Talk:Janet Jackson: Together Again/Archive 1

Archive 1

"When We Oooo":

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Per in-article cited source, USA Today, which is a highly reputable source, this number is labeled as "(intermission interlude)". To suggest a reputable source, such as USA Today, would use Wikipedia as a "source" is unlikely, and is also insulting to the creditability of USA Today, which is higher than Wikipedia itself, and the exclusion of "(intermission interlude)" goes against WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE, which could also easily mean all noted remixes, etc should be removed, as well. livelikemusic (TALK!) 18:07, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Please refer to one of the revision of the Together Again tour setlist and check the date and time (15 April 2023, 04:14 UTC) then go look at USAToday’s Together Again tour setlist and check their date and time (15 April 2023, 07:49 UTC) and you could can see the setlist is the exact same as the Wiki edit. As a person who has gone to opening night, which is the setlist of discussion, When We Oooo was not an interlude at all. WhereverUGo87 (talk) 18:45, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

That is an assumption. Accusing a reputable, highly regarded publication, such as USA Today, using Wikipedia as its source is highly insulting and unlikely. That would place their reliability and standards in complete question. The times are purely coincidental, and not enough to warrant what you are accusing. Also, you stating you going to opening night does not qualify as a verifiable source. That actually, to some degree, gives you a conflict of interest (and also violates the guideline that you are not a reliable source). That would be as easy as me stating I was also at opening night and that it was an interlude. Cannot disprove that (for the record: I was not there before some says I was). There are verifiable sources — which is what Wikipedia cares about (verifiability) — stating "interlude", and if you yourself state you went to opening night, and are now claiming it was not an interlude, you introduced deliberate factual errors, which constitutes a accuracy dispute, which suggests reliable sources are needed to correct, both of which USA Today and Los Angeles Times (which cites USA Today for its information) are, unlike a Wikipedia user now claiming to be at opening night. Wikipedia requires us to stick to the source, of which both cited claim it was an interlude. It is also worth noting the USA Today was updated at 12:45pm ET on April 17, and the discrepancies were not removed. Surely, if they reported false information, they would have recanted and noted in their article, written by journalist Melissa Ruggieri (who per her profile, has and I quote, "more than 20 years of experience, she's covered thousands of concerts and interviewed everyone from Tony Bennett to Taylor Swift.") Surely, with that alone, her creditability is valid and acceptable per Wikipedia's policies and standards, or are we questioning her reliability at this point? Even People magazine has cited USA Today as a source (as exampled here). livelikemusic (TALK!) 19:16, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I would have to agree with User:Livelikemusic. This is no way that USA Today uses Wikipedia as a source. Regardless of whether the user has gone to opening night, the entire "I went to opening night, therefore this is true" is not going to pass verifiability. I am a fan of Janet Jackson too, but that does not stop me from abiding by the policies on Wikipedia which is that any source if added, has to be verifiable. If not verified by a source, it generally should not be included. Regarding the "(intermission interlude)" cited in the USA Today source, I think it should be kept. HorrorLover555 (talk) 16:30, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Redirect

We need a redirect when somebody types in Together Again Tour on Wikipedia, unfortunately somebody didn't go through the process of deleting a Frank Sinatra tour named that and just added a redirect to his page instead. Aaron106 (talk) 19:09, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

"Sexhibition"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The source being provided for the song being performed in Kansas City, which has had a bit of a back-and-forth, but has a source backing it - although I made time to do some research on where it came from, and I question if the source provided is reliable or not. Guestpectacular when I researched it, I suspect to be a user-generated source, as the website is about playlists and the probability of hearing a song at a concert. What do you think? Is it legitimate or not? As I cannot find any other sources that mention that it was performed that night. HorrorLover555 (talk) 16:12, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

[1]https://twitter.com/janetslegacy/status/1653626389864542208 Lost ingrande (talk) 05:44, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Twitter is a social network and is not a reliable source. HorrorLover555 (talk) 17:51, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I was told differently and everyone had used it as a source on nearly every single site I’ve been on except page where you are very much controlling and dictating of it. Lost ingrande (talk) 00:06, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Maybe on other sites they work, but on Wikipedia it is different. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fan page. Most of the sources that were provided are from fan accounts, which are not reliable. If the official account of Janet Jackson posted a video or proof that they did perform that song, it is a whole different story. HorrorLover555 (talk) 01:41, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.