - referencing a specific edit history you can find in the page history - concerned the reversion of edits during a short period by this user. The IP had been used the preceding year for a few other things, so it's not technically an SPA. I bet if you searched the IP range you'd probably guess the person has gone on to edit some other stuff on Wikipedia since. Wnt (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

The discussion was about RightHandDrive--I thought that's who you were talking about, esp. since they complained on ANI (it's up there now) about being called an SPA. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:25, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not bothered by being called an SPA. I created an account to add the movie back in to this article. Until this particular issue is settled, I doubt I will be working on anything else here. I'm not sure why I would want to, if this is what passes for normal around here. I complained on ANI about Herostratus repeatedly putting words in my mouth and accusing me of some unspecified political agenda. Right Hand Drive (talk) 18:51, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

RfC about the use of video

There is an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Videos/Archive 1#RfC: Full-length films/videos in articles seeking to establish consensus on what we should do with full-length films/videos in articles about those films/videos. As we do not have any clear guideline on the matter, it intentionally divorces the question from the content of the film/video except insofar as whether or not the content is the subject of the article. If there is consensus for embedding/linking, I plan to follow up with a question about whether there should be exceptions for e.g. sexually explicit content. I feel that breaking it down into more basic questions and removing them from the talk pages of specific examples may help to forge a path forward. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC)