text:
Talk:Dallas (1978 TV series)

Bobby's name
Bobby's given name on the show WAS Robert James Ewing. In the episode where Bobby is kidnapped and held hostage (the kidnappers thought they were kidnapping JR) you briefly see a newspaper story with a photograph of Bobby. The caption under the photograph is 'Robert James Ewing'. Southfork 01:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

 * The Bobby James Ewing character was never listed as Robert James Ewing in the actual show or the books. See the cast page at http://www.ultimatedallas.com/backstage/behind11.htm

There are many other resources too on the "Bobby James Ewing" name. --speedoflight 09:50, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I can confirm with what Southfork said...I saw that episode that Southfork described (it aired recently on SoapNet a few weeks ago), and Bobby's full name was indeed referred to as Robert James Ewing. Maybe based on continuity issues, whether it be from the producers/writers or from whomever else, it was never officially settled. ShawnHill 20:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * In the very first episode, as Bobby is driving Pam to Southfork, she calls him "Robert James Ewing." This may, in fact, be her very first line.   UncleSteve60UncleSteve60 (talk) 18:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe Bobby's gravestone that Jenna used to visit (Pam's dream season) read "Bobby Robert Ewing". Urbanus Secundus (talk) 10:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Characters
What logic is behind the sequence of the characters? I don't get it. And is it only me or is the emphasis on the least few seasons. I even cannot find Cliff Barnes. As soon as I know about the sequence I'll add some...

 * They are listed in alphabetical order by the last name of the actor/actress. This is the way they were listed in the show's credits.

 * Uhh...why was this moved? RadicalBender 02:56, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Yeah, what's the point? JonathanDP81 00:06, 2004-03-22

Cast should be listed alphabetically
Should be listed alphabetically with a line or two, or a paragraph on each one. This format is hard to use if you're just looking to find the actor for a particular character. Koro Neil (talk) 06:16, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Blast from the Past retcon
Is there a reason there is no link or even a mention of the wikipedia article Retcon with the Blast from the Past incident? --153.1.48.94 11:02, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Notable fact
I think it was originally intended that Cliff Barnes shot JR. As a result of the publicity that the storyline was generating, it was changed. If someone can confirm this, it may be worth including in the article. Eiler7 23:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I don't think they picked any "one" until the last minute. They filmed resolutions which had almost every character shooting J.R....I don't think they favored any one from the start. Mike H. That's hot 05:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

 * You are correct in what you say but I think that applied after they decided to draw out the storyline. Initially, the idea was to reveal that Cliff Barnes did it shortly afterwards. However, the massive reaction to the uncertainty caused them to change their plans and then they did the numerous resolutions which you mentioned. If I am correct, someone would need to verify the initial idea before adding it to the article. Eiler7 11:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I never heard that Zomputer (talk) 05:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Bizarre paragraph
"When the "Who Shot J.R.?" media began, Larry Hagman tried to renegotiate his contract. Producers David Jacobs and Leonard Katzman thought of firing him in replacing with Robert Culp, if he hadn't renewed his contract. But producers, came to a last minute decision, when Hagman tried to renegotiate his contract, and they even paid him a lot of money for the character he was playing. He didn't appear in the third season of the two-parter of Episode 1, his scenes were later shot at an earlier time. "

The last sentence of this paragraph makes NO sense whatsoever. "the third season of the two-parter of Episode 1"? "Later shot at an earlier time?"

Can someone who knows what they're talking about please edit this so it resembles English? Thanks. 202.173.128.90 02:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Dynasty
I am surprised that Dynasty (1981 TV series) is not mentioned at all in the article. Both were very prominent primetime soap operas in the 1980s, and I thought there was a fierce competition between the two, for viewers and advertiser money. Somebody must have some figures comparing the two... --Austrian 21:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

 * See Talk:Dynasty (TV series) for my response. Mike H. That's hot 16:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

J.R. Ewing Whiskey Music Box Figure Statue 1980
My dad loved J.R. and he passed away 10 years ago. He had a statue of J.R. and I have it just sitting here..with the new show return I have given thought to selling it for about ten grand or so. The music is the original theme song from the show. The statue looks just like J.R. and the top of his hat comes off and you can put the whiskey in it..or whatever..J.R. is wearing a grey suit and hat and there is a stack of money by him and with the words Dallas and his name. The original label is still under it with the date and all on it. Should I sell it for more? Sandy_winnette@sbcglobal.net 70.251.250.53 17:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)sandy..if anyone you know would like this just e-mail me with offer..we loved the show and both my parents watched it all the time. I know my dad would have loved to meet J.R. that is how much he talked about the show years back.

Co-ordinates
Why are they mapping co-ordinates at the top the article? Penrithguy 16:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Dallas was once the number one show on TV
We should put that in the article if we can get a reference. Zomputer 15:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Dallas logo.jpg
Image:Dallas logo.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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Dallas Season7 DVD.jpg
Image:Dallas Season7 DVD.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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Seasons Should Be Renumbered
These days, the mini-series is known as the first season on: 1. the official DVD's, 2. IMDB, and 3. TV.com. This makes a total of fourteen seasons. I think they should be renumbered on wiki to reflect this. Thank you... Smarkflea (talk) 18:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This getting confusing Zomputer (talk) 18:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

DigitalVinyl (talk) 06:52, 25 December 2009 (UTC) CBS wasn't sure if Dallas would be successful so they tried to save face by billing the first season as a "Mini Series." Traditional mini-series would typically air over consecutive nights with multiple hours per night while Dallas was programmed to air weekly on Sunday night. Although the first six episodes was an incredibly short order compared to a typical full season episode order of 22, it aired nearly as many episodes as another serial sudser Twin Peaks would in its first season. The term "mini series" as applied to Dallas' first season was nothing more than a CBS marketing ploy but the first six episodes are, in fact, Dallas' first season as authenticated by the official DVD releases.

The "real" Ewing Oil?
There is an actual Ewing Oil Company in Maryland. They make lubricants among other things. The funniest part is the last paragraph on their "About" section which notes they are "planning to grow aggressively through acquisitions and intense marketing efforts." GBrady (talk) 02:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, backstabbing, bribery, sex and overthrowing foreign governments... Smarkflea (talk) 03:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know there was a real Ewing oil. I wonder if it's named after the company on the show. Zomputer (talk) 18:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that too. It's not an oil company as such as though. Not in the true sense. And it's been going since the late 60s so it must predate the television series. It's a wonder there weren't any legal issues of them using the Ewing name in association with oil, but who knows, maybe it did the actual company some good! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.22.223 (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Net worth of the Ewings
I seem to recall on one show, they said J.R. was worth $100 million. That was huge money in those days. Zomputer (talk) 19:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It depends (as everything) at the time refered to. When Ewing Oil was closed by the department of justice, Ewing Oil was worth about $2.2 billion. As J.R. hold 30 %, he was worth more than $700 million plus his private money. FreudGermany (talk) 18:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * what season was it closed by the department of justice? Zomputer (talk) 12:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Ewing Oil wasn't really closed by the department justice, they just took away the right to use the Ewing Oil name and and $600 million of assets which were sold to Weststar Oil. The brothers were free to continue trading but could not use the Ewing name. All this happened in Season 11 as punishment for JR's plot to blow up Middle East oil fields. By the end of the same season, JR had regained all the $600 million Ewing Oil assets back from Weststar, and Bobby had gained the right to use the Ewing Oil name again from the Justice Department.

I have speculated over this very question as to how much wealth the Ewings have. Remember in the 9th season (Pamela's dream) where JR obtained a billion dollar revolving credit line secured on the assets of Ewing Oil. The bank had no problem extending the credit. But if you watch the 11th season there's several episodes that give some clear indication to the value of the Ewing Oil and the wealth of JR Ewing. The Ewing bothers carried out an audit of the company worth and all its assets, which was around $2 billion dollars. The Justice department agreed with that assessment, taking and selling assets worth $600 billion to Weststar Oil as punishment for JR's escapades in the Middle East. JR then managed to acquire a 34% stake in Weststar Oil by buying up stock and said he had "everything tied up" in Weststar. We don't know the true value of Weststar but it was frequently hinted it was a much a larger company than Ewing Oil, so we can assume it was worth at least $3 billion. JR's stake must have been then at least around $600-$800 dollars or more to gain 34%. He had Cliff and April Stephens buy stock with their own money as part of the 34% to make up the difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.22.223 (talk) 16:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Both Pamela Ewing and Sue-Ellen Ewing had divorced and received substantial settlements making them both independently wealthy women. Remember Pamela was for a long time propping up Cliff Barnes and Wentworth Barnes with sizable loans and investments. I would estimate the women to be worth in excess of $100 million. And the Ewing brothers to be worth several hundred million dollars.

Brad Pitt
As a teenager, Brad Pitt had a few appearances in the show. He played the boyfriend of Ray Krebbs' stepdaughter, whom Ray once beats up when he finds Brad and the girl getting a little "giddy" in the horse stable. I think these episodes date back to 1986. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.72.92.4 (talk) 04:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * He played the character Randy in 1987-88 see imdb credits http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000093/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.253.129.171 (talk) 20:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not consider imdb to be a reliable source, because its content is user-generated, much like a wiki, and it lacks sufficient editorial oversight. Doing a search for it at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard will show several discussions on this.Nightscream (talk) 01:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Typically self-serving editor talk. Actually IMDB is a far more reliable site than WP or many of the sites counted as generically reliable here (newspapers, for instance). Although some of the input at IMDB comes from users (most comes from material released by production companies and distributors) all the user content is screened in detail by the site's staff against other sources, often the films and tv episodes themselves - unlike WP, where you simply get it in at once and where checking against actual non-library sources gets classed as "original research". There are occasional minor slips at IMDB, but overall the site has very high reliability. I'm getting more and more tired of smug and dumb WP editor talk for every week.Strausszek (talk) 03:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

 * I don't recall Brad Pitt being on Dallas. I'll have to research that. Zomputer (talk) 19:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Brad Pitt is in the eleventh season (in the counting with 14 seasons) the boyfriend "Randy" of Jenna's daughter Charlie. He appears in three episodes, I guess. Not easy to recognize him. FreudGermany (talk) 18:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

There is a video with Brad Pitt as "Randy" on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zbPbR1B2M8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donutz420 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Film?
Anyone know why there is no mention of the proposed film that John Travolta, Jennifer Lopez and Shirley McLaine were due to star in? 206.165.150.70 (talk) 15:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there a verifiable, reliable source for that which satisfies WP:NOR and WP:V? Nightscream (talk) 15:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I was wondering that too. Zomputer (talk) 18:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Number of times J.R. Ewing & Sue Ellen have been divorced
Should be mentioned in the article. Zomputer (talk) 07:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

New TNT revival series
Depending on what happens, it is most likely content for the new TNT revival series will be split into its own separate article, much like the revival series for Mission: Impossible was moved to Mission: Impossible (1988 TV series), and the revival series for Get Smart was moved to Get Smart (1995 TV series). Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I removed the term "reboot" from the description of the new series, since reboot "in media dealing with serial fiction, means to discard much or even all previous continuity in the series and start anew with fresh ideas." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reboot_(fiction) This series appears to be continuation, not a reboot. I would leave the term out until is more is known. 74.89.76.20 (talk) 02:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. The term reboot should not be used.Zomputer (talk) 12:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * as you say, the term reboot is associated with fictionZomputer (talk) 12:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I hear Larryhman is to appear in the revival series playing Grandpa JR. I wonder if he will complete a season though as I heard he was diagnosed with prostate cancer while filming.

Ingmar Bergman connections
Ingmar Bergman was a big fan of the series and eagerly watched it, even before it started airing in Sweden (at the time, around 1980, he was in exile in West Germany, although he spent some time each year at his house on the island of Fårö). There are several very good sources for it, clearly he adored both the intrigues, the acting and the over-the-top quality of the storylines. Conversely, Bergman's own, earlier tv series Scenes From a Marriage has been credited as an inspiring factor for the early development stage of Dallas. Strausszek (talk) 21:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Why JR Ewing character was so popular
Whether you loved or hated him, most people were captivated by JR. Larry Hagman was brilliant in that role and his presence magnetic on screen. I think for many the idea of this all-powerful ruthless individual with enormous wealth and influence was very appealing. Even though JR was thoroughly devious and without any morals, many viewers just couldn't help taking his side and hoping he prevailed in his struggles and schemes. One man against the world! Watching Dallas again now 20 odd years later, it seems that JR might have actually been what we term today a sociopath. He seemed to lack of any ability to see he was hurting people or feel any remorse, and even took delight in seeing people suffer from his actions. For many Americans, perhaps JR represented the perfect successful American.

In real life, I guess the days of one man being in control of a large corporation, unaccountable to anyone is rare these days and it would be strange. The closest person I've ever seen to a real life JR Ewing is Tiny Rowland the British tycoon who ran Lonrho and controlled large parts of Africa. You can see him here in a rare video. He comes pretty close to JR and used all the resources of Lonrho to wage personal wars on people and even influence governments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.22.223 (talk) 17:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

2012 series
Should we delete or redirect everything about the 2012 series to the currect page because this page is only on the 1978 show. Entertainer91 (talk) 19:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Most detailed content regarding the 2012 revival series should be moved to that page, much like the content for the revival series for Mission: Impossible was moved to Mission: Impossible (1988 TV series), and the revival series for Get Smart was moved to Get Smart (1995 TV series). Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Split: Separate article for characters
The article on Dallas is very long, and the paragraph listing the characters is long. I think it would be better to make a separate article for cast of characters. Urbanus Secundus (talk) 10:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

 * Support a Franchise characters list with check boxes for what franchise properties the characters show up in would be good. It's taking up alot of space here, and clearly should be split off, even if it doesn't become a franchise list. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 09:11, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

 * I moved the caracter list to List of Dallas characters and replaced it with a summary in this article. Hope it's OK. --Kefas.se (talk) 15:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

 * No, it's not — please see WP:Copying within Wikipedia for the reasons why it's a problem, and WP:Splitting for how to do it correctly. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 06:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

 * Dori, I looked at the guidelines and I don't understand how the split and summary is against the guidelines, and I also don't understand why it should be against the guidelines. Urbanus Secundus (talk) 21:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Franchise article
Dallas (TV franchise)

Shouldn't a franchise article be written? It can cover Dallas, Dallas TV movies, new Dallas, and Knots Landing. That would reduce the size of this article by some, since some of it should be in a franchise article. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 09:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Family tree
The family tree lists Bobby as the son of Margaret Hunter Krebbs instead of Miss Ellie. I'm sure that's incorrect.--DVD-junkie | talk | 22:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)--

Might have been Ray Krebbs that was Margaret Hunter Krebbs's son - it was originally believed that her husband was Ray's father - somehow, it turned out to be Jock Ewing.

Arthurvasey (talk) 16:10, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the family tree is wrong on the new series. Wasn't Christopher Ewing the child of JR and Sue Ellen's sister Kristin? Kasanders (talk) 09:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Sources about the true father of Christopher are unclear. When Bobby brings him at Southfork, we are invited to guess he's JR'son, some time after we learn he's Faraday's son, and far away in the series we learn that Jordan Lee was asked by Kristin to pay an alimony for christopher (telling him he's his son) Nico92400 (talk) 08:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

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: withdrawn. --George Ho (talk) 04:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC) George Ho (talk) 04:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Dallas (1978 TV series) → Dallas (TV series) – Per Shameless (TV series) and Psycho (film), this proposed title must omit the year or the nation, just in case. 2012 version is too recent, and more disambiguation is less than necessary. Also, the CBS lasted longer than the TNT one, but I don't know how many years about the TNT one. Nevertheless, the "(TV series)" has been primarily associated with the old version for many years and will be in the future. --George Ho (talk) 17:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC) Oppose There is Dallas (2012 TV series), so disambiguation by year is required. The same approach was employed to disambiguate between Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series) and Battlestar Galactica (1978 TV series). There is also no data to show that the old series is still the disproportionately most searched/visited of the two.--Labattblueboy (talk) 13:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Oppose – it's no advantage to anyone to add ambiguity this way.  Dicklyon (talk) 14:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Strongly oppose - The 2012 series certainly isn't "too recent" for people to be looking for it, especially since it did well enough that TNT has ordered a second season. The year is clearly necessary, and it's too soon to create a franchise article and/or redirect the year-less "(TV series)" link to a hard disambig page (both done with BSG).  Though it's normal for Wikipedia to favor an original over an adaptation that hasn't fully overshadowed it, even when it comes close--the line seems to fall between Gone with the Wind (book, not film) & From Here to Eternity (film, not book)--the proposal could make readers think this article is about the 2012 series, despite the hatnote.  The status quo, with redirect to this article with "1978" in the title, avoids that while keeping the original series as primary.  --RBBrittain (talk) 19:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Comment; it was my understanding that this is the same series as before, but with resumed production, much like the modern Doctor Who. I fear it is confusing to our readers to treat them separately.  Powers T 00:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's certainly an interesting way of looking at it. I'd support an article merge, under Dallas (TV series) if the article editors were on board.--Labattblueboy (talk) 02:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it new series, not reboot from original show.--Alrofficial (talk) 05:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We need to be very precise with the language here. I agree it is not a "reboot", but the usual meaning of that term is a new series with a separate continuity from the original.  This "new" series is part of the same continuity, just like Doctor Who.  It has the same title (unlike, say Star Trek: The Next Generation) and features many of the same cast members playing the same roles.  That makes it a continuation, and I don't see any reason to treat it differently from Doctor Who.  Powers T 18:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

 * 100% Oppose – Seriously? The 2012 series could become as popular, plus it was renewed for a second season, so I would not move this page.  68.44.51.49 (talk) 01:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.

Cold War
The part, added by me, about underground Dallas watchers in ESSR during the Cold War, based on documentary was apparently removed (the Romanian case was left untouched, which could relate to apparent unwillingness of some users to see implied criticism of the former USSR). To me, it is a strange feeling, being of former USSR where things were different, and still understand what Dallas is about, but I can't be sure the others would care. It is about feelings, though there some facts behind it as well. Please, some of Dallas experts, consider if it of value of understanding the legacy of the show. If it is add it back to appropriate section. Bete (talk) 15:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Who did J.R. shoot?
I'd like to share here an insight that would have to be called WP:OR, exactly because I've never seen it mentioned in spite of (what I consider) its obviousness and relevance.

I never watched much of the series, but probably like many other people in the same situation I tuned in for the grand finale, Conundrum - partly because I was a big fan of Joel Grey. Here's the description of his role in that episode, from Devil in popular culture:
 * Joel Grey played the otherworldly being "Adam" in the series finale of Dallas on May 3, 1991, who shows J.R. Ewing (Larry Hagman) what the world would be like if he (J.R.) had never been born, revealing only in the show's final moments that he is a demon sent by Satan to make J.R. destroy himself through his own self-loathing.

Details, from the article on Conundrum:
 * J.R. is walking around the Southfork pool in a drunken stupor with a bottle of bourbon in one hand and a loaded gun in the other. While J.R. is in this state a spirit named Adam (portrayed by Joel Grey), whose "boss" has been watching J.R. and likes him, enters the pool area to J.R.'s disbelief. In a parallel with the storyline of the movie It's a Wonderful Life, Adam proceeds to take him on a journey to show him what life would have been like for other people if he had not been born. ...
 * After being taken through this journey, J.R. is encouraged by Adam to pull the trigger and kill himself. J.R. scoffs at the idea, saying that Adam's boss would not be happy— implying that Adam is an angel. However, Adam reveals himself to be actually a demon sent by Satan himself. ...
 * By this time J.R. has either fallen asleep or passed out, and he wakes up with a start in his bedroom with the gun and bourbon still in his hands. He appears relieved that it was a dream, only to find Adam staring at him from his bedroom mirror dressed in red. In the midst of this, Bobby returns to the ranch to check on his brother. Adam continues to egg J.R. on as Bobby enters the house, and J.R. raises the gun to his head. Finally, Adam's eyes roll into the back of his head and glow bright red and he screams "DO IT!" to J.R., who fires a shot (although the audience cannot see where he shot). Bobby hears the gunshot and runs up to J.R.'s room. Looking at the scene, he gasps and says "Oh, my God" when he sees what has happened. The episode and series end on that note, with J.R.'s fate left unknown.

I jerked forward in my chair and exclaimed, "So this episode is Who did J.R. shoot?!". --Thnidu (talk) 23:17, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

as a dedicated fan of the show (per the line in "the day before you came", by abba, "there's not, I think, an episode of 'dallas' that I didn't see..."), I chose to disregard this daft supernatural wrap-up episode. I think it's possibly the worst thing they could've done, while the episode immediately before it (the penultimate) is one of the very best. just my opinion.... but to your point- plainly, in light of the subsequent movies & the show's 2013 revival- the producers decided that JR was very much still alive... possibly they too wrote off this last episode & picked up from the previous one.

duncanrmi (talk) 09:52, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

 * I believe in the first of the post-1991 TV movies, they casually dismissed that final scene with Bobby's offhand reveal that when he arrived on the scene, J.R. had shot the mirror, not himself. - Beeeej (talk) 22:59, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Dallas - Only Ran In 1978?
It seems odd to list Dallas as a "1978 TV series". That was the year of the original mini-series, true, but the show ran from 1978-1991. It's odd and misleading. What next? "Coronation Street" (1960 TV series)? EastEnders (1985 TV series)? "Roseanne" (1988 TV series). Just a thought...

(81.131.159.138 (talk) 23:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC))

The original Dallas_(1978_TV_series) rerun episodes on Netflix
I wonder in a month or two, the original episodes of the original version of "Dallas," which was aired on CBS from 1978 to 1991, would be available streaming on Netflix.

If you can put up all of these episodes, including the "Who Shot J.R.?" episode in 1980.

1978-1991
I have altered the title of the article from simply "1978" to "1978-1991" - which spans the series. I found the first version confusing - suggesting that Dallas was simply a series which was broadcast in 1978 - and then cancelled/ended.

(Etheldavis (talk) 23:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC))
 * Understood, but having the first year is just how Wikipedia does things. Having the first year just indicates when it started, it has no bearing on if it went longer than that. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 00:39, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, well, thanks for that. I suppose it differentiates the first run from the 2012 revamp, but I do find it confusing, particularly as it's so easy to solve.

(Etheldavis (talk) 01:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC))

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Dallas (1978 TV series). 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/20151226073041/http://www.tntdrama.com/shows/dallas.html to http://www.tntdrama.com/shows/dallas.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151226073041/http://www.tntdrama.com/shows/dallas.html to http://www.tntdrama.com/shows/dallas.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dallas (1978 TV series). 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/20120822092348/http://www.ultimatedallas.com/news/database6.htm to http://www.ultimatedallas.com/news/database6.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Why Dallas?
I was hoping this article would tell me why the series is set in Dallas. I had read in some newspaper review of the series that Dallas was (supposedly) not the center of the Texas oil business (which was Houston, if I remember right). I was also wondering whether it might be at least partly because the city somehow still benefited from a kind of macabre 'name recognition' and 'frisson' due to JFK's assassination there 15 years before the series was first broadcast, a bit like Sarajevo was for decades shorthand for the assassination that triggered Word War I (and perhaps to some extent it still is, altho it's probably now more associated with the more recent Bosnian civil war). Does anybody have any Reliable Sources that might support any ofths and that might usefully be added to the article? Tlhslobus (talk) 15:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

miniseries?
Article says: “Dallas debuted on April 2, 1978, as a five-part miniseries on CBS. Although the miniseries was created as the series' pilot, by the time it was aired, neither the producers nor the network were hopeful that it would continue beyond these five episodes and initially had no plans for expansion. It was shown in a late Sunday night time-slot, known for low ratings. However, the miniseries proved popular enough to be turned into a regular series and broadcast for 13 full seasons from September 23, 1978, to May 3, 1991. The five pilot episodes, originally considered a miniseries, are now referred to as season 1, making fourteen seasons in total.”

I dunno. The ad in TV Guide for the first episode said “New Series Premiere.” In the March 6 issue of Broadcasting magazine, there was an article on new series CBS was planning for the fall. Dallas was listed in the section “Entries to debut before CBS sets its fall season schedule in late April/early May,” although it was referred to as a “show to go on this spring at [an] as yet undetermined time period.” Notice it was not referred to as a miniseries, which by its very nature is not intended to continue beyond its planned ending. It was considered a full-fledged prospective series, and even if CBS didn’t have high hopes of it continuing, it was not treating it as a burn-off by any means.

Dallas was indeed included in that schedule published May 8, Saturdays at 10pm, not marked as a new series but rather one on at a new time period, as the first five episodes had run on Sunday nights. In its 1978 Fall Preview issue, TV Guide did not consider Dallas a new series, as it would have if it were indeed a series based on a successful miniseries. And for what it’s worth, I was in radio at the time, and avidly followed all aspects of broadcasting. Nothing was hotter than the miniseries, and I kept extensive notes and lists, but did not include Dallas, understanding it to be a short-run preview of an intended series. 71.184.87.187 (talk) 15:40, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Dallas (1978 TV series)


text:
Anna Paquin

Anna Paquin (born 24 July 1982) is a New Zealand actress. She made her acting debut in the romantic drama film The Piano (1993), for which she won the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress at age 11, becoming the second-youngest winner in Oscar history. As a child actress, she had roles in Fly Away Home (1996), Jane Eyre (1996), Amistad (1997), The Member of the Wedding (1997), and A Walk on the Moon (1999), as well as in Cameron Crowe's comedy drama film Almost Famous (2000).

Paquin continued to perform prominent roles into adulthood, portraying Rogue in the X-Men franchise (2000–2014). Her other film credits include 25th Hour (2002), Trick 'r Treat (2007), Margaret (2011), The Good Dinosaur (2015), and The Irishman (2019). She played the lead role of Sookie Stackhouse in the HBO vampire drama television series True Blood (2008–2014), for which she won a Golden Globe Award for Best Actress in 2009. Among other accolades, Paquin was nominated for a Primetime Emmy Award and a Golden Globe Award for her work in the television film Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee (2007), in addition to a further Golden Globe nomination for her work in the television film The Courageous Heart of Irena Sendler (2009).

Early life
Paquin was born on 24 July 1982 in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. Her father, Brian Paquin, is a Canadian retired physical education teacher, and her mother, Mary (Brophy), is a New Zealand teacher of English from Wellington. She is the youngest of three children, with a brother and a sister. She has stated that all her maternal great-grandparents emigrated to New Zealand from Ireland due to the Great Famine. Paquin's father is of Dutch and French descent. In 1986, the family relocated to Wellington, where she attended Raphael House Rudolf Steiner School, Hutt Intermediate School and Wellington Girls' College. Her parents divorced when she was 12 years old. After relocating to the United States at age 16, Paquin attended Windward School, where she graduated in 2000. She studied for one year at Columbia College —where she lived in Carman Hall —and then dropped out to continue her acting career.

Career
Director Jane Campion was looking for a little girl to play a main role in The Piano, set to film in New Zealand, and a newspaper advertisement was run announcing an open audition. Paquin's sister read the ad and went to try out with a friend; this inspired Paquin to audition. When Campion met Paquin—whose only acting experience had been as a skunk in a school play—she was very impressed with the nine-year-old's performance of the monologue about Flora's father, and she was chosen from among the 5000 candidates. When The Piano was released in 1993 it was lauded by critics, won prizes at a number of film festivals, and eventually became a popular film among a wide audience. Paquin's debut performance in the film earned her the 1994 Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress at the age of 11, making her the second-youngest Oscar winner in history, behind Tatum O'Neal.

The Piano was made as a small independent film and was not expected to be widely known, and Paquin and her family did not plan to continue to pursue acting. However, she was invited to the William Morris Agency, and she kept receiving offers for new roles. She systematically rejected them, but she did appear in three commercials for the phone company MCI in 1994. She later made a series of television commercials for Manitoba Telecom Systems in her birth city of Winnipeg. She also appeared as a voice in an audiobook entitled The Magnificent Nose in 1994. In 1996, she appeared in two films. The first role was as young Jane in Jane Eyre. The other was a lead part in Fly Away Home playing a young girl who, after her mother dies, moves in with her father and finds solace in taking care of orphaned goslings. As a teenager, she had roles in other films, including A Walk on the Moon, Finding Forrester, Amistad, Hurlyburly, She's All That and Almost Famous as well as the English dub of Castle in the Sky.

Paquin played the mutant superhero Rogue in the Marvel Comics movie X-Men in 2000, its sequel X2 in 2003, and its third installment, X-Men: The Last Stand, in 2006. Between 2006 and 2007, she starred in, as well as executive-produced Blue State. The film is made by Paquin Films, a production company formed by her and her brother, Andrew. In November 2006, she completed the film Margaret, which was released in 2011. She played Elaine Goodale in HBO's made-for-TV film Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee, based on Dee Brown's best-seller, garnering a Primetime Emmy Award nomination. In 2007, she played the role of Laurie in the horror film Trick 'r Treat, which was released in 2009. Paquin was cast as waitress Sookie Stackhouse in the HBO series True Blood in 2008, her first role in a TV series. The show is based on The Southern Vampire Mysteries series of novels by Charlaine Harris, set in the fictional town of Bon Temps, Louisiana. The series saw Paquin doing nude scenes for the first time. While working on True Blood, she started dating co-star Stephen Moyer and later married him in 2010. In 2009, Paquin played Irena Sendler, a Polish woman hailed as a heroine of the Holocaust, in The Courageous Heart of Irena Sendler, a CBS TV film biographical film based on the book Mother of the Children of the Holocaust: The Irena Sendler Story, by Anna Mieszkowska. The film was made in Latvia, and was a Hallmark Hall of Fame presentation for the network.

In 2010, Paquin's film The Romantics, a romantic comedy with Josh Duhamel and Katie Holmes, was released in the US at selected cinemas in September. She played a cameo role in Scream 4, alongside Kristen Bell in 2011. She also played the voice of Kristin on an episode of Phineas and Ferb. Paquin reprised her role as Rogue in the 2014 film X-Men: Days of Future Past, but most of her scenes were cut out for the theatrical release. An alternative version of the film with all of Paquin's scenes reinstated was released as The Rogue Cut on 14 July 2015. Paquin voiced Ramsey in Disney•Pixar's film The Good Dinosaur. She also played Nancy Holt, the wife of a Confederate soldier, in the 2016 miniseries Roots.

In June 2016, the Human Rights Campaign released a video in tribute to the victims of the Orlando nightclub shooting; in the video, Paquin and others told the stories of the people killed there. Later in 2017 Paquin starred in television series Bellevue, also being the executive producer, and acted as Nancy Montgomery in the television miniseries Alias Grace. In 2018, she acted in husband Stephen Moyer's directorial debut, The Parting Glass, and in Laurie Collyer's comedy-drama film Furlough.

In 2019, Paquin appeared in Martin Scorsese's critically acclaimed drama, The Irishman. That year, she also produced and starred as Robyn in television series Flack and appeared in the television series The Affair. In 2021, she portrayed the wife of Kurt Warner in the biographical Christian sports film, American Underdog.

In 2022, Paquin starred in A Friend of the Family for Peacock.

Paquin will star in True Spirit alongside Teagan Croft and Cliff Curtis. It will be aired on Netflix in February 2023. The movie is based on the journey of Jessica Watson, an Australian sailor who attempted solo global circumnavigation at 16 years old.

Personal life
Paquin holds dual New Zealand and Canadian citizenship. On 5 August 2009, she announced her engagement to her True Blood co-star Stephen Moyer, whom she had been dating since filming the series pilot in 2007. They married on 21 August 2010 at a private residence in Malibu, California. Paquin gave birth to fraternal twins on 12 September 2012. She has a stepson and a stepdaughter through her marriage to Moyer. The couple reside in Venice, California and visit New Zealand yearly to see Paquin's family.

In 2010, Paquin came out as bisexual in a public service announcement for the Give a Damn campaign as part of the True Colors Fund, an advocacy group organised by Cyndi Lauper dedicated to LGBT equality. The video features Anna Paquin stating, "I'm Anna Paquin. I'm bisexual, and I give a damn." When asked about her participation in the video, Paquin said her sexuality hadn't been a secret but that she hadn't "ever had an opportunity to speak out about [it] in a way that would be useful. Obviously I know that one person's voice doesn't necessarily do that much, but I just wanted to do my bit." In May 2012, in an Us Weekly interview Paquin rejected the notion that bisexuality is a choice. "My sexuality is not made up, for a bisexual, it's not about gender. That's not the deciding factor to who they're attracted to," stated Paquin. In 2014, she described herself on Twitter as "Proud to be a happily married bisexual mother".

Paquin also supports other charities and foundations such as the Children's Hospital Los Angeles, Make-A-Wish Foundation, Elton John AIDS Foundation, and The Art of Elysium.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Anna Paquin


text:
Jenny Agutter

Jennifer Ann Agutter (born 20 December 1952) is an English actress. She began her career as a child actress in 1964, appearing in East of Sudan, Star!, and two adaptations of The Railway Children; the BBC's 1968 television serial and the 1970 film version. In 1971 she also starred in the critically acclaimed film Walkabout  and the TV film The Snow Goose, for which she won an Emmy Award for Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Drama.

She relocated to the United States in 1974 to pursue a Hollywood career and subsequently appeared in Logan's Run (1976), Amy (1981), An American Werewolf in London (1981), and Child's Play 2 (1990). During the same period, Agutter continued appearing in high-profile British films, such as The Eagle Has Landed (1976), Equus (1977)—for which she won a BAFTA Award for Best Actress in a Supporting Role—and The Riddle of the Sands (1979). In 1981, she co-starred in The Survivor, an Australian adaptation of the James Herbert novel by that name, and was nominated for an AACTA Award for Best Actress in a Leading Role.

After returning to Britain in the early 1990s to pursue family life, Agutter shifted her focus to television, appearing in the 2000 version of television adaptation of The Railway Children, this time as the mother, and since 2012 she has had an ongoing role in the BBC's Call the Midwife. Her film work in recent years includes The Avengers (2012) and Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014), and in 2022, Agutter returned to the world of The Railway Children once more by reprising her role from the 1970 film 52 years later in a sequel, The Railway Children Return.

Agutter is married, and has one adult son. She supports several charitable causes, mostly ones related to cystic fibrosis, a condition from which her niece suffers, and for her service to those causes was appointed Officer of the Order of the British Empire (OBE) in the 2012 Birthday Honours.

Early life
Agutter was born on 20 December 1952 in Taunton, Somerset, England. She is the daughter of Derek Agutter (an entertainments manager in the British Army) and Catherine, and was raised Roman Catholic. She has Irish ancestry on her mother's side. As a child, she lived in Singapore, Dhekelia (Cyprus) and Kuala Lumpur (Malaya). She attended Elmhurst Ballet School, a boarding school, from ages eight to sixteen.

Television and film
Agutter became known to television audiences for her role in the twice-weekly BBC series The Newcomers. (She played Kirsty, the daughter of the new managing director of Eden Brothers, the fictional firm that is at the centre of the series.) Agutter could appear only during school holidays. At this stage of her career, she was listed in credits as “Jennifer”. In 1966, she portrayed a ballet pupil in Disney's film Ballerina. In 1968, she was featured in the lavish big-budget 20th Century Fox film musical Star! which featured Julie Andrews as Gertrude Lawrence; Agutter played Lawrence's neglected daughter Pamela. Later, she played Roberta in a BBC adaptation of The Railway Children (1968) and in Lionel Jeffries's 1970 film of the book. She followed this with a more serious role in the thriller I Start Counting (1969). She also won an Emmy as supporting actress for her television role as Fritha in a British television adaptation of The Snow Goose (1971).

Agutter then moved into adult roles, beginning with Walkabout (1971), in which she played a teenage schoolgirl who is lost with her younger brother in the Australian outback. She auditioned for the role in 1967, but funding problems delayed filming until 1969. The delay meant Agutter was sixteen at the time of filming, which allowed the director to include nude scenes. Among them was a five-minute skinny-dipping scene, which was cut from the original US release. She said at the 2005 Bradford Film Festival at the National Media Museum that she was shocked by the film's explicitness, but remained on good terms with director Nicolas Roeg.

Agutter moved to Hollywood at twenty-one and appeared in a number of films over the next decade, including The Eagle Has Landed (1976), Logan's Run (1976), Equus (1977) (for which she won a BAFTA as Best Supporting Actress), An American Werewolf in London (1981), and an adaptation of the James Herbert novel The Survivor (1981). Agutter has commented that the innocence of the characters she played in her early films, combined with the costumes and nudity in later adult roles such as Logan's Run, Equus, and An American Werewolf in London, are "perfect fantasy fodder".

In 1990, Agutter returned to the UK to concentrate on family life and her focus shifted towards British television. During the 1990s, she was cast in an adaptation of Jeffrey Archer's novel Not a Penny More, Not a Penny Less and as the scandalous Idina Hatton in the BBC miniseries The Buccaneers, inspired by Edith Wharton's unfinished 1938 book, and made guest appearances in television series such as Red Dwarf and Heartbeat. In 2000, she starred in a third adaptation of The Railway Children, produced by Carlton TV, this time playing the mother. Since then Agutter has had recurring roles in several television series including Spooks, The Invisibles, Monday Monday and The Alan Clark Diaries. In 2012 Agutter resumed her Hollywood career, appearing as a member of the World Security Council in the blockbuster film The Avengers; she reprised her role in Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014). Since 2012, Agutter has played Sister Julienne in the BBC television drama series Call the Midwife.

Theatre
Agutter has appeared in numerous theatre productions since her stage debut in 1970, including stints at the National Theatre in 1972–73, the title role in a derivation of Hedda Gabler at the Roundhouse in 1980 and with the Royal Shakespeare Company in 1982–83, playing Alice in Arden of Faversham, Regan in King Lear and Fontanelle in Lear. In 1987–88, Agutter played the role of Pat Green in the Broadway production of the Hugh Whitemore play Breaking the Code, about computer pioneer Alan Turing. In 1995 she was in an RSC production of Love's Labour's Lost staged in Tokyo. She is also a patron of the Shakespeare Schools Festival, a charity that enables school children in the UK to perform Shakespeare in professional theatres.

Audio
In 2008, she also guest-starred in the Doctor Who audio drama The Bride of Peladon and played an outlawed scientist in The Minister of Chance. She has appeared as a guest star character ("Fiona Templeton") in the Radio 4 comedy Ed Reardon's Week.

Music
Agutter appears on the 1990 Prefab Sprout song "Wild Horses", speaking the words "I want to have you".

Personal life
At a 1989 arts festival in Bath, Somerset, Agutter met Johan Tham, a Swedish hotelier who was a director of Cliveden Hotel in Buckinghamshire. They married in August 1990, and their son Jonathan was born on 25 December 1990. Agutter lives in London, but has a keen interest in Cornwall and once owned a second home there on the Trelowarren Estate, in one of the parishes on the Lizard peninsula.

She was appointed an Officer of the Order of the British Empire (OBE) in the 2012 Birthday Honours, for her charitable services.

Agutter has been attached to several causes throughout her career. She has been involved in raising awareness of the illness cystic fibrosis, which she believes was responsible for the deaths of two of her siblings. Her niece has the disease. At Agutter's suggestion, an episode of Call the Midwife focused on cystic fibrosis. She has also worked in support of charities, in particular the Cystic Fibrosis Trust, of which she is a patron (she is also a carrier of the genetic mutation).

Politics
In August 2014, Agutter was one of 200 public figures who were signatories to a letter to The Guardian expressing their hope that Scotland would vote to remain part of the United Kingdom in September 2014's referendum on that issue.

title: Jenny Agutter


text:
User:4serendipity

Hello,

I am Andrew Stevens.

I read a bit and occasionally make a minor edit.

title: User:4serendipity


text:
Derny

A Derny is a motorized bicycle for motor-paced cycling events such as during six-day and Keirin racing and motor-paced road races. Some riders train behind a derny on the road. The Derny is so-called as it was originally produced by the French Derny firm, but the name Derny is now applied to all small cycle-pacing vehicles, regardless of manufacturer.

The original Derny
The first Derny 'Entraineur' or 'Bordeaux–Paris' moped, with its petrol tank mounted ahead of the handlebars, was built by Roger Derny et Fils of the Avenue de St Mandé, Paris, France, in 1938. A fleet of Dernys was maintained for the long-established 'Bordeaux-Paris' road-race and the Derny was used for many other track and road events and for endurance training. Derny also built a touring adaptation called the 'Solo' and tandems and mopeds.

Being a moped, the Derny had both a 98 cc Zurcher two-stroke engine and pedals on a chainring sprocket, typically with 70 teeth on the front and 11 on the rear-wheel sprocket. The combination allows for smooth acceleration and slowing, important when the rider taking pace is only centimetres from the Derny's rear wheel. A freewheel coupling between the motor and the back wheel ensures the derny will not stop dead if the motor seizes. Top speed, with rider pedalling, is up to 50 km/h, depending on gearing. The firm closed in 1957, after an unsuccessful venture with the 'Taon', a Roger Tallon-designed motorcycle. Another company, Service Derny, of Rue Picpus, Paris, serviced and rebuilt machines into the 1970s.

Dernys today
According to the Larousse dictionary, the name, derny has become a generic term for a small pacing motorcycle used in cycle races, and is now applied to all small cycle-pacing vehicles, regardless of manufacturer. There have been several attempts to copy or improve the original. One, the Burdin, was briefly used, but proved neither durable nor fast enough for repeated high-speed riding on the steep tracks used in six-day racing. Modern machines are made by a small company in Neerpelt, Belgium, and dernys are either new or have the original frames with new 90 cc engines.

Dernys are usually bump-started. They can then pace riders up to 90 km/h, although races rarely exceed 80 km/h.

Another type of pacer is the Stayer. The rider sits close to the back in an upright position to provide an envelope of low wind resistance for the cyclist drafting or slipstreaming behind. Also a roller is added behind the rear of the stayer, and normally the cyclist rides on a bicycle with a slightly smaller front wheel. The photo of the Triumph motorcycle is such a stayer.

For most derny races, the cyclist sits in the slipstream for the duration of the event. In keirin races, common in Japan and familiar elsewhere, the derny brings riders up to speed then pulls off the track and the race finishes in a sprint without the pacer.

A small group of semi-professional pacers travels around Europe for the winter six-day season. Several are in their 60s and 70s and some have been pacing for more than 40 years.

In most of its later history, the 560 km Bordeaux–Paris classic road race was motor-paced using dernys from half-distance. Other important races on the road behind dernys have included the Critérium des As in Paris.

title: Derny


text:
Talk:Demonic possession

[Untitled]
Undertaing a rewrite Planning a top to bottom revision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LibraryLady623 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Demonic Possession / Spirit Possession / Possession (Spiritism) Pages
Would it not be more beneficial to just combine all of these pages together? They all are different cultural views but isn't that the point of this page? Demons are even referred to as spirits in the bible. Mysticalresearch (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Has anyone every been possessed by an evil spirit Annjean1985 (talk) 19:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. But it is a matter of faith, not science. Read the article, examine the validity of the sources. 104.169.19.227 (talk) 02:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

 * No, but Bigfoot has a page too. Lipsquid (talk) 00:11, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Obsession vs Possession
Obsession is the OUTWARD torment of a demon or spirit while posession is the INWARD torment. This is discussed both in King James' Daemonologie, Calmet's Treatise on the Apparition of Spirits and many other ancient texts or exorcism rites. Some of the content on this page should either be relayed to a seperate page Demonic obsession or be seperated into two categories. Mysticalresearch (talk 01:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Objectivity
This page doesn't seem to really be talking about demonic possession so much as the belief in demonic possession per charismatic Christianity. Where is kolera perspective? And, as mentioned below, what about demonic possession in other cultures? In literature other than the Bible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.242.112 (talk) 01:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Culture specific
LUHOD SA TEXT!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.177.18.250 (talk) 06:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

This page seems to be focussed entirely upon the christian take on demonic possession. This is curious seeing as the vast majority of cases (and sincere belief therein) are found in buddhist cultures like those of Thailand and China. Christian demonic possession is more or less an entire subject of unsettling fancies used to populate low grade movies. Asian demonic possession is so accepted in it's veracity that it is actually accepted in modern day courts of law (specifically Thailand). Yet, no mention. [/anonymous bitch] 60.242.175.202 16:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

 * I agree! A (as yet rather sketchy) Jewish viewpoint on possession at DybbukMr FFB 00:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

 * The prevolence of Demonic Possession on western culture is more than "an entire subject of unsettling fancies used to populate low grade movies" if you are unaware of its cultural impact thats fine, but it is a far more relivent subject.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Demonic possession is more of a western cultural phenomenon due to the etymology. Demon is derived from the Greek daemon, meaning evil spirit. This forces demonic possession to be more of a western and christian based perspective as Spirit possession tends to be much broader in terms of various other religions. Demons are a western concept and inherently christian because the new testament was written in Greek as the Hebrew old testament instead used the word meaning evil spirit. So, for references to other cultures, you have to go to the spirit possession page. I will add this to the article intro and remove the western culture warning. Mysticalresearch (talk) 04:32, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Article POV
Maybe I'm just too sceptical, but this article seems to be pretty NPOV on the existence of stuff like telekinesis. I don't have time to fix this now, but I'll mention it anyway. - S

 * I think you mean POV. NPOV=good, POV=bad. And yes, we need a sceptical person who knows what they are talking about to fix it. -- Tim Starling 12:25 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * It seems that a NPOV is not so neutral because it depends on the POV of each person, so many people prefere to consider all the stuff of "mysterious movements" as demonic action and so on. NPOV seems to depend on the personal belief and formation of people, but... it is only another POV, trying to be a NPOV. Just an opinion. A not NPOV is "thanks, S, for not signing your concept of NPOV providing a link to your user name, and so nobody can know who thinks so", it does not seem to be so neutral; it is easy to criticise when your identity remains hidden. As another explanation (to you and any other person who thinks so), if I do not know what I am talking about, I just do not talk, it is neutrality as I think (another POV), but this will become a Bizantine discussion, so, the end... for now, and forever, I'd wish. And if you want a sceptical person, you can be sure that I am one. My conclusions, dear S, were based on scientific American, British and Russian studies, studies made at the University of Palo Alto, California, and the studies of the late Spanish Jesuit Francisco Gonzalez Quevedo, who was so sceptical that laughed when explaining religious POVs on "demon possession" and refuted them with a so scientific NPOV that many eccesiastical authorities were about to forbid him to participate in televised interviews. Have a nice day, the day you read this. The Warlock 06:22, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)
 * Oh, and dear S, if you only have a user number, not even a name, just besides of writing hear, I do have a user name, you could have written this and drop some lines to me too. It would have still been more neutral. The Warlock 07:36, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * Warlock, please read Neutral point of view carefully. --Robert Merkel 07:42, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Telepathy & Telekenisis
Warlock, I've made an edit to the page. Most notable is probably the added introductory paragraph to place the rest of the article in context, and the removal of the paragraph discussing scientific views of telepathy. telekenisis, and premonitions. You state that telepathy and telekenisis are accepted facts and the subject of extensive scientific study. I don't think that's accurate. In any case, I don't think the discussion of it actually added anything useful to the article (which is about demon possession rather than telepathy or anything else), so rather than rewriting it I simply truncated it. --Robert Merkel 23:51, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Should we include a section explaing the views of those who accept demonic possession in the present day? I'm from a pentecostal/charismatic background and have seen what I would describe as possession as well as exorcism, and I do not see these views represented here, but rather a naturalist viewpoint seems to predominate.

Title of Article
Shouldn't this article be called "Demonic posession" as demonic is the adjective form of demon? RedWolf 22:16, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC)

Superstition
To call the belief "superstition" is to put a point of view label on the whole article. It can be argued later in the article that demonic possession or the belife in it is supersticious through a scientific view possibly. But to label the belief as "superstition" is POV which would go against Wiki policy. Dwain July 5, 2005 15:39 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. There is no scientific basis for demonic possession, and therefore belief therein is unambigously superstition.  Labeling it so is certainly not POV, only the factual truth. Fawcett5 5 July 2005 16:44 (UTC)
 * Power corrupts eh? This is your opinion and it is not needed the article is NPOV how it is, "Demonic possession is the belief in a form of spiritual possession..." That works fine without your personal beliefs or opinions. Dwain July 5, 2005 17:24 (UTC)
 * That's just your own personal viewpoint. The article relies on RS's.104.169.19.227 (talk) 02:40, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "an irrational belief arising from ignorance or fear" is pretty NPOV to me, superstition does not mean "it has no scientific basis."

According to one of the definitions from dictionary.com
 * superstition - A belief, practice, or rite irrationally maintained by ignorance of the laws of nature or by faith in magic or chance. Sounds pretty biased, and POV to me
 * Superstition is the first word that comes in to mind. How about a paraphrasing "Demonic posession appears in cultural traditions and superstitions as well as in literature and culture". The word superstition needs to be here. -Maucca — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maucca (talk • contribs) 21:16, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Biblical Links
All the biblical links were broken, so I rerouted them to the necessary verses at Biblegateway.com, and I added 2 new ones out of Acts. I didn't read them all through, though, so I'm not taking any responsibility towards the content/context of the verses; only that the links work. Cyril March 5, 2006 19:23 (Central Time)

Demonomania
I was thinking there needed to be a full section on Demonomania, which gives a little more of a scientific explanation. But, then again, that might give it more of a POV. Anyone agree or disagree?

Demonic possession in modern society.
Maybe a section entitled 'Demonic possession in modern society' should be included on this page. --Alan Алан アラン 21:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

New Age view of demonic possession
I added a section on Carlos Castaneda, and some references and links. Where materialism views demonic possession as a symptom of mental illness, this New Age view is that the reverse is the case; and that we’re all mentally ill. It is because of our collective demonic possession that modern humans are so self-destructive and mean to one another. According to Castaneda’s teacher Don Juan, modern human civilization is essentially demonic in origin. Humans’ constant inner dialogue of self-reflection is a post-agricultural invention. Ancient humans, like infants, couldn’t think very well; but on the other hand they had magical powers which we moderns have lost: “Man must have been a complete being at one point, with stupendous insights, feats of awareness that are mythological legends nowadays. And then everything seems to disappear and we have now a sedated man … trite, conventional, and imbecilic.” (p 223). According to this view, freedom from slavery to the demons can only be obtained by mastering inner silence, which starves the demons of their food. TimRey 17:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Demonic possession in Medicine
The phrase "who are facing a collective hysteria" taken in context was not grammatical (it appears to have been intended as the main clause). I have replaced it with "we are facing" which seems to best fit the intent. I also respelled "parts" as "parties". Shannock9 09:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Demonic possession in Fiction
I've added this heading where I think it goes: separating existing material; and added a reference to Hex (TV Series).

I patterned this edit on the Exorcism entry. However I am new to editing so please excuse (and fix it) if I have not got it quite right.

Shannock9 10:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Simon Magus a case of demonic posession?
Would someone explain to me why the case of Simon Magus offering to buy miraculous abilities from the Apostles counts as a case of demonic posession. Frotz661 07:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Demonic possession in Islam
I think someone should add Possession in Islam to the article. Demonic possession in Islam is a part of the faith, and believing in it is a must to be a Muslim. I think some should add that and thanks. --Stormingace 21:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

 * FYI for those interested in this -- Exorcism has a section on Exorcism in Islam -- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 15:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Demonic possession in Christianity
I have revised the Christianity section and the Bible section to better reflect the controversy about whether 'possession' is an appropriate term for use in relation to Christian understandings of the demonic. Eagleswings 10:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Missing luke 8:verse 30 When Jesus asked the demon what his name was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.182.64.124 (talk) 13:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Demonic possession in Hinduism
Exorcism has a section on Exorcism in Hinduism -- Something on this should be added to Demonic possession. -- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 15:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Bias
202.154.128.137 deleted a section that he or she considered biased, assumedly against the Catholic Church. I've reverted the edit, as I don't think it should go wholesale, but I feel that it probably could be said better. Many parts, i.e. "looking to expand its ever growing sphere of influence" seem pretty POV. Does anyone have the knowledge to re-write it? Masterofpsi (talk) 06:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Tone
Certain parts of this article seem to go against the standards of an encyclopedia tone. For example, "From another point of view, those who accuse others of being demon-possessed have to be mentioned too" and "Certainly the language of "possession", like other mistranslations, has gained a life of its own, as is reflected in the title of this article." These aren't the type of statements I usually see in wikipedia articles.--24.255.171.220 (talk) 12:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality and Accuracy Disputed
Although there are numerous issues with this article (see below), I placed the "neutrality and accuracy" dispute tag specifically because the sources used for the section on Christianity are not valid. If anything these sources give an example of what one particular, contemporary, American group of Christians believes, but they are far from being representative of Christian beliefs throughout history. I'd like to request that someone re-write this section completely drawing on more neutral and factually verifiable source material.Yonderboy (talk) 04:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

REC
The line on the movie REC needs to be reworded, as the sequel indicated that the reverse is true, and demonic possession was the true cause. I'm unsure of how to reword it precisely without spoiling the second film, and preserving the idea that the original leaves it ambiguous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.101.224.248 (talk) 23:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Introduction
I just had to modify the introduction after getting here to find some information. It's probably not the best modification possible but i had to add "alleged" and "presumed" referring to "control over a human form by a demon" and "other forms of possession" because reading the previous introduction it was clear that who wrote it treated possession by a demon as a matter of fact that happens everyday. I guess that a better job can be done but just treating the idea that demons control human beings every other day as a fact doesn't really fit an encyclopedia... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.178.66.170 (talk) 20:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

i see it's been reverted i guess that this article is in the hands of some christian "editor" who actually believes that demons take control of humans on a daily basis. i still think that presenting this as a given is just unencyclopedic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.178.66.170 (talk) 13:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

There was no reason to change it, it was merely defining "Demonic Possession" not stating whether it is real or not and by definition a demonic possession is a demon taking control over a human being not a demon allegedly or supposedly we may as well change the word "is" to "allegedly" in the inroduction in every page on religion, psychology, philosophy, and science (not considered law) which would be unnecessary and present a POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.199.113 (talk) 18:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Demons as fallen angels is not an agreed position in Christianity
Protestant Christianity seems divided on the idea that demons are fallen angels.

Evidence for this includes Jude 1:8-9 In the very same way, these dreamers...slander celestial beings. But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you" (Jude 8-9)

Demons are routinely cast out, but angels (even fallen ones) may be beyond our control.

Eph 6:12 talks about "powers of this dark world" AND "spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms." Demons may be limited to earth (until cast into the abyss) while angels are given access to heaven as well.

For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. (Ephesians 6:12).

The Book of Enoch makes a case for demons being the offspring of angels (sons of God) that were written about in Genesis 6.

Genesis 6:1-4 (NIV 1984) 1 When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the LORD said, “My Spirit will not contend with[a] man forever, for he is mortal[b]; his days will be a hundred and twenty years.” 4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

Thanks - Gordon James — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.166.190.229 (talk) 01:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

History
Some coverage of the phenomenon over time would be interesting; apparently reports have been more common in certain periods. One author was saying Germany (in I forget which era) had an outbreak, similar to the outbreak of witches in Salem. -- Beland (talk) 16:07, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Formatting is messed up and there is gonna be an educational assignment on this article!
Oh my gosh! There will be an educational assignment on this article and the formatting in the lead is all messed up! --Mr. Guye (talk) 23:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Demonic possession. 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/20110723102814/http://www.dondickerman.net/id70.html to http://www.dondickerman.net/id70.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:20, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello! I will be cleaning up this page. If anyone has anything they would like added, please leave it for me here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NinjaFluff (talk • contribs) 03:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Demonic possession