Talk:Dammit Janet

message: Upon reading it a few times, it appears to me that the section is too wordy for the articles sake. I count at least 5 Janet Jackson mentions that are scattered thru the section (and not "compiled" in at least one concise area), a couple of the references are just added in for the sake of "verifying" the article, and I can see two things that might be fancruft. I think it would benefit the article if this section was cleaned up severely and throughly. --293.xx.xxx.xx 02:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pop culture lexicon violation 

message: Seeing that nobody wishes to at least argue the point; I felt I had no choice but to savagely tag the article with numerous violation tags. The issues culled from elsewhere (AfD and DYK):
* References make no clear interpretation of whether or not the saying or useage of Dammit, Janet! is via the song, the character, or other. Most seem to associate the common words only as it's common link, and to a lessor degree, character wise. i.e. Anyone named Janet is a carte blanche target for the two words. 
* References are added for the sake of propping up the article to meet Wikipedia policy on citing sources and verifiability. Article was nominated for a previous AfD. One could argue that the references were added in response to this, without any prior fact checking.  
* Notability. Has the song achieved notability past the fandom. See above points for argument against it.
I can't think of anymore. Please debate or just be bold and edit the article to at least fix some of the mess. --293.xx.xxx.xx 09:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: I removed the Articleissues since AfD consensus did not support such claims. I restored removal of text since referenced material needs consensus before removal. -- Jreferee   t/c 15:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Inappropriate edits to the article

message: Dispute exists as to whether the sources used in this article pass the requirement laid down in WP:N that they contain a "direct and detailed" examination of the topic. This extends to excised references on the talk page. A related question is whether the use of the references is valid, or whether there is original research and synthesis, particularly in reference to the excised section located on the talk page. Kww 17:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now you saying that not only the topic needs to pass the requirement laid down in WP:N, but any and all sources used in the article needs to pass the requirement laid down in WP:N? Also, you removed the referenced material as being synthesis original research of the references without actually examining the references themselves? And then you tagged the article as including synthesis original research (the very material you removed!),  tagged the article as being significantly inaccurate, and  tagged the article asserting that the remaining citations contain false assertions about a source's facts or conclusions. You have a right to disagree with me and even disagree with consensus established at the AfD and DRV. But please don't take it out on Wikipedia's article. -- Jreferee   t/c 15:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There have to be multiple sources that addresses the topic directly and in detail, not all of them. So far as I can tell, not a single one of your references references the song directly and in detail. The excised section discusses the topic of "Dammit Janet" as a "light-hearted rebuke". Do you have a single reliable source that states that "Dammit Janet" is a light-hearted rebuke derived from the title of the song? If not, it's OR. I'm not taking anything out of Wikipedia ... I'm just trying to get this article up to snuff in the face of an editor that refuses to admit that he hasn't got sufficient sources for his statements. When I removed all the unsourced material the first time, it turned into a redirect, but the article won't seem to stay dead.Kww 15:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Only problem I see is when do you draw the line on noting every single instance of every little variation of "Dammit Janet" to the point where the entire article is one messed up ball of text? I can't find the page, but Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles dealt with the flux of people mentioning every instance of cars appearing in TV/Movie/Books by simply banning them altogether unless the car was significant (Like KITT or the General Lee). Of course there is a website that deals with this specifically. Which is where info like the disputed info should go. It belongs on fansites and other pages, not Wikipedia. The info as is smacks of Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. It's someone's interpretations of someone else's words of events that have little to no relation to the movie, except for the utterance of two words, which makes up a tiny fraction of the movie's.....um, matter. None of the links has any mentions of Rocky Horror. To me, that does not satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability. Also think of it from someone not in touch/is a n00b with Rocky Horror: Do they want to be presented with info about the song, or do they want to be presented with info about the song AND every single nuance and utterance of the variations to Dammit Janet? Me, I rather not. --293.xx.xxx.xx 10:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see this article becoming a "messed up ball of text" any time soon, even if the excised text is put back in. If it does become a messed up ball, then prose improvement would probably be the solution. I don't see any evidence of a violation of WP's prohibition on publishing original thought--all the material is supported by reliable sources. No, the article shouldn't list every single utterance of the phrase "Dammit Janet," but there's nothing wrong with mentioning a few examples. Sure, the phrase is just a small part of the movie, but it's a memorable one. I've seen the movie maybe twice, am not a fan, yet that phrase has stuck in my mind (mostly because of how entertainingly annoying I find it), and my wife and I still use it from time to time. I really don't see what all the fuss is about, especially when there are so many examples of truly blatant original research to address elsewhere. Nick Graves 16:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, without resorting to the two words of Dammit Janet, please provide me exact references to the Rocky Horror movie in each of the articles above. Seeing that they are referencing paper versions of the articles, it shouldn't be hard for you to go online, grab the digital copy of them, and bring them back here to prove your rationale. After all, Verifiability gives me the right to challenge references if I find them questionable. Now the burden of proof lies on you and the articles creator to prove it. --293.xx.xxx.xx 22:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That use of the phrase "Dammit Janet" originated with the Rocky Horror song is self-evident, as I said before. It's analogous to the phrase "Cheese-eating surrender monkeys," which originated with a Simpson's episode, and has been used by many people who do not explicitly point out in the next breath that it came from the Simpson's. If you can find a pre-Rocky use of the phrase, then that would cast this assertion into doubt. Otherwise, I think you're splitting some pretty fine policy hairs in support of a change that doesn't really improve the article, and that goes against a common-sense reading of the sources. Nick Graves 23:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OR is a strict policy, and it puts articles in strange positions. In the article on that horrific piece of pseudoscientific crap, What the Bleep Do We Know?, we weren't allowed to use references that contradicted statements in the movie to demonstrate that it was garbage ... we had to find references that contradicted statements in the movie that were actually discussing the movie. This application of OR is basic, and fundamental, though: we can't infer that someone saying "Dammit, Janet" is referring to the movie, we have to refer to a reliable source stating that the reference is to the movie.Kww 01:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a perfect place to apply common sense and not to go down the road of "Human hand has five fingers ". -- Sander Säde 06:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats a completely redundant analogy to this discussion. Whats at issue is the references in question. I would be more than satisfied if the articles in question just said Rocky Horror somewhere in the article. Is it that hard to prove? --293.xx.xxx.xx 08:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Still waiting..... Getting impatient.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 06:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC on source quality 

message: Generally speaking the use of Newspaper articles as references is acceptable for subjects where coverage can only be found in News. Subjects such as this one require a higher standard than the weekend section review. Articles that make the best references are those that go in depth and at length along with sourcing there material as well. Small articles that are found in the entertainment section are not proper citations for Wiki.
Also most of the refernces on this article are not properly formated.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.62.180.178 (talk) 12:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed most of this, however I left all material that had encyclopedic value with citations of that nature.--69.62.180.178 (talk) 11:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia references 

message: I re-rated this article. While many may feel the subject is limited, in all honesty any subject can be referenced given enough time as long as it is a legitimate subject. So, while I strongly urge everyone to keep to the subject alone and not to expand on cruft of any sort, at this time this size alone seems to small to label B class. Also the subject has directions it could go but haven't yet and this may just be a matter of comparing this article against similar, more fully developed articles.--69.62.180.178 (talk) 03:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article still Start Class 

message: Article seems to meet C class at the very least now that it's been copy edited and solid references added. Could still be expanded all the wy to GA. Also the other material needs referncing.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rerated after bold copy edit