Talk:Deep Throat

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Identity of Watergate source

Has it ever been definitively established that Deep Throat (the source), was actually male? I remember (swiftly denied) claims from a few years ago that it was Diane Sawyer, the TV reporter (who was a Nixon staffer at the time). --Robert Merkel

I believe that Woodward has stated that Deep Throat was male.

Can you provide a source for that? --Robert Merkel

The Washington Post mention it in one of their articles: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/watergate/deept.htm

By the way, apparently John Dean (White House counsel for Nixon) is publishing an e-book on Salon in mid-June revealing his theory on who Deep Throat is. That may provide, if not a definitive answer, much useful information. --Robert Merkel

Ronald Kessler (reporter, WPost) names Mark Felt as Deep Throat in his forthcoming book. Felt is still alive and was FBI assistant director at the time.

Success of the film

About the movie (not the Watergate guy): This was not the first porn film to be widely screened in theaters, as any Russ Meyer fan will point out. :) Also, I'm uncertain of the filn's gross -- but $600 million?!? The Godfather's box office take of about $135 million was the biggest box office hit of all time, one year before Deep Throat. Does anyone know what this movie really made at the box office? --Modemac 15:19, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

After the 600 million figure was reinserted, I have removed it again. I have seen widely varying estimates; in [1] an FBI agent involved with obscenity cases claims that most people who went to see Deep Throat never got a ticket, so that the money could better sheltered from the IRS and channelled to the Mafia. AxelBoldt 15:00, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Was the film the origin of the term, or vice versa? Guttlekraw 06:32, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oxford English Dictionary says that the term "deep throat" origins with the 1972 movie (though they don't mention the sexual technique). AxelBoldt 17:15, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're right - surprisingly, the film-makers seem to have coined the word Random House word maven. Guttlekraw 05:09, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

German rock band

Let's get this straight -- the names of two tv show episodes and a Japanese videogame character are important enough to be disambiguated but not a German rock band which was only big back in the vinyl era? I guess I should be happy that the Beatles haven't been edited out of Wikipedia yet? IanHistor 17:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason it isn't listed is that there doesn't seem to be an article about this band. Anyone is free to make it, and if there are enough realiable sources, the article is likely to survive. As far as I can tell from the deletion logs, Deep Throat (band) has never been "edited out" — it just wasn't made in the first place. Articles can only be made one at a time … ;)

\sim

Lenoxus " * " 19:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Connection between Deep Throat and Deep Thought

The connection between Deep Throat and Deep Thought doesn't seem very clear to me. How do you say the latter was a parody of the former?

I can't see the connection either. Maybe someone can clarify? ℚuackor 10:30, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah. The Deep Thought disambig page already exists. Maybe, we can merge it with that page, if the original submitter doesn't respond/object, since I don't see any relation either nor is it mentioned. pamri 14:09, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

This merge to Deep Thought appears to be the logical choice and has my support. Hall Monitor 17:27, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gray Fox?

I can't see what this has to do with Deep Throat. Can someone explain? Murderbike 00:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved using the Deep Throat (Watergate) option. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

– There is no plausible rationale for treating the Watergate informant nickname as the primary topic for this very ambiguous term. Dicklyon (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support, the informant chose his name after the film, which is named for the sex act, which ought to be the primary topic if there's one at all. DeistCosmos (talk) 20:53, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, there's zero need to make the sex act the primary subject of Deep Throat, as it is a separate article from deep throat—the capitalisation leaves these as two different targets. The latter is currently a redirect to the former but doesn't need to be (see Field Trip versus field trip for example). This is essentially between the informant and the film. GRAPPLE X 21:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But what to do then for people who capitalize their sex acts? Capitalization isn't especially useful as a distinguisher in this case. DeistCosmos (talk) 21:54, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hat note both articles, as exists in the examples I linked to. GRAPPLE X 21:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Grapple X; deep throat (all lowercase) should primarily redirect to deep-throating or, perhaps, to the disambiguation page, but not to the Watergate personality. —capmo (talk) 04:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But we don't usually disambiguate by case alone, so Deep throat redirects to Deep Throat, which will be the disambig page. Dicklyon (talk) 05:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose; long-term historic value. Powers ^T 21:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What about the long term historic value of the film? DeistCosmos (talk) 21:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - While significant within its field, it has very little historic value in the scope of world events. I'm stunned that you could even compare the two. Powers ^T 18:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think your astonishment reflects your subjective opinion on the matter. The film is to porn what Star Wars is to science fiction. The Watergate figure, while historically significant as well, was simply a whistleblower; the significant event was the corruption against which the whistle was blown. DeistCosmos (talk) 19:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How does historic value make up for the fact that the article gets less than half the traffic? It's nowhere close to justifying a primary topic claim. Dicklyon (talk) 06:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - And why isn't the Watergate version subsumed into Mark Felt, anyway? Now we know who it is, after all. DeistCosmos (talk) 16:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support or perhaps the pornographic film should be moved to the primary position, since the long-term hsitoric value is quite high for the film, and the more common usage (though not as common as the sex act itself) -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 05:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - both the person and the film have equal longevity; neither is primary. However, perhaps less precision, like Deep Throat (Watergate). --George Ho (talk) 05:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, no primary topic between the film and the person. Cavarrone (talk) 06:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article on the Watergate figure used to be at Deep Throat (Watergate), but was moved in June 2006, even though there was a move discussion that appears to have had little support and many opposes. older ≠ wiser 12:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - take the informant back to Deep Throat (Watergate), though make another redirect from "... (Watergate informant)" if it seems useful (no-one has thought it necessary over the years), and move the dab page to the base name. PamD 15:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support move back to Deep Throat (Watergate) - Wbm1058 (talk) 15:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support move to Deep Throat (Watergate). The person only receives about 30% more page views than the film. A redirect from (Watergate informant) is not needed, and is better left as a redlink. Apteva (talk) 02:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Deep Throat which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]