Talk:Debbie Does Dallas/Archive 1

Archive 1

Debbie Does Dallas and Video Playback Recorders (VCRs)

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

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

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

Significance?

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

Fair use rationale for Image:Debbiedoesdallas.jpg

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

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

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

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

Law suit?

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

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

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

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

Not reliable source

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

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

new kindle ebook on amazon

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

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

Censorship of article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link fix (arbitrary break)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unrelated discussion

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

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

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

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

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

This is what I wrote:

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

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

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

Sheesh, give me a break.

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

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

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

Music section

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

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

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

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

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

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