Talk:Dammit, Janet!

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

	Musical Theatre Portal Dammit, Janet! is part of WikiProject Musical Theatre, organized to improve and complete musical theatre articles and coverage on Wikipedia. You can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class
WikiProject Musical Theatre tasks: Help out with one of the WikiProject Musical Theatre tasks below. You may add your name to the Participants list to the right. edit this Open Tasks template Collaborate and work on the Collaboration of the Month Articles needing a content fork Mainly, these are articles on films and either their source or subsequent musicals. There are a couple where the musical needs to be "forked" from the source material. Feel free to add or remove as necessary. Important: If you split an article, please make sure that you move all the relevant links from the first article to the new one. To find which links to move, click on "What links here" at the old article and look through the list to see which links should be pointed to the film related link (for example, articles on actors in the film). Then, click on those links and update them to point to the film article. Thanks! Don't Play Us Cheap Roberta How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying I Married an Angel Lady in the Dark The Band Wagon - musical adaptation will to be forked after it opens in April.

This page was previously nominated for deletion. Please see prior discussion(s) before considering re-nomination: Delete, 30 September 2007, AfD#1 Keep, 19 October 2007, AFD#2 Keep, 30 November 2007, AFD#3

Contents 1 Pop culture lexicon violation 1.1 Comment 2 Inappropriate edits to the article 3 RFC on source quality

[edit] Pop culture lexicon violation

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)

[edit] Comment

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)

Moved the more "controversial" sections here for further disecting.

'"Dammit, Janet" is often applied by commentators to invoke its lighthearted rebuke. For example, in response to singer Janet Jackson sexually whispering, Are you still up? in her 1993 album janet., one commentator responds, "Damn it, Janet, you wear us out."^[1] In response to the 1994 film Sirens, movie critic Jay Boyar writes, "And, yes, those models (and, I guess, that hunk) are lovely to look at, which does help a little. But dammit, Janet, there's a limit to how far this sort of thing will carry a movie."^[2] When singer Janet Jackson released a $100 million asking price in 1995 for a new album deal, Rock critic Jim Farber responded with a New York Daily News article entitled, "Dammit, Janet, They Love You."^[3]

.......

In response to British actress Janet McTeer's success at the Sundance Film Festival for her portrayal of Mary Jo Walker in the 1999 film Tumbleweeds, writer Rod Dreher dedicated a January 1999 New York Post column to her entitled Dammit, Janet! Fest loves you.^[4] The Sunday Times followed this up a year later with a February 2000 article about Janet McTeer entitled, "Dammit , Janet , they love you."^[5]

The year 1999 had additional references to the Dammit, Janet. The September 1999 caption for the color illustration of U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno in Time Magazine reads, "DAMMIT, JANET'S MAD. Attorney General Janet Reno sends U.S. Marshals into FBI headquarters to grab material as her feud with Director Louis Freeh heats up over the tardy appearance of evidence in the Branch Davidian-raid controversy."^[6] In October 1999, the Daily Mirror referred to award-winning British journalist, Janet Street-Porter as "Dammit Janet."^[7] The nickname stuck and by 2003, she became known as Dammit Janet.^[8][9]

The phrase remains popular in the 2000s. In response to Janet Jackson's 2001 album All for You selling 605,000 units and noting the such record sales almost triple the amount 1997's The Velvet Rope moved its first week of release, Entertainment Weekly exclaimed, "Dammit, Janet, they love you!"^[10] In his December 2003 effort to recall Arizona governor Janet Napolitano, the State Party Chair for the Southern/Confederate party Charles Goodson promoted the slogan,"Dammit, Janet - get lost!"^[11]

Janet Jackson's February 2004 performance with Justin Timberlake at the Super Bowl halftime show generated several news outlet responses of Dammit, Janet. Two days after the February 1, 2004 event, The New Zealand Herald featured the headline "Dammit Janet , it's a bit dodgy."^[12] Two months after the event, the Globe and Mail featured the headline, "Damn it , Janet ! Stop exposing the U.S. cleavage."^[13] In April, 2004, the Herald Sun featured the headline,"dammit , janet."^[14] and mX featured the headline "Dammit Janet as rapper voices concern" in October 2004.^[15]

Other Janet's did not escape the Dammit Janet phrase. For example the October 2004 launch of the lingerie line Naughty Janet by English lingerie designer Janet Reger prompted the Evening Standard to comment on the line in an article entitled, "Dammit Janet: The launch of Naughty Janet."^[16]

--293.xx.xxx.xx 23:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inappropriate edits to the article

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)

[edit] RFC on source quality

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)

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)

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)

I see nothing objectionable about the sources cited. The charge of original research with regard to the title of the song being used as a light-hearted rebuke is groundless. Such usage is self-evident in the sources cited for that section, which ought to be restored. Nick Graves 03:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I think this is a perfect place to apply common sense and not to go down the road of "Human hand has five fingers ^{[citation needed]}". -- Sander Säde 06:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

Still waiting..... Getting impatient.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 06:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)