Talk:A Free Ride/Archive 1

quote wrong?
Is a [sic] required, or a correction: "where men and [sic] men and girls will be girls"? Bigesian (talk) 14:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Corrected by  -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  15:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Is this an American film?
If you look at the trees, bushes and landscape, it's more likely to be America than Britain; conceivably it's somewhere in the Commonwealth - Australia had burgeoning film industry at the time. Bigesian (talk) 22:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) The car has the steering wheel on the right, American cars have it on the left.  The car was also driving on the left side of the road, suggesting that this was filmed outside the U.S.
 * 2) *It's conceivable that it's a pre-standardization car; see Steering wheel. Bigesian (talk) 22:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) *The car's not driving on the left, it's driving where the wheel ruts are. It drives down the same runs entering and (continuity error) leaving. Bigesian (talk) 07:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) The director is credited as 'Will. B. Hard'.  Willy is a British euphanism for a penis.
 * 5) *Or alternatively, it's the future tense and advertising promise. Bigesian (talk) 22:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That car has a long, thin British style licence plate as well. American ones are more square. 80.249.48.108 (talk) 19:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And that hasn't changed in 100 years? Bigesian (talk) 07:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

[and] unecessary
"In the wide open spaces, where men are men and girls will be girls, [and] the hills are full of romance and adventure." could be read "In the wide open spaces (where men are men and girls will be girls) [and] the hills are full of romance and adventure." thus "In the wide open spaces (where men are men and girls will be girls) [and] the hills are full of romance and adventure." as such, "In the wide open spaces [and] the hills are full of romance and adventure." looks wrong. I proposed the removal of the [and]. Bigesian (talk) 07:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Done. -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  13:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Ford Model T
The source for the claim that the man was driving a Model T is Slade, Joseph W. (2006), "Eroticism and Technological Regression: The Stag Film", History and Technology: An International Journal 22 (1): 35. -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  21:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

"Crude humor"
In A_Free_Ride, the use of false cast name is described as "crude humor" by Williams. The quote from Williams is:

After the title card the credits appear, employing crude humor that is typical of American stags from this and later eras

I've worded the "from this and later eras" assertion as "in American stag films produced from this time". "From this time" means "from this and later times". -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  21:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Full-length films/videos in articles
There is an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Videos/Archive 1 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. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 21:37, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Replace embedded hardcore pornographic movie with link to Commons?
This article has had a hardcore pornographic movie embedded in it since 2012. Should the embedded hardcore pornographic movie be replaced with a link to the file on Commons? Right Hand Drive (talk) 00:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Default to no change (Keep embedded video) - No rationale offered for its removal. Article is about a film. Film is in the public domain. We have a copy of the film. If it were any other subject that could be displayed in a single image-sized frame, we would display it. Given that Wikipedia not censored, there would need to be a compelling argument to remove. I note that there are several threads on several different pages on more or less this same subject that you are aware of, so why did you open this one? &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 02:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I did not start the discussions at the Village Pump or WP:NOT. Neither of those discussions seems likely to be productive, since both are predicated on misunderstandings of policy and technical details. A specific, focused discussion seems necessary to move this forward. The outcome of this RfC will be useful for guiding actions at Debbie Does Dallas. Right Hand Drive (talk) 02:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Then you should deal with the issue at that article instead of trying to remove content from an unrelated one.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 17:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * He's proposing something that he doesn't actually believe in or want to happen in order get an easy "win" here which he can then attempt to leverage over there. As Aristotle said, man is the political animal... Herostratus (talk) 23:55, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Herstratus, please stop insulting me, making insinuations about me, ascribing false motives to me, or generally referring to me at all. This is your last warning. Right Hand Drive (talk) 03:49, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not trying to remove content. I went out of my way to phrase the question as neutrally as possible. It does not suggest that one outcome is preferable, it simply gives a choice of two possibilities. I make no assumptions about how this RfC will end. Whatever the outcome of this RfC, it will help to guide other similar cases (Debbie Does Dallas potentially being one). Right Hand Drive (talk) 03:49, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "embedded hardcore pornographic movie" does not strike me as neutral phrasing.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 04:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It is an embedded hardcore pornographic movie. This discussion would not be happening here if it were an embedded movie with no hardcore pornographic content. Can you suggest a different phrasing that is more neutral yet contains the same information? Right Hand Drive (talk) 04:38, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "Should a video of this film be embedded in this article?" is a phrasing that avoids any emotional charge or issues of neutrality. To phrase the question to emphasize your motivation for starting this discussion is not neutral.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 04:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That does not contain the same information. You assume that the editors responding will be familar with the article and the movie. I do not make that assumption. You also assume that my motivation for starting this discussion (the removal of the movie from Debbie Does Dallas) means that I am trying to influence the result. I am not. Nor do I assume that the result of this discussion can be directly applied to other similar situations. I'm really not sure what you think I'm trying to do here, but I'm tired of defending myself. The RfC will go how it goes. Right Hand Drive (talk) 05:06, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You assume that the editors responding will be familar with the article and the movie - No. If you ask "Should a video of this film be embedded in this article?" on the talk page of an article about that film, everybody responding will have had to see what "this film" and "this article" mean if they hadn't already. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 14:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No matter how the question is phrased, an editor who takes the time to investigate will come to understand that the movie under discussion is a hardcore pornographic movie. The reason for having this discussion at all is because of a disagreement over embedding a hardcore pornographic movie versus linking to it. I see no reason to obscure that the movie under discussion is a hardcore pornographic movie. I haven't advocated any position or result so your concerns about "neutrality" seem to be misplaced. Right Hand Drive (talk) 16:07, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Default to no change. This rfc seems pointy to me. Nocturnalnow (talk) 16:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:POINT. Please log on to your normal account and stop using this throw-away user name to push the addition of a film to Debbie Does Dallas. Johnuniq (talk) 00:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "Try not to be confrontational. Be friendly and civil, and assume good faith of other editors' actions." Right Hand Drive (talk) 02:46, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Remove embedded hardcore porn film from Wikipedia article space. Wikipedia is not a porn site and should not be hosting porn films; this is WP:COMMONSENSE. I have no opinion on whether a link to Commons should be on the article. Softlavender (talk) 01:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Replace embedded video with link. This RFC is principally connected to the discussion at Debbie Does Dallas. I do not believe that is actually being WP:POINTy (and I don't think it really matters what his true account is at this stage provided this account isn't used explicitly to circumvent the rules), and I think establishing a precedent for dealing with embedded pornographic content would be a welcome development. If this RFC results in removing the video though I do expect him to draw a line under the dispute. Since this article is GA rated then it is reasonable that we should follow the example of GA/FA rated articles. The debate is spread out all other Wikipedia at the moment, so it would be beneficial to bring some focus back to the debate and get a binding result in one similar case. I will go through the various arguments one by one:
 * WP:IDONTLIKEIT. OK, thanks for letting us know, but ultimately we don't care.
 * Wikipedia does not censor: WP:CENSOR states that being "merely objectionable" is "generally not sufficient grounds for the removal or inclusion of content". In other words, we shouldn't remove content just because it causes offence. This is a policy so it is not negotiable. We don't remove content because it is pornographic. We don't remove content because someone might accidentally click on it and play the video as per the argument put forward at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales. It is these types of arguments that WP:CENSOR prohibits.
 * Wikipedia does censor (sort of): The guideline at Offensive material states that "offensive words and offensive images should not be included unless they are treated in an encyclopedic manner. 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." I don't see this guideline as contradictory to WP:CENSOR, but rather it is clarifying how we should apply it. It is basically saying that inclusion and exclusion should be judged solely in encyclopedic terms i.e. we only include something if it furthers an encyclopedic understanding of the topic. It is also saying that we should be sensitive to a reader's concerns: if the same encyclopedic objective can be achieved without including offensive material then we should favor that option. After all, WP:CENSOR doesn't just prohibit the removal of material on the grounds that it is offensive, it also prohibits the addition of material purely on the grounds it is offensive.
 * Per the arguments put forward at Village_pump_(policy), WP:NOTREPOSITORY states Wikipedia is neither a mirror nor a repository of links, images, or media files.[3] Wikipedia articles are not merely collections of: Public domain or other source material such as entire books or source code, original historical documents, letters, laws, proclamations, and other source material that are only useful when presented with their original, unmodified wording. It is questionable whether this guideline applies to embedded media files or not, since unlike a text based source a media file only occupies the same physical space in the article regardless of the length of the media i.e. a 2hr movie does not take up any more space than a 90-second clip. That said, the spirit of the guideline probably favors treating media files the same way it treats text: while readers are likely to read a single paragraph excerpt from War and Peace they are not likely to read the whole book if we embedded the text; neither are they likely to watch a full 2hr movie. Shorter media files are debatable: a reader may well listen to a 3-minute song, but probably not a full album. Readers generally come to Wikipedia find out something about the subject, not for freebies. This interpretation favors removing all embedded full-length films from Wikipedia articles.
 * If readers do come to the article looking for a "freebie" then Wikipedia guidelines again provide an explicit answer: WP:ELYES states "An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a legally distributed copy of the work, so long as none of the § Restrictions on linking and § Links normally to be avoided criteria apply." That is short and to the point.
 * So to cut to the chase I think the weight of policies and guidelines generally suggest we should replace embedded full length films—especially pornographic ones—with a simple, clear, link. The encyclopedic aims of embedding full-length films are not clear to me, and Offensive material recommends not including offensive material in an article unless there is a clear encylopedic gain to doing so.. We provide encyclopedic coverage through secondary sources, and we can complement this with primary source materials as and when it is required i.e. if we need to illustrate something that would be best achieved by showing some portion of the film we can include a short clip. If that clip is pornographic in nature, then per WP:CENSOR so be it, provided showing that particular bit enhances a reader's understanding of what we say in the text of the article. WP:ELYES in conjunction with WP:NOTREPOSITORY also implies that linking to a film rather than embedding it is the preferred course of action. Betty Logan (talk) 01:52, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep embedded video - This article is about a public domain film, and thus the film itself has higher encyclopedic value than (say) a still image of the title card. Yes, it's pornographic, but that is clear from the first sentence of the article; there is no "astonishment" to consider (i.e. this is not an article on, say, 1910s auto culture), and Wikipedia is not censored. Worse comes to worse, we can set the thumbnail time to that of the title card so that no possibly objectionable material is shown. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep embedded video - The entire article is about the film and the file's in the public domain .... so it kinda makes sense to have the full movie here instead of just a card or link. – Davey 2010 Talk 05:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep embedded video. It is obviously relevant and useful. I see three arguments raised above:
 * It is "Porn": Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. No one searching for an article on Muhammad can be astonished that it contains content relating to Muhammad (which happens to include images), no one searching for an article on ejaculation can be astonished that it contains content relating to ejaculation (which happens to include a video), no one searching for an article touching on Nazi Germany can be astonished that it contains content relating to Nazis (including flags and other Nazi iconography), and no one reading an article about a pornographic movie can be astonished that it contains content relating to that pornographic movie. Some people may be surprised by NOTCENSORED, but given NOTCENSORED, they cannot be astonished when they search for something and then find content related to exactly what they searched for.
 * WP:ELYES: This is a policy defining acceptable external links. It is a clear misreading of intent to interpret it as imposing some sort of prohibition against otherwise-usable main article content. It is clearly written in the context that 99.9% of everything is under copyright. It explicitly says Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues . The policy is saying that when there is no copyright issue and content can be integrated into the article, it should be.
 * WP:NOTREPOSITORY says Wikipedia articles are not merely collections of: (4) Photographs or media files with no accompanying text. If you are interested in presenting a picture, please provide an encyclopedic context, or consider adding it to Wikimedia Commons. If a picture comes from a public domain source on a website, then consider adding it to Wikipedia:Images with missing articles or Wikipedia:Public domain image resources. The policy prohibits hosting of bare images (or movies), or simple galleries of bare images (or movies). The policy explicitly does not apply to content that is being used to support an article. Furthermore the policy explicitly suggest consider adding it to Wikipedia:Images with missing articles - which is explicitly saying the unused content can be here and that it SHOULD be included in an article once that article is written.
 * It is clear that the opposition here is motivated by the wish to exclude content they view as "objectionable", in flat violation of NOTCENSORED policy. The other arguments are grasping at wikilawyer straws, searching for an excuse to circumvent the clear NOTCENSORED policy. Alsee (talk) 14:39, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Followup note: It is normal for articles to directly contain the contain a full video, in those cases where copyright doesn't prevent it. See Night of the Living Dead and Foolish Wives as examples. This page is clearly being singled out based on opinion about the content itself. Alsee (talk) 23:08, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep embedded video. It's the obvious way to do things.  If people are "astonished" to find that old silent movies included frank sexual content and are now public domain, then Wikipedia does a public service in teaching them. Wnt (talk) 16:54, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Replace Per WP:Offensive material and WP:LEAST. One would note that even in New York City, the law requires that nudie mags not be visible to minors.  "Notcensored" does not mean "plaster sex acts so all the teenagers can see them on their school computers" at all.  It means that we use material suited to the needs of the encyclpedia, and that includes the need for rational editorial discretion. Collect (talk) 22:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Collect could you clarify your rationale? WP:LEAST explicitly redirects us to WP:Offensive material for this situation, and it looks like WP:Offensive material says it should be included. It says 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. Can we agree that the movie is relevant to an article about that movie? Can we agree that the movie is extremely informative about that movie? Can we agree that removing it, or any substitute, would be vastly less informative about the movie? Can you answer "no" to those questions in some way that doesn't equally apply to images of explicit famous artwork in articles such as L'Origine_du_monde and The_Dream_of_the_Fisherman's_Wife? Or are you saying we should apply the same "rational editorial discretion" to remove all of those images from Wikipedia because they aren't "informative" about the topic? Alsee (talk) 23:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I expect a teacher seeing the embedded clip on a classroom computer would likely be astonished - but your mileage may vary. As for "community standards", I know of no place at all that would consider that film to be proper viewing for a child.  Again, your mileage may vary. Collect (talk) 00:52, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You didn't answer any of my questions. The policy you cited, WP:Offensive material, says it should be included. You have not disputed this. You also failed to respond regarding removal of explicit content from articles on famous artwork, not to mention our articles on human sexuality articles (some of which contain extremely explicit videos). WP: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.  WP:Close policy says The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, those that show no understanding of the matter of issue. You are flatly contradicting established policy, and you don't even dispute it. If you disagree with that policy then you should start a discussion on that policy talk page proposing to change it. Alsee (talk) 14:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * RfCs are a very poor place for extended colloquy. "if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available. is salient here.  As there is no doubt that a Commons link would certainly provide direct access to the material, the "'if and only if" part is what is at issue.  Are you suggesting that this use of a link somehow renders the material inaccessible to those who wish to view it?   Collect (talk) 15:12, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Removing relevant valuable content from an article on the sole basis that some people find it offensive is invalid under policy. You would get instantly squashed if you went to articles on a explicit historical artworks, Muhammad, or ejaculation, and try to hide those images and videos behind an obscure click-through link in the See Also section. There is no difference here. You appear to acknowledge this is relevant and informative to the article, have offered no rationale for removal other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT and your desire that other people not see it after they searched the subject. Alsee (talk) 18:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * An "equally suitable alternative" is available though by providing a link to the video on Commons in the External links section. The purpose of the RFC is to determine whether we provide the video via a link or by embedding it. I suppose the real question is why is embedding the video a superior option? The full film itself is not required to support the claims in the article, but a clearly labelled link makes it available to those who wish to watch it. Betty Logan (talk) 07:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You say "the real question is why is embedding the video a superior option". I find it difficult to comprehend you seriously saying that. Do you think anyone would take you seriously if you said that while removing illustrations of historic artworks from those articles? Alsee (talk) 18:38, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I find it difficult to comprehend that you cannot see the distinction: if an image is embedded in the article it is immediately there to look at. It can be "consumed" by the reader in a split second. This is not true of film. The video still has to be activated and watched for 90 minutes whether it is embedded in the article or linked to. So my question stands: if a reader wants to watch the film why is supplying a link rather than embedding it not an adequate alternative? Betty Logan (talk) 07:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * One problem with a vote against "plastering sex acts so that teenagers can see them" is that it is irrelevant to this question. Whether they click a link then click Play Video, or if they click Play Video, they still can see it.  Either way, a person needs to click a button and let the video run.  You can cite things that are done per specific censorship drives, but those are also irrelevant -- if the U.S. censors this kind of content, then we'll see WMF take action to prohibit it.  But since the U.S. has not censored this kind of content, you don't get to argue that "well, they could have", especially since it's most unclear that they could have given, you know, constitution and all that.  Bottom line: we're not here to make busybodies feel good about themselves, we're here to write a comprehensive knowledge resource. Wnt (talk) 13:14, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Can school computers not access Wikimedia Commons?  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 17:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Replace. First off, I question the propriety of including a full-length movie in any article. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. Encylopaedias contain articles, potentially with illustrations, but Commons is a more appropriate place for full-length content. Secondly, I am astonished although not surprised that many people are advocating that Wikipedia prominently host porn. While articles on sexual acts may contain educational depictions of such, a whole movie of porn is unnecessary for the purpose of the article, namely, to provide a synopsis of the film and discuss its release, reception and context, and as such, its inclusion is gratuitous and inappropriate considering the intended purpose and audience of Wikipedia. NOTCENSORED does not require us to demonstrate that Wikipedia is not censored by plastering up porn at every opportunity. Doing so in the name of NOTCENSORED seems to me ideologically onanistic (pun intended). BethNaught (talk) 22:32, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It takes a very keen legal mind indeed to be astonished but not surprised. Wnt (talk) 16:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * We include "whole pictures", including animations (and other "whole movies"). I am not convinced there is value in excluding "whole movies", though I would have thought illustrative clips would be better. Similarly hard and fast attempts to exclude "whole poems" have been negative for the encyclopedia.
 * To be fair, it is not prominently hosted.
 * It's a short film
 * The film illustrates the article - which discusses the fragmented scenes of the later part of the film.
 * In this case I see little harm in embedding the 9 minute film.
 * On the other hand I am not enamoured of the disruption caused by these discussions. I support Beth's statement that we need not be NOTCENSORED for the sake of it, and Jimbo's to the effect that these are editorial decisions, not ideological ones.
 * All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC).


 * Keep embedded video. This is a historical landmark in film.   If teenagers in 2016 are viewing this literally hundred-year-old film for prurient reasons they have bigger problems than we can solve by hiding this piece of film history.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 17:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Ummmm. This is hard question, but it's not an important question. It's hard because the arguments for and against are both reasonable and the virtues of each are subtle. It's not important because it doesn't matter all that much where you place the film. There's certainly no rule or style guide either forbidding or mandating a particular placement. That leaves us to fall back on precedent, and our own personal ideas of page design. I've been told that other articles do put a click-to-play thumbnail up top. I don't know if this is done universally, usually, or just sometimes, though. And I don't care that much and don't have to since there's no MOS guidance on the issue AFAIK. That throws me back on on my conception of information design. A long time ago I used to do stuff like that for a living, and I'm familiar with a few works on the subject, like Edward Tufte's stuff. My gut feeling is that we ought to replace the current thumbnail with a still, and add a clear link in the External Links section -- one that says (something like) "Full film available here" rather than just a mushy "There's media about this on Commons". It's just a matter of emphasis, and ultimately a matter of opinion. My opinion is that the film is more in the nature "Here's some optional 'extra credit' enrichment material, which we present without comment (but with implied endorsement) in case you want to delve deeper into this subject than you'll find with an encyclopedia article". And stuff like that goes in the External Links section. Herostratus (talk) 23:55, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep and block the OP. This is as POINTY as it gets. --In actu (Guerillero) &#124; My Talk  18:13, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Replace Strong replace - I also posted a relevant tech question on Jimbo's TP - parents with children under the age of 18 often use kid safe browsers, etc. Are we asking for trouble by embedding porn, and will it result in all of WP being off-limits to children under 18?  Not a good thing. Atsme 📞📧 18:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't this apply for still images and more medically oriented videos, too (presuming the articles themselves don't trigger such issues)? For example, every file/article at MediaWiki:Bad image list? (To others as well) isn't this about how current policies apply to this specific case rather than how policy should be changed in a way that would affect this case? &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 19:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * , I apologize for not being able to answer your question with full knowledge and understanding of how kid safe browsers work. I would imagine a pornographic image along with certain key words would kick-in the kid safe features. I would also imagine that embedding a pornographic video in the article would be handled much differently by the software than would a link to a video in the EL section, depending on the url or title of the link.  We need a tech to help answer these questions. We also need a cost vs benefit analysis considering the current issues regarding REACH, etc.  There are still large numbers of adults who are offended by porn and would not expect to see it embedded in a WP article whether we dare to think different or not.  On a world-wide scale, it could garner us a reputation for "peddling porn" which would limit our reach considerably and create all kinds of moral/spiritual/religious debate that would be best to avoid.  The more I think about the repercussions, the more inclined I am to oppose embedding.  I don't think medical articles would be affected unless there are key words that trigger the exclusion in kid safe browsers. Atsme 📞📧 20:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd guess that it doesn't make much difference, either from a technical or actual-protection viewpoint; there is a very very miniscule chance that it could be a problem from a practical political viewpoint, not enough to worry about IMO. I think that parental-control software mostly blocks whole sites; if not, it might allow you block sections (pages, in our sense) either by hand or by keyword, the former which would require an unreasonable amount of effort and the later which -- maybe you could bock the whole page on the basis of the keyword "pornographic" being in the text, but the presence or absence of a movie wouldn't change that. We have Help:Options to hide an image which is actually more insulting than useful, as it offers as first options "simply staying away" or "creating a fork" (well, I should be able to do that on my lunch break with the change under the seat cushions). And if you still want to read the encyclopedia for some reason, well, you are a computer programmer, right? in which case you can write the following code... Sheesh.


 * We're not talking about having or not having the movie, just where to place it and what the link should look like (thumbnail or text link). So it doesn't really matter. In addition, we have hella porn in other places, just mostly still images. So the only tiny difference it placing the movie in an external link makes it a very tiny amount less likely that a reporter would find it or consider it offensive (as being in the body of the article). That's sufficient for your vote to stand, I suppose, but really there's no significant difference. Herostratus (talk) 01:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand but the part that is being overlooked is what benefit it serves to have an embedded porn video in an encyclopedic article vs adding a link to Commons at the bottom. If WP starts allowing porn videos in its articles, I doubt it will be limited to classic, or nostalgic porn.  WP will be inundated with porn, and then we'll not just have parental blocks, we'll have entire school district blocks, and possibly even countries blocking WP because of religious beliefs.  This issue requires foresight and a long hard look at the big picture, not just a centralized focus on this one article.  A cost vs benefit analysis would help but I still believe a Commons link is the way to go in order to keep WP free of potential blocks. If there's not a big difference between embedding and linking to Commons, why are we even having this discussion?  Link to Commons and let's be done with it.  Atsme 📞📧 02:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You're trying to sell us a bridge here. You have a couple of planks set up by the side of a gorge and you're saying "look, it's easy.  Just buy into it."  But if we're to not have any pages that some country might object to, then we ought to look toward the middle part of that gorge before we pony up our money.  Think of all the content we have now that would not meet that standard.  Also, you can say we risk being overrun with public domain porn.  Alas, that's not actually the case.  In case you haven't noticed, the problem with the public domain is they're not making any more of it.  There are no more renewal requirements, no more copyright expirations.  So you are not being honest either about the feasibility of this idea, nor of the need for it. Wnt (talk) 13:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I am being perfectly honest; it's not my nature to be otherwise. I simply have an opposing view.  The more I researched the pornography aspects of WP, the more disconcerting it became. Perhaps the topic in general needs a closer review, especially considering the damage caused by repeated bad press over the long term.  It is certainly not helpful or supportive of the intended direction of the project unless the goal is to turn Wikipedia into Wikipornia.  Portal:Pornography gives me pause - especially considering how WP encourages and supports child editors and school involvement while at the same time wants to make WP a safe place for them to contribute and learn. Regardless of my views on the topic, WP reaches an entire world of people of all ages, and each country/community views pornography differently.  I stated my position and why, and I actually prefer to leave it at that if the discussion is going to turn ugly. If you want community input on the topic in general, try Village Pump.  It may actually prove beneficial. Atsme 📞📧 14:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Atsme, regarding your comment on RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, Wikipedia policy says 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.
 * As for being "inundated with porn", Offensive material policy limits any such content to Notable topics where where someone specifically searching for that article may reasonably find the content a valuable and relevant asset to that article.
 * If you want to remove the ejaculation video from that article, if you want to remove the image from the The Dream of the Fisherman's Wife article, or remove the image of Michelangelo's painting of The Creation of Adam from article Sistine Chapel, or remove the video from this article for the reasons you gave, then go to the policy page and start an RFC to change policy. Until then Closing Policy directs closers to disregard arguments that flatly contradict established policy. Alsee (talk) 14:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * you must not be familiar with WP:IAR. With regards to censorship, it is applied all the time to fringe/ps views.  Regardless, this RfC is not about censorship.  It's about whether or not to include an entire movie or link to it elsewhere.  State your position like everyone else is doing and let the closer determine the outcome.  You and I certainly can't make that decision in a discussion criticizing my decision to support an EL rather than embed the video.  Happy editing! Atsme 📞📧 14:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep embedded video - Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. The video itself does not auto-play and the initial image is non-pornographic. In fact I don't see any pornographic images on the page. There's no unreasonable shock when viewing the page and the video itself adds to the understanding of the subject. Would that all film pages had the video embedded. We have much more explicit content on other pages.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 00:14, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Replace with link or replace with initial fragment of movie and link - rather than focusing on WP:NOTCENSORED, I would consider the article composition aspect. Just because we have the full movie available, does it mean we should show it in the article? Similarly, instead of some illustrative verses or quotes from a book or study, we grab the whole thing from WikiSource and place it in the respective article? As per WP:COMMONSENSE, an encyclopedic article about a porn movie does not need to show the full movie, even if there are no license issues like in this case.--Mondiad (talk) 05:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Mondiad, are you saying that we should remove the completely non-controversial videos from Night of the Living Dead, Foolish Wives and hunt down every other such article to strip out these valuable public domain videos??? Alsee (talk) 13:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, Night of the Living Dead was also controversial at the time it came out. It's only ex post facto that some busybodies decided that getting chewed up by zombies was normal fare but looking at bouncing breasts is somehow pathological. Wnt (talk) 13:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * , I am saying that since this is an encyclopedia and not some media-sharing portal or some online movie watching tool. We have to stick to the encyclopedic nature and values.--Mondiad (talk) 14:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep embedded video - Historical artifact of ridiculously low resolution and even worse grainy quality due to its primitive film composition and early-century camera mechanism. It is a relic whose historical value greatly exceeds any possible drawbacks due to its technologically primitive content. If the ancient Pompeians or those who created the Kama Sutra had the technology to make such a film it would be a no-brainer that we would have to examine it in its entirety. This film is, technologically, the closest thing to these hypotheticals. Dr.   K.  11:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep embedded video - Replacing it with a link is a pointless and meaningless action. The image being shown before you click is not offensive, clicking once or twice changes absolutely nothing. It's not even a symbolic act, it's just weird, but opens up for people arguing that some media should not be embedded because they don't like it, which would just make Wikipedia painful to use. The discussion on whether it should be on Wikimedia at all is separate from this and should not be done here. It *is* on Wikimedia. It *is* included in the article, the discussion is only about if it should not be embedded, but a link, and there is absolutely no rationale for it being a link at all. Not even "It's offensive", because the movie is not less offensive because it's a link. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep embedded video. If this is indeed WP:POINTY the so be it, and let it play out. There is some importance in setting precedents, and some importance to upholding WP:NOTCENSORED. I find the pearl clutching admonishment above that we should remove it for the sake of the children to be uncompelling.  SemanticMantis (talk) 21:43, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Replace with link We cannot have varying practices across articles. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. As the relevant rules make clear, Wikipedia is not a repository of complete information. Whether the movie in reference is pornographic or not is beside the point - in any case, Wikipedia is not a prude. But it appears that had the movie not been a pornographic one, the discussion would have been less heated, if at all started. A link to the full movie is quite sufficient and no more need be said. This whole issue, sadly, reeks of hidden agendas. -The Gnome (talk) 10:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * But replacing it with a link because it is pornographic would mean that we have varying practices across articles. And a practice that directly contradicts WP:NOTCENSORED. Your stated opinion is directly contradicted by your arguments. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Please read carefully before rushing to respond. Where did I object to content that is pornographic? I explicitly rejected any objection to the inclusion of the film itself in the article on account of the film being pornographic. To make it even more simple: Do all articles containing material in the public domain contain the full content of the material? Do we have the full text of Dostoyevski's Crime and Punishment in the eponymous article? Do we have the full length of all the silent-movie era movies, which have been released into the public domain,  in the respective articles? We do not and there is a reason for that - and the reason is that Wikipedia is neither a repository of  links, images, or media files nor a hosting service. To quote from the relevant rule, Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be collections of "public domain or other source material such as entire books or source code, original historical documents, letters, laws, proclamations, and other source material." Which is the exact point I made in my submission immediately above. No more need be said. -The Gnome (talk) 17:21, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I did read carefully. Plenty of articles that have movies in the public domain contain them in full. In fact the majority do. I only could be bothered to check the ten first in the list above, and they *all* contained the film, in full, embedded. Hence, following your own logic, so should this article. Your arguments contradict your position. Did you say "because it's porn"? No. But that's the only reason we have this discussion. This is about if we should treat porn different than other movies. You say we should not. In that case we should embed the full movie. Case closed. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:45, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If you had "read carefully" you would not have argued nonsensically that I suggested "replacing [the full, embedded movie] with a link because it is pornographic." I did nothing of the sort. As to the links you "bothered" to check (profound thanks for taking the trouble to be bothered to check the other party's arguments, by the way!), kindly check again.
 * Do we embed in the relevant Wikipedia articles the full text of works of literature that are in the public domain? No, we do not. This obsession to be completists and proffer "everything" to the Wikipedia user is precisely the reason the rules about "what Wikipedia is not" were formulated! To reiterate, Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be collections of "public domain or other source material such as entire books or source code, original historical documents, letters, laws, proclamations, and other source material." -The Gnome (talk) 09:01, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The policies you cited do not say what you argue here. WP:NOTREPOSITORY and WP:NOTHOSTING explicitly do not apply to content that is included in an article. They say don't have content-collection pages hosting generic videos, and the explicitly say we DO include them where they support a relevant article. The policies you cited say the movie is correctly included here. A large number of articles such as Night of the Living Dead and Fritz the Cat contain the full videos, whenever public domain versions are available. If removing all such videos is a substantial position then I may start an impartial Village Pump discussion to clarify policy on whether all of them should or should not be included. Regarding books, we obviously do not include the text in-line to the article. However if the WMF gives us some clickable book-viewer software similar to the clickable video-viewer, then heck yeah it would be great to handle books exactly the same way we handle video. Alsee (talk) 12:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The Gnome, you are right that you do not ARGUE for that. However, your stated **opinion** is, and I quote, "Replace with link". What I have now pointed out multiple times is that your ARGUMENTS directly contradicts that OPINION. Your ARGUMENTS all support the embedding. Please read what I wrote. Carefully. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * OpenFuture, I think opposing movies in all articles is a rational case to make. I of course agree with you that it creates a mess in this particular RFC. If the outcome here potentially turns on that argument, it clearly warrants a central community policy discussion to validate or invalidate that practice for all articles. I am also willing to AGF that The Gnome did not closely read NOTREPOSITORY and NOTHOSTING, and posted them in a good faith belief that they did apply to content in articles. Alsee (talk) 16:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It may very well be rational, but that's not the issue being discussed here. --OpenFuture (talk) 00:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Replace with link per and WP:NOTREPOSITORY. We are an encyclopedia, which means we describe things, referencing reliable secondary sources in the process. We are not a media repository. Does our article on Jane Eyre include the full text of the book? No, because that wouldn't be appropriate for an encyclopedia article. WP:NOTCENSORED is not relevant here - just because we are permitted to include something doesn't mean we should.  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Including text takes screen-space in a way including a video do not, so that argument doesn't really hold up. If Wikipedia developed a way to include a pop-up book reader I don't see a problem with that. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Per comments on Gnome's !vote, which you should have seen, WP:NOTREPOSITORY supports inclusion. WP:NOTREPOSITORY refers to Photographs or media files with no accompanying text. It explicitly does not apply to media being used to support a relevant article. WP:NOTREPOSITORY literally goes so far as to suggest that an article be built, in which the media could usefully be included. Your !vote is based on a clearly mistaken idea of what WP:NOTREPOSITORY says. Per WP:Close policy your !vote should be discarded under the clause saying discard arguments that are logically fallacious, those that show no understanding of the matter of issue. Alsee (talk) 15:12, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * NOTREPOSITORY is very clear on the matter. "Complete copies of primary sources may go into Wikisource, but not on Wikipedia". The film is a primary source. Our article is supposed to be a tertiary source, which relies on secondary sources for its content, not primary sources. Also, I don't think it's very polite of you to be ordering the closer of this discussion on how to interpret my comment. You have your view on the policies, and I have mine, and the closer will interpret them as they see fit. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTREPOSITORY is irrelevant as this question is not about hosting the video. The Video is hosted on WikiMedia. If you think WikiMedia should stop hosting public domain videos, then discuss that THERE. This is about what type of link we should use. A hyperlink or an embedding link. That's all. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Interesting point, the sections can be interpreted in conflicting manners. The section you cite, #3 very clearly focuses on text material, which would disruptively inflate an article if pasted directly into an article. #4 very explicitly addresses photographs and media, which add zero few bytes to the page and become clickable boxes for full viewing. A Village Pump policy-clarifying RFC is looking increasingly necessary. Alsee (talk) 20:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * But as I see it, this has nothing to do with bytes, or space on the page, or indeed on where it is hosted, as has mentioned several times. None of that is my argument. My argument is over what constitutes an encyclopedia article. Philosophically, not technically. An article should be a descriptive piece of prose, which allows a reader to gain a reasonable understanding of the subject, perhaps in as little as 5 minutes, if they're reading the WP:LEDE and only skimming the article, and otherwise in up to around 40 minutes for reading a full long article, which is the average concentration span. (See WP:ARTICLESIZE for more info on this). Now if the subject in question is a short poem, or a work of art, or similar, it might make sense to include the whole poem or an image in the article for helping the reader understand. A film clip of some sort, not more than 2-3 minutes, and with a targeted purpose, preferably with description as to what it is the reader is supposed to gather from the clip, would also be fine. Putting in the whole of a movie, even a short one like this, and certainly not a 1.5 hour thing like Debbie Does Dallas, does not fit with the concept of a descriptive article at all. Similarly, including the whole of Jane Eyre, even if it was in a pop-up e-reader, or in a collapsed section or something, would not in my view fit with what an article should be. It wouldn't be reasonable for a reader to read the whole novel as part of a process of understanding, intended to take between 5 and 40 minutes. I guess this 10 minute movie is borderline, but I still think watching the whole thing would be a disproportionate part of trying to understand the movie encyclopedically, when the reader has already read the plot summary in prose form. An WP:EXTERNALLINK, on the other hand, at the end of the article, even one that goes over to the sister site of Wikimedia Commons, is a different thing altogether. That constitutes "further reading" and "where to go next". Once our reader has established the basic facts about the movie by reading the article, we leave them free to head on over and watch it if they so desire. Sorry if I'm rambling, but just trying to give you my perspective on this!  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:45, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You are very welcome to argue against all inclusions of video. But for the millionth time: That's not what this discussion is about. Wikipedia does embed video, in many places, and as a general rule public domain films are embedded in their articles. You are arguing against changing that. Fine. But that needs to be discussed somewhere else.
 * What we are discussing here is THIS article. Should THIS article break the common practice of Wikipedia of embedding the video. You need arguments for why THIS article is special and should break that practice. --OpenFuture (talk) 01:05, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion
Ouch, this is going to be a tough close. At this writing, by my count (if I'm not mistaken) it stands 9-7 (I'm not counting the RfC initiatior User:Right Hand Drive, since he didn't vote; if you include him it's 10-7), the 9 (or 10) favoring showing the movie as a click-to-play thumbnail in the body of the text, the 7 favoring a link down in the External Links section.

Supposing it stays that way, that's not enough of a difference to much matter. It's not a supermajority either way.

There's no rule (policy or guideline) involved here. Is everyone clear on that? There's nothing in WP:MOS, or WP:NOTCENSORED, or WP:PROFANE, or WP:NOTREPOSITORY or any other rule that militates one way or the other where in an article we place a link to a film. I think everyone would pretty much agree on that.

That throws us back on precedent, and strength of argument. I dunno if there's a strong precedent either way, or how much that matters since we're discussion this in a lot more detail than it's been discussed for other articles, I bet; this is an RfC after all.

Strength of argument? Well, both sides make fair points. I think a reasonable person would conclude that neither "side" has a clearly stronger argument, that is, one that most any fair-minded, neutral, intelligent, and informed stranger would be compelled to avow is correct. Right? I think that's a fair assessment.

So then what?

The usual -- lazy -- way is to default to "Well, we can't agree what to do. So, as usual, we do nothing". That always struck me as... mediocre. The article is in a particular format because someone (who probably stopped editing long ago) set it that way during the Carter administration or whenever, and nobody much noticed or cared, so that's that. The person could even be dead for all we know (I didn't go thru the history),and if that's so, wow, talk about the dead hand... I do not wish to be ruled by dead people...

I'd like to suggest something else, and since this question is -- let's face it -- about as unimportant as an RfC is ever gonna be, why not. The person closing should go to Random.org and generate a random number, even the proposition succeeds (replace the thumbnail), odd it fails... I'm dead serious about this. Herostratus (talk) 10:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that there isn't a policy or guideline that militates where or how we place the link. Some of us have argued the exact opposite. How about we let the closer decide what policies and guidelines are applicable and let them judge the arguments on their own merits? RFC outcomes are determined by the strongest arguments not by a vote. Betty Logan (talk) 10:59, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I also disagree. I'll also add that it's getting tedious that one of the most persistent and loudest voices in all of these discussions repeatedly tells us how unimportant the subject is, when people obviously think it's important and you obviously have an opinion. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 12:34, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think a direct click to play requires serious consideration for a number of reasons this RfC cannot address. For one thing, embedding it may cause all of WP to be blocked by kid-safe browsers whereas an external link would more likely cause the linked site to be blocked.  Another real possibility is the chance that a young child searching for cheerleader articles ends up there, and clicks on the movie hoping to learn about cheerleading performances.  I imagine that would cause quite a stir.  There are other valid reasons to not embed, one of which may involve legal reasons but I'm not sure how or if it would apply to or be effected by law which the WMF attorneys could answer best.  Since WP is not Vimeo or YouTube, and the focus here is prose, I would think the EL position wins out. Atsme 📞📧 17:04, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That is not how kid-safe browsers work. I don't even think there is a single browser that is known as a "kid-safe browser." It's ok to be ignorant of the technical details, but please do not argue here based on software that you are ignorant of. We do have some information at [Comparison_of_content-control_software_and_providers]] that you might find enlightening. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:52, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * LOL, you're losing an RFC vote so you invent a new scheme where the losing side wins a fraction of the time. I wonder if you'd have proposed this novel mechanism had you counted 10-7 the other way?  To be sure, we're not winning by nearly enough here, not when such a core principle is at stake.  Also, to be clear, the topic of the vote was including a full video frame, not "censoring the page down to what a kid-safe browser will pass".  What are the odds of a kid-safe browser agreeing to text like "Soon after, the other woman joins them and the man has sex with her doggy style. Later, they have a threesome, and one of the women subsequently gives the man fellatio." anyway?  Even before it clicks on the links.  Even before I annotate the section with a well chosen still image or two to illustrate this text.  After all, it's about full video, right, not just out and out censoring the whole article - right?  So had the RFC favored stills, putting in that image would be exactly what you said we should do. Wnt (talk) 17:26, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I started this RfC to get input from other editors. I will not be taking a side here. Do not make any assumptions about how I would vote. Please strike your comment. I have already asked you once to disengage. Please don't reply to me here, just back off. Right Hand Drive (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Note: This Policy RFC firmly establishes that the WP:NOTREPOSITORY arguments in the RFC were invalid. This affects several of the remove/replace responses. Alsee (talk) 01:09, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on A Free Ride. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://articles.latimes.com/2009/aug/02/travel/tr-vegas2

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

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Talk to my owner :Online 08:55, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:36, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * A Free Ride (1915).ogv
 * File has been kept. Jason A. Quest (talk) 12:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC)