Talk:Debbie Does Dallas

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 [1] nor [2] 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)

I side with Yann on this issue. It's unfortunate that this had to be censored. A video of a film is effectively an educational resource, just like an image. It is made abundantly clear in the article that this film is pornographic, and anyone reading it should have enough sense to know that before opening the video. It's not like the video starts playing as soon as the article is opened, like unfortunately happens on some websites. And the film doesn't even open with nudity, so people have several minutes—quite enough time—to close it if they open it accidentally. We have plenty of videos shown directly on Wikipedia, and because we're not supposed to be censored (I thought wikis, free information resources, were all about that concept), I think this film should be no exception. The video file of The Birth of a Nation, a movie with very explicit and extreme racism, is slapped right onto its Wikipedia article with no controversy (as it should be), but a porn film can't be shown apparently, and I think the double standard made there is pretty sad. PseudoSkull (talk) 20:49, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

The long-standing consensus is pretty old now, I think it would be entirely reasonable to hold another RFC if you feel strongly about it. I do agree that the "compromise" solution was driven by a double standard, although—and I say this as the editor who uploaded the video to the Commons—I have always found the embedding of full feature films in articles to be gratuitous and slightly unencyclopedic. I honestly don't see how the Wikipedia article about The Birth of a Nation is enhanced by supplying the whole film embedded in the article. I think it is very likely that readers may want to download these films so it has always seemed more useful to provide a link to do that. Betty Logan (talk) 21:29, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: I just wanted to take the opportunity to say that I really appreciate you uploading the full film to Wikimedia Commons. It's been useful to my transcription efforts.

I think the RFC is definitely deserving assuming it goes anywhere, because I see a lot of weird arguments made above. A lot of them basically say that "the full film is not needed, so why have it?"—well, a lot of encyclopedias refuse to include any information about films and other popular culture- and media-related topics, such as Britannica (at least for a long time it did), but Wikipedia has chosen to include film articles, from Wikipedia's very inception. You know, Wikipedia doesn't need to include any of that popular-culture information. Can't the human race survive without it? But we would never make that argument, because of course we can survive without most of the enhancements we have today, but they do enhance our experience in life, so it would be better if they were included and worse if they were not.

But that's more of a response to the above discussion and not to you, and I do appreciate that you are focusing on enhancement rather than absolute functional necessity or bare minimum viable product as the subject of your concern. But, to that point, I would say that embedding a film on an article absolutely is an enhancement, just the same as an image is. It costs Wikipedians barely anything to embed videos into articles; it's just a bit of formatted text. It's really useful to me, as somebody who looks up silent films on a regular basis for information about them, to immediately be able to look at the film in full, right on the very page I was on, and skim through the video—just to see it—or maybe verify something about it really quickly, or for any other purpose (being that they are in the public domain, this makes sense). While films are (generally) originally made for entertainment purposes, our showing of it is a demonstration of what the film substantially was, so it is therefore educational in nature. In fact, being able to watch a film on the Wikipedia article that talks about it allows readers to gain a more thorough understanding the film, as watching it gives you the experience, while reading about it gives you the general knowledge that is up for interpretation. And, if nothing else, it increases awareness of these films, and without it Wikimedia Commons would surely see a loss of interest among its contributor base to upload silent film files at all, which in my opinion would be an unfortunate loss overall for the free-info world. It would surely be an unfortunate loss even to me just as an individual.

On the RFC: I will abstain from doing that. Anyone else can if they want, but I ask please don't ping me in it, or involve me in any way. Back to WS for me. PseudoSkull (talk) 02:11, 13 June 2022 (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)

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)

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[3] 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[4] 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.[5][6] When I politely asked they restore the comments they deleted and stop editwarring the close[7] they declined.[8] 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[9][10] 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)

RfC: Placement of video

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.

---

(See also:Talk:A Free Ride#RfC: Replace embedded hardcore pornographic movie with link to Commons?, on a similar (but not identical) question.}

The movie Debbie Does Dallas is in the public domain (according to Commons, although FWIW that's apparently disputed by some parties, but as a general rule we follow what Commons says). So it makes sense to include or link to the film in some way. Two ways have been suggested, and it's been rather contentious with no consensus reached. Asking for more input what say you, fellow editors?

• Include it as a click-to-play thumbnail in the body of the article, below the infobox? or
• Include it as a link in the External Links section, presumably in a Commons icon but with the legend "Full film available at Wikimedia Commons" (with "Full Film" clickable) rather than (or in addition to) the less clear default "Wikimedia Commons has media related to Debbie Does Dallas" (but don't get hung up on the details, please). Herostratus (talk) 05:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC) The RFC Bot has been repeatedly confused by unusual RFC-template edits on this page. The first bot-invited response arrived 19 February. 20 March would be the 30th day of external input. Please do not close early. Alsee (talk) 13:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Survey

• When public domain video for a movie is available, such as Night of the Living Dead and Foolish Wives, it is standard to include the full video in the article, the same way we include a full image of a painting in an article on that painting. That has been true even in the case of pornographic movies. A Free Ride is a historic 1915 hardcore pornographic movie, the earliest existing American example. That article has had the full video in the infobox for years.

Policy NOTCENSORED says Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive—​​even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia... Some articles may include images, text, or links which are relevant to the topic but that some people find objectionable. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should usually focus not on its potential offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image, text, or link. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal or inclusion of content. The Wikipedia:Offensive material guideline can help assess appropriate actions to take in the case of content that may be considered offensive. Looking to Offensive_material guideline we find Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available. As editors we are to step back from the content and evaluate it objectively and according to policy. Potentially objectionable content should not be gratuitously added to articles, but it is contrary to policy to argue that relevant and informative valuable content should be removed from an article merely because some people may consider it objectionable. We do not remove Images of Muhammad, we do not remove images of erotic artwork, we do not remove Nazi flags, we do not remove the video in the ejaculation article, we do not remove explicit images in BDSM or other articles on human sexuality. The Wikipedia:Content_disclaimer says Wikipedia contains many different images and videos, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers. For example, some articles contain graphical depictions of violence, human anatomy, or sexual acts.

There appears to be no dispute by anyone that this video is relevant and informative to this article, that it is a valuable resource for someone who is already searching for this article. THAT is the standard policy sets for inclusion.

The proposal here is that the the content should be removed[11] from the article and replaced it with an obscure clickthough link in the See-Also section to view the movie at Commons. Every RFC on such content has rejected any proposal to apply warnings or clickthroughs. We would never tolerate applying a See-Also clickthrough for images in the Muhammad article. We would never tolerate applying a See-Also clickthrough for images of historic explicit paintings. It is a serious disservice to readers of those articles. There is no way it justifies a contrary-to-policy removal of content from this article.

I Support inclusion in the article the same way we do at ejaculation, the same way we do at The Dream of the Fisherman's Wife, the same way we do at Night of the Living Dead, and at any other article. The content is obviously a valuable resource for someone who is specifically searching for this article. Alsee (talk) 06:11, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

• Include it as a link in the External Links section, I guess. I'm getting crickets on the RfC so I guess nothing is gonna come of it... I don't feel strongly about it, it just suits my gut feeling for how the page should flow and how we should curate the information... I'm prepared to discuss this in more detail if it becomes useful... Herostratus (talk) 09:57, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
• External link I actually came to this conclusion before I realized it was a pornographic film. Admittedly, I really know nothing about the topic at hand, its field, or even the technical side of how things work on Wikipedia, but my gut instinct is telling me that it would be better to include a link at the end of the article. I like to try to include those folks who can't afford nicer equipment to be able to use Wikipedia, but on the other hand if embedding it has no impact on the article's loading or anyone's ability to browse this page on slightly-outdated equipment whatsoever then I'm neutral as this is a realm of Wikipedia I avoid, so I have no stake in the outcome whatsoever EDIT 23:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC): I've changed my opinion and am no longer neutral, see below. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 06:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
• External link. As I mentioned above, I disagree with the assertion that it is standard practice to embed full movies in articles; and I don't see any particular benefit to embedding here. We clearly can do it, but I feel that embedding an hour-and-a-half-long movie needs somewhat stronger arguments than "we've embedded movies elsewhere, now and then". --Aquillion (talk) 19:39, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

The standard practice of including movies in articles has been supported by examples given several places on this page. If you would like to disagree, please back that up with at least one case where we have a video available, editors are aware it's available, and it was not included. Otherwise that is merely a personal opinion guess. The argument for inclusion is not "we've embedded movies elsewhere, now and then", the argument for inclusion is that it is relevant and informative to the highest possible degree. That happens to be the reason movies do get embedded elsewhere. Removal is improper under policy. Alsee (talk) 13:29, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Which policy? Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 16:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, those objecting to the content are violating notcensored policy. I can't think of a specific policy against baseless removal of relevant useful content, contrary to standard practice at other articles -- that is routine grounds for a revert. So far 100% of all identified cases do include the full video in article when it's available. If anyone wants to dispute that, they should identify one or more articles where a public domain video is available, editors knew it was available, and declined to include it. Alsee (talk) 01:10, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

As I understand it, NOTCENSORED is only for cases where we have something to gain AND something else to lose by not using an explicit example. If we have to, we use explicit content. If we don't, we explore alternatives. There is a huge difference between between videographic demonstrations of human sexual response made for scientific purposes, even if those who made them had shall we say ulterior motives (e.g. like at the article for ejaculation), and material made simply to incite erotic feelings, which is exactly what porn is. I do not believe it has yet been demonstrated that embedding a feature-length pornographic film would benefit the encyclopedia to any degree OR that Wikipedia would suffer without it, and NOTCENSORED does not say that there can be reckless abandon in what is included - it just says that, from time to time, material is included that may be offensive to some users. Let's pretend we're talking about a video about a guy using a lawn mower to demonstrate how a certain type of lawn mower is used - would we gain anything from having the guy be naked in full view the whole time? Is there any educational benefit to such a thing? The interpretation of NOTCENSORED by the Embed !voters would allow for this, but it is unnecessary, so we don't do things that way. WP:GRATUITOUS may be just a guideline, but in a nutshell it says there is a line and we should not cross it purely for the sake of crossing it: "Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." There's no real reason to embed the movie here - there's too much "Why not?" going on around here when we need more "Why?" Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 02:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion of streaming video of porn film on Wikipedia article space. Wikipedia is not a porn site, and should not be hosting porn films. This is WP:COMMONSENSE. I have no opinion about any link to the film. Softlavender (talk) 01:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
• Comment There is already an RfC happening about a similar topic at Talk:A_Free_Ride#RfC: Replace embedded hardcore pornographic movie with link to Commons?. That RfC should be closed before we have the same discussion here, as it whatever is decided there will provide guidance for this article. It is likely that a new RfC will need to be held at that time since the two situations are similar but not identical. This discussion is duplicating the existing RfC and the results are likely to be disputed. I suggest closing it and starting again when the other RfC has finished. Right Hand Drive (talk) 04:42, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's not correct. There are (at least) three reason why it's not -- and why it would be a favor to the deliberative process if you'd back off on continuing to flog this horse past the point of tedium:

1. AFAIK there is, for better or worse, no WP:MOS rule or guidance on this issue. Therefore article layout has to be decided on a case-by-case basis. Here's an example: One article might have many images, mostly laid out throughout the text. Another might have many images, mostly segregated in a gallery. It's not legitimate to have an RfC at the latter, get a "keep the gallery" result, and then use that result to say that the other article must also have its images moved to a gallery. See what I'm saying?
2. The movie at A Free Ride is about nine minutes long. The movie here is an order of magnitude longer. An order of magnitude is a lot, and might matter. Is is like the difference between an article with six images and one with sixty? Maybe. This is aside from any other differences between the articles.
3. Finally... we understand what you're doing, and... let's just say this: there's nothing wrong with politics, necessarily, but the person closing this RfC is not required to honor anyone's political ploys. Herostratus (talk) 20:38, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are attempting to rebut. I suggested that there should be a separate RfC here when the RfC at A Free Ride is finished. Opinions about how the two cases are different would be appropriate then, not now. Right Hand Drive (talk) 18:59, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose streaming the video in the article per Softlavender, and Jimbo Wales on his talk page: [12]. I've nothing against porn videos, but embedding one in an encyclopedia article seems a fairly clear case of WP:NOTHERE WP:NOTREPOSITORY, which asserts: "Complete copies of primary sources may go into Wikisource, but not on Wikipedia".  — Amakuru (talk) 11:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

NOTE: An RFC on NOTREPOSITORY policy overwhelmingly rejected this interpretation of policy. In fact that interpretation was impossible in the first place - Wikisource only accepts TEXT. It is nonsensical to suggest video is supposed to go there. NOTREPOSITORY does not apply to media being used in an article to support that article. Alsee (talk) 18:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• • I actually very strongly affirm Jimbo's comments on the matter. Many porn films have titles that do not make their content immediately clear; it is not at all unreasonable to expect that either A Free Ride or Debbie Does Dallas could be mentioned in a context that does not make it clear they are pornographic films. Not just on Wikipedia, but elsewhere. Our goal is to inform people of what these things are if they get curious enough to look it up, but we should not simply bring it to them. Making it so they must make the conscious decision to load the content being described while minimizing the chances of it being done by mistake or automatically is the best way to avoid misunderstandings. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 23:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
    • While Jimbo deserves a lot of respect as Founder of the project, I'd like to remind everyone that the community revoked Jimbo's founder Flag powers largely due to his contrary-to-consensus and contrary-to-policy efforts to remove "porn". The Wikipedia software was REWRITTEN because of Jimbo's contrary-to-consensus and contrary-to-policy desire to remove this sort of content. Citing Jimbo here actively undermines your argument and explicitly puts you on the "lost" side of the issue. Alsee (talk) 12:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

...really? His feedback is any less valid? Is he abusing any power to enforce a particular outcome in this debate? No one has "lost" this debate through citing him, let alone just through citing him. Having to say things like that is generally taken to speak volumes about how you feel regarding your own stance on the issue, so I would refrain from using such emotive terms or overstatements if I were you. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 16:53, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Closing policy directs closers to discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy. So yes, "less valid" applies to a lot here. If you or Jimbo disagree with policy then the place to post those arguments is in an RFC to change that policy. They are valid there, not here. Alsee (talk) 10:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I originally mentioned Jimbo in my comment above because I saw he'd made a good point regarding the fact that porn videos (or indeed any other video containing a full movie) are not usually embedded in an encyclopedia page. I was not intending for that to convey any extra power because of Jimbo's founder status. But Jimbo is still a Wikipedian like you and me, and your notion that his opinions or interpretations of policy are "less valid" than anybody else's just because he's Jimbo, is surely wide of the mark. I know of no policy that states we should include this video, and my interpretation of policy is that we shouldn't, because of WP:NOTREPOSITORY and other policies affirming us as an encyclopedia, not a media hosting site.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTREPOSITORY #4 says it covers Photographs or media files with no accompanying text. It explicitly does not apply to media is supporting an article. WP:NOTREPOSITORY then goes so far as to suggest building an article so that the content can be included! Closing policy says !votes should be discarded when logically fallacious, those that show no understanding of the matter of issue. Your !vote here based on WP:NOTREPOSITORY clearly falls under that clause. Alsee (talk) 13:53, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose There is no need to have the entire video embedded. A link is perfectly fine and I believe, more appropriate for a wikipedia article. There is also a link to wikimedia.Hobbamock (talk) 12:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
• Include The image shown was the title card, that can hardly be offensive to anyone. If you click the movie and get offended you can only blame yourself. I agree that having Wikimedia to host porn movies seems a bit strange, but that's not what is being discussed here. The movie *is* on Wikimedia, the question is if we link to it here or not. Having it as an external link is just silly, what difference does THAT make? --OpenFuture (talk) 12:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

  It makes all the difference in the world. Wikipedia has plenty of external links - for example the Microsoft page has a link to Microsoft's corporate website. Would you suggest instead that (copyright issues aside), we should transclude Microsoft's website into the article on Microsoft? No, of course you wouldn't. That would be silly. Commons and Wikipedia are completely different things - the former is a media hosting site, while the latter is an encyclopedia. What's appropriate for one is certainly not always appropriate for the other. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 12:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

You equate a third-party website with media on Wikimedia Foundation's own site, a site *specifically created* to host media for Wikipedia sites? That's a patently absurd line of argumentation that leads to us not including any media, not even pictures, but only have external links. That's obviously not what you meant, but that's what your line of argumentation leads to. How we link to it does not change where it's hosted, the fact that it's on Wikimedia if anything is argument against having it as an external link, as it specifically is NOT an external link. However, I believe where it's hosted is an irrelevant question, that's hardly the issue. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I think Amakuru's point was that Wikipedia is about things, but is not those things. Talking about a movie is very different from sitting through it. Wikipedia's goal is to talk about the movie, not serve as one more place where people can find a copy. If Wikipedia has any articles about notable online Flash games, do you think it would be appropriate to embed those games in article space? Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 01:36, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

This discussion is about whether to link via embedding or link via a text link. Both of those mean Wikipedia serves as one more place to find a copy, so that argument is neither here not there. --OpenFuture (talk) 03:36, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

If what you say is true, then we should have neither, but no, the external link does not mean the same thing as embedding it. If someone has to leave Wikipedia to track it down, Wikipedia is not playing host to it. There is indeed a difference. And as I am to understand it, linking to it would require one more click than embedding it. It has to be more deliberate & conscious on the part of the user. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 16:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

What I say *is* true. The difference between Wikipedia and Wikimedia in this case is zero. Wikimedia is the site that hosts Wikipedias media. Linking would likely require two clicks, I don't think it plays automatically. And so what? That also is no practical difference. As there is nothing offensive in the movie until several minutes in, you have to actually sit an watch the movie for several minutes. Is that not "deliberate & conscious"? And all of the things I just said have been said multiple times already in this argument, and nobody has addressed these things or explained why they are wrong. Why do we just repeat ourselves? Can't we listen to each other?

Nobody can come up with any actual argument for an external link except WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. The discussion is about two forms of linking to a Wikipedia site. The only difference is that in one, you see a picture, and in the other you have to click twice. Nobody is going to watch this movie by mistake in either case. Nobody that is going to be offended because there is a picture in this article you can click on. This is a silly, nonsense discussion about a complete non-issue. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:29, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia and Wikimedia [Commons] are distinctly different divisions of the same organization. They do not need to be completely separate entities in & of themselves for the argument as to their purpose to hold any water. The distinction is indicated by their names. What you're saying implies there's no use in clearly distinguishing between the two, but they exist as they do precisely because they serve different functions. Wikimedia can play host to much of what Wikipedia covers, but that does not mean Wikipedia should do the same. Wikipedia is a member of Wikimedia and Commons is a member of Wikimedia; you're conflating Wikipedia's position in the overall hierarchy. There is a hierarchy for a reason, which is because each member of this organization serves a different purpose. What is stored here at Wikipedia is not, as far as I know, also stored or accessible at Commons, though the reverse is often true.

And this RfC has broader implications than whether or not Wikipedia can play host to public domain porn films. As we have seen, it strikes at the very heart of why Wikipedia & the Commons are distinct from each other. On one hand, we store & load it here at Wikipedia, but in that case what's the point of having Commons? On the other hand, we store it at Commons and link to it somehow from here. If it's already on Commons, why not make it so in order to actually peruse the content one has to leave Wikipedia for the Commons? And if we allow films to be playable here, why not allow other things that are also public domain, like notable Flash games? We don't, or at least shouldn't, allow these things already because we don't want people coming here merely to load up a movie, or play a game. Wikipedia can be entertaining, but is not meant as entertainment.

Editors like myself dispute whether this is necessary or even helpful for the same reason we believe Wikipedia should not offer how-to advice, free advertising for covered topics, or mere lists of data - it runs contrary to Wikipedia's stated mission, which is to be an encyclopedia. About things, but not being those things. Images are different because, at least most of the time, they themselves are not the thing under discussion - they are of the thing under discussion. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 21:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

"And this RfC has broader implications than whether or not Wikipedia can play host to public domain porn films." - It does not even have THAT implication. This RfC has nothing to with whether or not Wikipedia plays host to public domains porn films. That is not the issue which is being discussed. You insist that Wikipedia and Wikimedia commons must be seen as completely separate entities withing this discussion. OK. Fair enough. Then Wikipedia does not play host to public domain porn films. End of story, we can stop discussing. It doesn't matter HOW we link to Wikimedia, it's not Wikipedia that is hosting the porn film, it's Wikimedia commons. What type of link we have makes no difference in that issue. This is NOT about whether we are hosting porn or not. It is ONLY about which type of link we have to the porn.

If you do not wish to discuss that issue, then please refrain from commenting, as you are only wasting yours and everybody else's time. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Now that I've thought about it, it really does not matter what the actual link itself is (storing it here vs. embedding here & streaming from elsewhere). It really is not a question of where the file is stored, only where it is accessible from. And for the third time, yes, making it accessible from a page on Wikipedia is tantamount to Wikipedia hosting it. If you do not have to leave Wikipedia to access it, then Wikipedia is hosting it. Open and shut. The location of the file itself is irrelevant. Most users are not going to see what is going on under the hood, on the technical level; the end result will be the same. The question becomes whether this serves any purpose for Wikipedia, and many of us - the majority it seems - do not believe that it does. We bring information to the masses, but information is distinct from what that information pertains to. Wikipedia's only goal is to be a resource of information. Wikipedia tells far more often than it shows, because that's its job. Embedding files for things (i.e. showing) is largely reserved for those times when telling won't cut it - in other words, when it would aid in the understanding of what is under discussion. The question is, would including this film in its entirety (no matter how we do it) be useful in helping people understand what it is? Does it serve some other function that the text by itself does not? Here is the opening to the article: "Debbie Does Dallas is a 1978 pornographic film starring Bambi Woods." Wikilinks are included where appropriate, so that single short sentence speaks volumes on its own. It is on those vouching for the film's inclusion into the article to show how & why this would actually aid in understanding the subject of the article, and "Because we can" isn't going to suffice. Neither will "But it'd be cool." I'm not going to respond further here as I have said my piece. And don't accuse me of wasting time, you're the one choosing to respond to me and you don't have to. Neither of us bickering over this will necessarily make the outcome any closer to what either of us thinks should be done. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 23:57, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

'And once again, this is not about whether to "make accessible" or "not making accessible". It's not about including the film in its entirety or not. It's not about linking or not, but about what type of link to use. It seems a lot of people don't understand that but insist on voicing their opinion anyway. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

@OpenFuture: I can assure you that there is a huge difference between transcluding a movie in an encyclopedia and linking to it in the External Links section. The former represents a part of the core article, while the latter is more like a "further reading" or "more information" type thing for people moving beyond the article. A typical article is intended to be read in maybe 30 mins from start to finish, and provide coverage of what is said about the subject in reliable secondary sources (i.e. we prefer to source material from reviews of the movie, not the movie itself).

As for WP:COMMONS, that is a sister site to Wikipedia, for sure, but it is categorically *not* Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which contains descriptive articles about subjects, cited to third party reliable sources. Commons is not an encyclopedia, it is a media repository, i.e. a place for hosting photos and videos. A decision to host something in one place does not in any way imply it is appropriate to host it in the other.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

You "assure me" that there is a huge difference? I'd prefer that you explain what that huge difference is, because I don't see it. Your argument seems to be that if it's under "External links", is it implied to be "more information". OK, so if we embed it under "External links", then it's OK in your opinion? You mean this is entirely about the position of the link, as opposed as the type of the link? I'm trying to understand what you are actually saying here.

Yes, I know it's hosted on Commons, but it remains hosted on Commons no matter how we link to it. In none of the options discussed is it hosted on Wikipedia. What kind of link we have to commons does not change that. Nobody is suggesting we host it on Wikipedia. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

It's obvious we're not going to agree here, which is fine, I respect your opinion. But just to answer the specific question, I'd go back to the Microsoft example. Sure, Commons is not like Microsoft because Commons is a Wikimedia project, but let's assume here that Commons is an "external" site from Wikipedia's point of view. Now in order to provide information about Microsoft in our article, we could conceivably transclude one or two pages from the Microsoft website in our Wikipedia article. Perhaps also embed a YouTube video produced by Microsoft that would tell us something about them. But we don't do that, and we wouldn't consider doing it. Instead we provide a simple text link in the "External links" section, that takes the user over to their website. That way it's clear that whatever content is found when following that link is not intended to be part of the article. Whereas an embedded video or frame hosted to appear amongst the body of the article looks more like an editorial decision to include it as encyclopedic. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

No, we could not conceivably "transclude" pages from Microsofts website or videos about Microsoft. We could use them as sources, that's what we conceivably can do, but that's not what is being discussed here. We are not talking about including a source. Nowhere on Wikipedia does we "transclude" pages from a Website. Why would we do that? That makes no sense. If you want to make a parallel to Microsoft you have to discuss whether we should include Microsoft or just link to it. Which is obviously impossible, as Microsoft isn't a digital resource. So we can not either link to Microsoft nor include it. So that argument just makes no sense whatsoever. We are probably not going to agree, no, but that's because your arguments are simply nonsensical. If you could make arguments that actually relate to the discussion: Should be link to or embed the video, then maybe you could convince me. But none of you arguments even touch on that question. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Include. It is clear that some people here don't understand how the site works, in particular the "embedded" "streaming" video. Let's be clear: "Including the video" means that we have a one-line piece of text that directs the software to present the title card of the movie in a frame with a "Play media" link. It does not mean that your browser automatically downloads the video, nor that the video will run. In your browser source you'll have a single still image loaded, not a film, as you can verify by right-clicking on that and doing "view image". Also note that there is no "streaming" going on here, which is a method used by copyright holders to lock up or at least obscure access to content. If you click on "Play media", your browser will open a Wikimedia Commons page with the video; if you enable Javascript and click the Play button at the similar A Free Ride video, a frame will open in your browser which if you copy video location says it is at https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/transcoded/8/81/A_Free_Ride_%281915%29.ogv/A_Free_Ride_%281915%29.ogv.360p.webm . In short, the video is not on en.wikipedia.org either way. The only difference in having the external link is that your click takes you to one kind of Commons page to play it rather than another. Then, of course, the video has to actually run a couple of minutes before you start seeing anything good. So what you are arguing over is whether we should make it easy for the reader to see that the video is available, or be coy about it. However small the difference, the censorious motivations behind it make it dangerous to concede any ground - we are here to make the information clear to the reader, not to try to obscure what we are doing. P.S. if this RfC is not closed like the one above, we should notify every reader who commented above since otherwise they may rightly feel their opinions are being discarded by trickery. Wnt (talk) 19:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm very well aware of how embedding video media works here on Wikipedia. I invite you to look at Felix the Cat and scroll not half a page down to find the short Feline Follies, embedded in its entirety. One click causes it to play, and no, it doesn't generate another window - at least not for me. If what you say is true, then there are multiple ways to get the job done, and this RfC seems to be about the one used at Felix the Cat. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 16:38, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose There is no need to have the video embedded. No added value in it. This is an online encyclopedia, not Netflix. A full movie, regardless of the genre, cannot be considered "information". Information is the set of details we display on the article regarding the movie. It is not about censoring, but sticking to encyclopedic values.--Mondiad (talk) 04:25, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

It looks good and is practical. That's added value. Remember what we are discussing here: An embedded link vs a text link. That's all. The full movie is still there. It's still available. It's still just a click away. Encyclopedic values do not change because of the link type. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Mondiad, I am puzzled how you do not see any value or informativeness in it. Are you proposing removal of noncontrovercial full-videos from all of our articles on Night of the Living Dead, Felix the Cat, Foolish Wives, and countless other articles? Alsee (talk) 18:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I know you weren't talking to me, but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And that's relevant because Mondiad discussed using Wikipedia as a Netflix copy in general, not addressing the actual content of the film under discussion here. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 21:20, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Why does the content of the film make a difference in what kind of link we have to it? --OpenFuture (talk) 21:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I just said it doesn't, and that Mondiad wasn't saying it did. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 21:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

No he didn't say content made a difference, and hence the question to Mondiad: Does Mondiad think we should remove ALL embedded videos? Because if the content doesn't matter, that's the conclusion of his comment. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:59, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. For the same simple reason of sticking to the encyclopedic concept. Despite its specifics, this is an encyclopedia. Having an embedded ready-to-play full movie inside the article that talks about the movie itself is not the way to go. You can call me old-fashioned if you want. I see discussions above about what happens when you click here and there, and how the "streaming" process works in this case. But these are technical details which vary a lot on the landscape. A new web browser may work in a different way.

Why an external link to wikimedia is not OK for you? --Mondiad (talk) 22:40, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

@Mondiad: Please note that you are now suggesting a site-wide change in how we do things, and you think we should stop linking to videos through embedding. This is a HUGE change, and it's entirely out of scope for this RfC. And why only for Videos? Why not also for images? Should we stop embedding them as well?

I think using hyper-links takes away from the usefulness of the encyclopedia. It makes it harder to see that there is a video, and it means you lose context when you click through to the video, and it means you can't continue to read the article while the video is running. I completely fail to see why embedding videos would be unencyclopedic. On the contrary, it seems highly relevant and encyclopedic to me. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

It's valuable for the same reason an image of a painting is valuable, you can learn a lot more about it by seeing it. Removing it from the article and putting an link in the external link section conceals our most valuable content from any reader who doesn't carefully scrutinize the entire article, and it would be utterly unacceptable to do the same for images of historic explicit artwork or Muhammad or the video in ejaculation. We have policies and guidelines that directly address the issue: NOTCENSORED and Offensive material. (1) Explicit or potentially offensive material should only be added if it relevant, helps the reader learn about the subject, and there is no equally valuable less offensive alternative. (2) Explicit or potentially offensive material is NOT to be removed from an article merely because it's explicit or potentially offensive. Alsee (talk) 02:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• External link for all films. Who would watch an entire film via an embedded link. Hard to believe we are debating this whether and how to include material that is in the public domain. Mootros (talk) 04:41, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Mootros could you please clarify whether you are arguing removal of full-videos from all articles such as Night of the Living Dead etc ect etc? I am trying to gauge whether this is a position with sufficient support to justify a central community RFC clarifying policy on inclusion or exclusion for all articles. Alsee (talk) 14:08, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I have no consolidated opinion whether the inclusion of full-videos should be done via embedded links. While I am opposing the exclusion of relevant material that is in the public domain, I am indifferent how this material is linked to the Commons. For me there is no difference how linking should be done for all films regardless of their contents. External links however seem more meaningful for an encyclopaedia that aims to draw the reader in. Mootros (talk) 10:53, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

• Procedural include - From my reading of relevant policies/guidelines, the stronger argument is in favor of including. That said, the proper place to discuss may be outside of specific examples (like Debbie Does Dallas). That so much of this dispute (referring not just to this RfC) takes the form of analogies with images/text/audio on one hand and discussion of video-specific variables on the other tells me the big problem here is lack of nuance in our policies for inclusion of video in articles. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:04, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
• External link per my comments at A Free Ride. Firstly, it is not censorship to use editorial discretion, and NOTCENSORED does not require us to display unnecessary porn to show we are not censored. Secondly, we are an encyclopaedia, and it is not the purpose of an encyclopaedia to host full-length movies. We write articles about films; Commons hosts them. BethNaught (talk) 08:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

It is hosted on commons even if we use an embedding link, hosting is not the issue here. Since we embed public domain movies in general, you argue that we should have an external link instead of an embedding link because it's porn. That explicitly contradicts WP:NOTCENSORED. Just FYI. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:37, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your passive aggressive and patronising comment. You are completely misunderstanding me. My second point applies in general and is meant in general. Moreover providing an external link instead of embedding is not censorship because the material is still made available and I see no reason why it must be embedded to enhance understanding of the article, and moreover it is in line with the principle of least astonishment. BethNaught (talk) 10:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean with "in general". This discussion and the RfC is about whether to have an external link or an embedded link to the video. If you want to discuss how we link to public domain movies in general, then you are in the wrong place.

If you want to change the way we link to pornographic movies (in general or not), that is changing how we treat films based on them being objectionable or offensive, and regardless of if you want to call this censorship or not, it violates WP:NOTCENSORED. Those are the facts, and pointing out facts is neither patronizing, nor passive-aggressive. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

• Strong External link - embedding will create kid-proof block issues that may encompass all of en.Wikipedia and that would be a disaster. If there is to be such an exclusion, let it be on Commons. Also, as others have mentioned, this should be standard policy so such RfCs would no longer be necessary. Atsme^📞📧 18:36, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Additionally to my statement above - I just found the following and I think it may suggest that embedding pornography into a WP article makes the project liable as a secondary producer which seems to me may make WP legally liable. In 2005, the Department of Justice issued regulations that expand the definition of a "secondary producer" of sexually explicit material. As of June 23, 2005, federal regulations apply the 2257 record-keeping requirement to secondary producers, and defines them as including anyone who "inserts on a computer site or service a digital image of, or otherwise manages the sexually explicit content of a computer site or service that contains a visual depiction of, an actual human being engaged in actual or simulated sexually explicit conduct." 73 Fed. Reg. at 77,468. See Legal_status_of_Internet_pornography which includes the laws of other countries as well. I think there should be a policy that prevents embedded links such as what is being discussed here and I'm also thinking Jimbo Wales needs to weigh-in on this because of the legal implications. Atsme^📞📧 18:55, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

You do not' understand how kid-safe browsers work. Please do not try to persuade people here based on your ignorance and guesses. See e.g. Comparison_of_content-control_software_and_providers, and feel free to ask at the reference desks WP:RD/C if you need any clarification. This is also not the place to discuss general policy. This is about one article. Even if your legal argument had any substance, that is not our concern. We have all sorts of disclaimers and WMF has lawyers. It is not our job to give legal advice to WMF or WP. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:38, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I understand how kid-safe browsers work because what you seem to not understand is that there are parents overseeing it. Look beyond the software. I also understand legal liability regarding pornographic material and it is our concern just as it is when we add derogatory material to a BLP. Something as serious as embedding pure pornographic material from a pornographic movie is something the legal department of WP needs to weigh-in on, not the community. Atsme^📞📧 20:04, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

If you have a good faith belief that the content is somehow illegal then the proper venue is to either nominate it for deletion or to contact WMF legal staff. If you would like to change policy for offensive content then the proper venue is a Village_Pump_(Policy). Alsee (talk) 23:44, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• Include - Including this material is in line with WP:Offensive_material. Consider A_Day_at_the_Zoo as an equivalent article on a public domain work. The full video is embedded there, and that should be a viable option here, until such time as WP takes on censoring rules. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:38, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• External link for all films And I fear that if Wikipedia were known as "a place for porn that treats women as sex objects," that a number of donors would think twice (not to mention schools which have students use Wikipedia as an educational resource) - the idea that "we should have porn inside articles because we are able to have porn inside articles" is, in my opinion, one of the most puerile arguments available. It is time for this project to actually grow up. Collect (talk) 19:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Your sexist approach is unhelpful. Furthermore the argument for inclusion is that it obviously and indisputably relevant and informative to the article. The most "puerile" argument is to lie about that. We do NOT remove Michelangelo's artworks because someone calls them "porn", and you have offered zero additional justification here. Alsee (talk)

I did not interpret Collect's response as sexist. He was simply relaying "sentiment" which we can choose to deny or accept as fact because the latter is actually what it truthfully represents regardless of how adamantly we deny it. Any attempt to compare Michelangelo's artworks with outright pornography wins the prize as the most puerile argument. Having said that, I also recognize your motivation for bringing it to our attention, although I believe there are much stronger arguments. For example, there's a list of things WP is NOT, and being a repository for popular porn flicks is one of them. I think WP:Pornography lays it out nicely without having to criticize comments by other editors. Atsme^📞📧 23:59, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

If opposing treating people as sex objects is "sexist" then I fear you have turned the definition of "sexist" quite on its head. In short - it is past time for Wikipedia to actually grow up, and the hyper-odd definition of "sexist" is an excellent example of why it needs to do so. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:45, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, Collect, I see nothing remotely sexist about your comments here.  Rebbing  talk  16:26, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it was sexist. There are male and female actors in the movie. Males and females view it. Your !vote rationale explicitly imposed your gender prejudices. "Women as sex objects". I see no difference between male and female actors, nor any difference between male and female porn viewers. We really need to kill off the sexist attitudes that being professional actresses in porn makes a woman a "slut" or "victim". Alsee (talk) 03:49, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

No. The roles of the women characters in the film are fundamentally different from those played by men. One doesn't have to view the actresses as either "sluts" or victims to see the film as sexually objectifying to women; that straw man belongs to you. And you may not see a difference between men and women characters in this film (or between men and women porn viewers), but that does not make it so—and it certainly doesn't make it sexist to point out sexual objectification.  Rebbing  talk  05:12, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment that linking to such films taints Wikipedia with their sexist values: we have a neutrally-worded article about Adolf Hitler, but that doesn't make Wikipedia evil.

Anyway, I believe that ship has sailed. Wikipedia has a wealth of material that many would find inappropriate anywhere, especially on an educational resource like Wikipedia. Consider (in order of shock/amusement value) Fanny Hill § Excerpt, Pearl necklace (sexuality), Cum shot, Facial (sex act), Bukkake, Futanari § In anime and manga, and Gokkun. The old-fashioned, "common sense" approach would say that we should not even have articles about such unnotable and obscene topics as gokkun, let alone ones with full-color, sexually-explicit illustrations!  Rebbing  talk  16:26, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Kindly note that I did not refer to the Wikipedia article - but to the deliberate inclusion of porn embedded in articles, not to proper external links. Might you note that distinction? Collect (talk) 16:42, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I know what you said, and I note the distinction. But I believe your main point—"if Wikipedia were known as 'a place for porn that treats women as sex objects,' ... a number of donors would think twice (not to mention schools which have students use Wikipedia as an educational resource)"—applies with even greater force to the articles I linked, especially to their sexually explicit illustrations. In my experience, few people expect to see those sorts of images on Wikipedia, whereas the embedded video here—in an article about a well-known pornographic film—doesn't show anything sexually explicit until the reader chooses to play it. Moreover, whether we link it or embed it, the true location remains unchanged.  Rebbing  talk  18:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

• Include - If the film's in the public domain then we may aswell make use of it, To me it serves a better purpose as the infobox video than an external link ...., and If anyone's offended by the video they only have themselves to blame, We're WP:NOTCENSORED.... –Davey2010^Talk 15:46, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
• Use external link for all films. Unless the film is extremely short or is a clip, I think it makes more sense for it to be linked to on Commons. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a movie-watching site. Kaldari (talk) 19:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
• Use external link for all films/long videos, mostly as per Kaldari. Also, regarding the WP:NOTCENSORED argument, you should also read WP:GRATUITOUS, which states "Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." An external link is clearly an equally suitable alternative, especially since Wikipedia is not a web host for whole movies. The entire movie goes well beyond encyclopedic coverage. ~ Rob^Talk 08:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
• Include as a thumbnail As per WP:RISK, and WP:DISC we have policies that make it clear that Wikipedia has this kind of content. If you find the content offensive, then simply don't click on the thumbnail. It should be common sense that if you go-to an article about porn that it would be shown somewhere in some form. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

N.B. FWIW the movie is about 1.5 hours long. Herostratus (talk) 05:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd just like to ask that, whatever is decided, will y'all relax? The differences between the possibilities offered are narrow and technical. It's not Juno Beach, OK? Either choice has reasonable arguments. Relax.

Some questions that I found useful to ask as I approached the question were:

• In the larger sense, what is an encyclopedia article? What is it for, and what is it supposed to do and be?
• What's the best page layout design here?
• What's the best "information design" here? What's the best way to curate the user's experience?
• In this particular case, it's a movie but it's also a pornographic movie. Does that matter? (N.B.: It begins with some anodyne scenes, so the chance of a user being accidentally launched into playing porno scenes (as, at the office) is probably very slim.)
• In this particular case, it's a feature-length film rather than a short subject. Does that matter?
• In this particular case, it's a pretty bad movie (grainy, unsynchronized, amateurly written and acted). Does that matter?

I have my own answers to these questions which I'll share later on. Right now we want to hear from you. Herostratus (talk) 05:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

• what is an encyclopedia article? What is it for, and what is it supposed to do and be? A resource for someone who wants to learn more about a topic. Wikipedia is modeled on a paper Encyclopedia, but we do not follow the constraints of paper encyclopedias. We include audio and video and far more extensive content than any paper encyclopedia ever could. We are also free from the commercial concerns that may compromise the content of traditional encyclopedias.
• What's the best page layout design here? This is equivalent to an article on a painting containing an image of that painting. Such significant content gets reasonably prominent placement, to be readily found by a reader superficially scanning the article. Exact placement is certainly flexible.
• it's also a pornographic movie. Does that matter? We do not treat articles on historic "pornographic" paintings any differently than we treat articles on any other historic painting. NPOV, NOTCENSORED, and other policies require us to step back from passing judgment on content itself. Our job is to objectively judge reliable sources and to best serve readers who come looking for a particular article. We cover explosives, drugs, BDSM, Necrophilia, Pedophilia, Lolicon, Fisting, Ejaculation, Images of Muhammad, Coprophilia, and yes historic pornographic movies. Our job is to serve the reader who is looking for that topic. The community has made an explicit policy decision that the inclusion criteria is whether the content is relevant and valuable for that reader, an explicit policy decision that the content in those articles will not be compromised when the argument for removal is merely that some people find it offensive or objectionable. Articles on breast cancer will contain images of breasts because we do not allow debates on whether that qualifies as "porn" - even if it is "porn" that argument is irrelevant under policy. We debate whether readers of the article will find it relevant and valuable. And yes, Wikipedia stands out as an unusual and uniquely valuable resource for that choice to disregard typical selfcensorship expectations. The reason that a consensus of editors made that strikingly unusual policy is a sizable subject in itself.
• it's a feature-length film rather than a short subject. Does that matter? It has no effect on the page size. It has no effect on a reader who doesn't choose to play it. We are free of the constraints of a paper encyclopedia. I'd also like to note that there have been favorable discussions of beginning to include "Virtual Reality" type scans of historic locations in the Encyclopedia. Such content could quickly end up being much larger than this video. File size does not matter until the Wikimedia Foundation tells us that it's becoming a technological problem.
• it's a pretty bad movie (grainy, unsynchronized, amateurly written and acted). Does that matter? As editors we have no business passing judgment on artistic merit. The world has deemed this work to be highly Notable. Graininess would be relevant in selecting which of two versions better serves the reader, or if it were so severe as to make the content substantially worthless. Synchronization can be fixed, and until that gets done we keep useful content and await a better replacement. Alsee (talk) 08:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Unbiased ping to all participants (not already present) of the just-closed A_Free_Ride RFC, as they may be interested in participating here. Per Appropriate notification policy as Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics). The discussion in this RFC is substantially identical, aside from the article title. Gamaliel Nocturnalnow Betty_Logan Crisco_1492 Davey2010 Collect Rich_Farmbrough In_actu Atsme EvergreenFir User:Dr.K. SemanticMantis The_Gnome. Alsee (talk) 18:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Herostratus, in response to your question regarding MOS, the obvious answer is to go with WP:Manual_of_Style/Film. It is what it is, genre should not be an issue with regards to MOS. Atsme^📞📧 16:58, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposal

I have an idea. Per WP:GRATUITOUS, we shouldn't include shocking or offensive material if tamer alternatives exist for illustrating information about the subject. I notice that the article does not currently contain any other images aside from the film's theatrical poster. As I am to understand it, this debate centers on whether one has to leave https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debbie_Does_Dallas to peruse the film, which people like myself think should be the case on the grounds that it would be more in line with Wikipedia's mission as a whole (not because of the film's content).

That being said, I should emphasize "not because of the film's content". Other film articles have screenshots, so I don't see why this one shouldn't even if they are graphic to any degree. This might be helpful in illustrating the topic of the article - in fact, more so, as it could illustrate key points from the film to aid in reader comprehension. This would be more in line with the use of blatant imagery on other pages dealing with sexual topics. Is that okay with everyone? Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 02:05, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

It's fine if someone wants to add more illustrations to the article, but I don't think it's beneficial to remove videos from Felix the Cat or Night of the Living Dead or here. If removing videos from articles is a significant position, I may start an impartial central community discussion on revising policy to clarify whether such videos are appropriate or inappropriate in general. Alsee (talk) 04:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree that such a discussion needs to take place. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 04:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Other film articles have screenshots, yes. And there would not be a problem in adding more screen shots. That's however completely unrelated to this. Films that are open source and exist on Wikimedia commons are typically also included on the films articles on Wikipedia. So it also is here. The discussion is only if we are going to link to it with embedding, as is done elsewhere, or with a text link. The only argument for treating this article differently is because of the films content.

It's not WP:GRATUITOUS as you have to actually look through several minutes of the film to find the pornographic content. So this is just yet again an attempt of trying to shift the discussion away from the actual topic: What link type to use when linking to this movie at Commons. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

It does not, and should not, matter when the good 'n' dirty stuff actually begins. GRATUITOUS doesn't work that way; if the film is embedded here, the graphic content is given just as much emphasis as the intro that people insist is tame. On the whole, certain parts of the movie that can be represented via screenshots are not as graphic or explicit as the film in toto (that is, taken on their own they may be explicit but cannot be as bad as the entire movie put together), and its theatrical poster is far tamer too. The question that remains unanswered is how, or even if, embedding the film in its entirety would serve any benefit to the article and help readers in any way. All I've heard thus far is "It would look cool" without any justification as to why and "We've done it on some other articles too". My proposal, on the other hand, is sort of a happy compromise: We can include parts of the film in more of an attempt to meet readers halfway and explain parts of the film in better ways than before. But there's no reason to include an entire porn movie in a Wikipedia article, or if there is, it hasn't been presented yet. So I'll ask again: What would making the entire film openable from here do for readers that nothing else, whether my proposal or otherwise, could do just as aptly, if not better?

To address the accusation of shifting the discussion away from the topic: This is trying to address the topic in a way that seems to be overlooked - its utility. At Wikipedia, we don't do things because they would be cool, we do them because they would make Wikipedia more informative & helpful. I'm trying to respond to the utility of embedding this film - I see none, but I see a valid alternative that's almost the same thing and seems to be far more useful. So no, it's not "completely unrelated to this", that's just a WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT assertion that remains unproven. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 16:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Are you trying to claim that having an external link would have a HIGHER utility than embedding? --OpenFuture (talk) 23:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

No, I'm trying to get you to tell me how embedding would have higher utility. But before you respond I have more to say to that, see below. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 00:03, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I think we should also keep in mind why Wikipedia has so many sister projects. We have WikiSource for public domain texts, for example. Could we put that stuff on Wikipedia? Absolutely. But just because we can doesn't mean we should. We do sample public domain texts from time to time but especially if the cited source is long, we don't generally use all of it. The same logic can & should apply here. We can sample the movie, but making the whole thing streamable through this article is, at best, far less useful. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 20:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

We have sister projects, but one of them is the crazy sister you keep in the attic. FWIW, regarding the film:

1. It's only in the public domain due to inadvertance -- somebody forgot to cross a T or dot an I regarding placement of the copyright notice. They didn't want their rights to be taken from them, and they certainly didn't donate the film to the public. How much we want to jump on that and crow "Tough luck, sucks to be you!" is not necessarily an open-and-shut question.
2. It may not even be in the public domain anyway. The source used to show that its in the public domain actually says that VCX still claims copyright over it and is suing 113 anonymous pirates for infringing its copyright on Debbie Does Dallas by sharing the film on BitTorrent, and that it will take a further court case to determine its public domain status.
3. Whether or no, it certainly can't be shown commercially. If you try to show it and charge money, you will be enjoined from doing so and sent to jail if you keep it up. This is because the movie uses Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders uniforms and so the Cowboys have veto over commercial use, which they will never give. As a general rule, we only use media that is free for downstream use (except for fair use). Why we're making an exception here I don't know.

You could go to Commons and point this out, but you could also have a bunch of people look at you like you have two heads growing out of your stomach and one of them is actively vomiting. Just because our "sister" project can't or won't do due diligence doesn't mean we can't. Herostratus (talk) 23:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

The ineffectiveness of sister projects doesn't matter because, as has been pointed out, the movie is currently available via Wikimedia Commons (the legality notwithstanding). That part is done, and if the film's copyright status is in question then we should probably end this RfC on that point and continue a general form of this discussion elsewhere. Wikipedia is known for always choosing the path of least resistance, and if the legality of this move is in question, the most pragmatic thing to do would be to withhold from including this film and turn our attention to the ones that truly are in the public domain. We can pick it up from there. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 00:03, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Sure, we could "sample" the movie. Which means somebody would have to sit down and choose part of the movie and make a shorter movie that somehow accurately represents the full movie. Now who chooses what bits to include? Are we going to sit and discuss that? Are you seriously going to open that can pf worms? And how can we sample a hardcore porn movie without the sample being mostly hardcore porn? If you do this all you do is embed a movie that goes into the hardcore directly instead of doing so only after several minutes. Does that increase the utility from a encyclopedic perspective?

Seriously, this is getting ridiculous. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:46, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

So if screencaps would do nothing to help users understand the article topic and would just result in Wikipedia showing more hardcore porn, how would embedding the movie in toto be any better? Again, I hear nothing beyond "Because we can and we've done it before." If you're going to be consistent and want to argue against screencaps, you also have to argue against embedding the movie - there's no value added to the article for an embedded film.

Also, "It's too much work" isn't an acceptable excuse. We have discussions about difficult decisions all the time, and their difficulty has never been a good enough reason to not deal with it altogether. We have to think about the encyclopedia. The encyclopedia comes first. Would this improve Wikipedia, or serve to its detriment? We have to show that it would not be detrimental and that it would be helpful. So far the arguments for embedding have not satisfied these two criteria, from my perspective. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 00:03, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you are just not listening, and continue to discuss everything except the topic of the discussion. I'm bowing out from this debate, this is just a waster of time. --OpenFuture (talk) 01:45, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Zeke, I have to agree with OpenFuture. Your argument has become bizarre and nonsensical. No one has said "screencaps would do nothing to help users understand the article topic". No one has argued against screencaps at all. We have been explicitly agreeable to adding screencaps. We simply didn't buy removal-of-the-video that you were hoping to sell in your imagined package deal. Change your !vote to keep the movie in the article, go ahead and add any minimally rational screencaps, and we'll happily support their inclusion.

And absolutely no one has argued that the movie should be included because "It would look cool". We have argued that it goes in the article because it's relevant and informative. The only way you can watch the movie and not learn anything about the movie is if you're blind and deaf. If you can't comprehend that, I suggest you go to Mona Lisa and try to remove the image there on the basis that seeing the subject of the article is somehow not informative about the subject of the article. That is an utterly perverse argument. Alsee (talk) 12:08, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) But no one has said how it would be any more informative than what I've proposed. OpenFuture basically dismissed my idea saying it would be too much work, nevermind that we have discussions on difficult decisions all the time and it no doubt would not be that hard. Wikipedia has made harder decisions in the past. We've also discovered there could be copyright snags, and Wikipedia, being the pragmatic machine it is, would do better to take this discussion elsewhere and refrain from including this film specifically if its status as public domain is in dispute.

From what I can tell, only three people have agreed that the movie should be embedded. The vast majority of !votes are against it. Instead of me dodging the question, OpenFuture has because OF refused to actually discuss what superior benefit screencaps would have (so no, even if you personally agreed with it OF didn't, so "we have been explicitly agreeable to adding screencaps" is flat-out not true, as is "no one has argued against screencaps at all").

You say embedding the movie would be more informative. Okay, how? What does it do for readers that we can't possibly do any other way? And should Wikipedia even attempt to perform that function for readers? Is that function in line with Wikipedia's mission? Of course you're going to learn something about the movie, but the question is whether Wikipedia would want to teach it. There is a whole host of material that argues what kind of information Wikipedia can give, and one group has been lovingly called WP:FANCRUFT.

Finally, comparing a painting, one still image, and a movie, many images together with sound, is apples & oranges. One does not need to pause & rewind a painting. A painting also makes no sound. That it's a single picture used to illustrate the topic of an article while at the same time being the topic of that article does not make my suggestion for this film any less valid. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 16:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I did not say what you say I said. I have also actually said the thing you say nobody said. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

IMO editors are entitled on some questions (including this one) to be like "I like such-and-such. It's aesthetically pleasing to do such-and-such. Such-and-such is good page layout. Such-and-such is good information design, if you don't mind jargon" or, conversely, "I don't like such-and-such. It's ugly. Such-and-such is poor page layout. Such-and-such is poor information design." What else are we talking about, and how else are we supposed to approach it? There is no book or rule or organization or example or expert person we can turn to and say "Ah! Problem solved! It's stone cold proven here that we must [or: cannot] do such-and-such and that is objectively better as a matter of proven fact".

On the matter of whether there ought to be WP:MOS rule mandating one or the other approach, as some have suggested... maybe. I'm skeptical. We don't, for instance, have a WP:MOS rule for still images that says "Images must be peppered throughout the text, galleries are not allowed" or "All images must be in galleries, interweaving them in the text is not allowed" or "between 40% and 60% of images (round up) must be in galleries, the remainder must be placed throughout the text". I think putting that much of a straitjacket on editors on the ground who are working on the article is not optimal. (I also don't think it's possible, given how hard it is to get new rules adopted here.) Different articles have different needs, or anyway different editors with different aesthetic ideals working on them... Herostratus (talk) 16:40, 29 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.

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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Debbie Does Dallas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080925003731/http://thestonybrookpress.com:80/tag/debbie-does-dallas/ to http://thestonybrookpress.com/tag/debbie-does-dallas/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.iafd.com/results.asp?searchtype=comprehensive&searchstring=Debbie+Does+Dallas

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

"Richard Balla"

This is a link, so I can't change it, but the linked article refers to "Richard Bolla" or "Bollo". No idea which of these spellings is right.188.230.240.75 (talk) 14:38, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Greetings. I looked into it. There's no typo, at least not by Wikipedia. Our article says "Richard Balla", and links to the article for actor Robert Kerman. Robert Kerman used the name "Richard Bolla" or "R. Balla" in several Pornographic roles. However in Debbie Does Dallas, he is indeed credited as Richard Balla. If there was a typo, it was in connection to Debbie Does Dallas, and it survived into the release of the film.

On a side note, it isn't difficult to make the fix yourself if you do find a problem in a link. When you click edit, a simple link is created like [[this]]. The double-brackets convert the word 'this' into a link to the article titled 'this'. However the article is using a slightly more complicated link in this case. The link actually looks like [[Robert Kerman|Richard Balla]]. The actual linked article is on the left side (the link goes to the Robert Kerman article), the right side is the text-link shown in the sentence (the reader sees Richard Balla as a clickable link). The character in the middle is called a pipe. You can probably find the character above ENTER on the keyboard, as a shift-character. Alsee (talk) 12:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)