Talk:Dancing in the Street/Archive 1

Untitled

I merged Dancing in the Street (Nikki Webster single) here as it was rather short and failed to establish why Webster's cover of the song deserves an entirely separate article. Lots of articles for songs that have had notable cover versions (such as I Will Always Love You, Respect (song)) have all the information on each version in one article; I don't see why this one should be treated differently. Perhaps user:Lillygirl would like to explain why she reverted my merge and split the Webster article back off into Dancing In The Street (Nikki Webster song) (losing the original page's edit history in the process) without any explanation other than "it looses all my reseach". Extraordinary Machine 21:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC) Cause it looks to messy all in one place and some people who just browse might get confused. Lillygirl 12:49, 11 April 2006 Does anyone have a source for the idea that this song was a response to widespread street fighting and riots in 1964? So this would be kind of a "can't we all get along" response. Not mentioned currently in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.123.250.198 (talk) 18:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The entire section 'Civil rights anthem' is embarrassing, but probably not to the disowned over the pond.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.96.8.126 (talk • contribs)

Fair use rationale for Image:BowieJagger DancingInTheStreet.jpg

Image:BowieJagger DancingInTheStreet.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 Wikipedia: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 18:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Martha-vandellas-dancing-street.jpg

Image:Martha-vandellas-dancing-street.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 Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Nikkiwebsterdancinginthestreet.jpg

Image:Nikkiwebsterdancinginthestreet.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 Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 15:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

---

It exists also a Petula Clark's version -- 16:06, 26 September 2008 62.77.56.12

Duplications

There seem to be a lot of duplications in this article. The 'Live Aid' tracklisting is given twice, and there are duplications between 'other versions' and the as-seen-on-TV entry (Which should surely be incorporated into the 'other versions' section?) Deke42 (talk) 09:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Bias and total non-neutral words abound

Has no one read the end of paragraph four and the non quote part of paragraph five of this article lately? I don't know if it's just me but there seems to be a ton of bias against the song that completely overrides the neutrality of the article.--97.113.122.158 (talk) 18:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

family guy reference

ok, I just added the quote from family guy to the page - in fairness i should have checked the history first. there seems to have been a bit of an edit war going on. Surely if it's relevant to mention the family guy part, it's relevant to mention the context in which it was played. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.76.147 (talk) 15:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't find it relevant at all to explain the joke. It's one thing to mention it in the article for that particular, which I also question, but that particular detail has no real relevance to this article which is truly about the song itself. The song's or video's appearance in other media is relevant. Explaining the joke as to why a video of the original song covered by other people appears in that other media is really not necessary. NJZombie (talk) 18:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

If the joke is not mention worthy, is the fact that it's in the episode at all worth mentioning? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.50.91 (talk) 19:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes. The playing of an the entire video is notable. The joke about it being gay isn't. I already explained that. NJZombie (talk) 20:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

You decided, you didn't explain or give any real rationale. Without it's context (insulting the video), saying that the entire video was included in the episode is either misleading or useless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.50.91 (talk) 20:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I explained the rationale within the edit summaries several times. In addition, it's been explained in this thread. You've just decide not to except it. I've already stated my side. You're just repeating bullet points about the context. By your logic, we should explain each pop culture reference in every episode of Family Guy. It would be similar to going to the Blue Harvest episode of the show and explaining that the argument about Robot Chicken at the end is significant because its Seth Green's show. The appearance of an entire video in other media is pretty significant. Telling the joke is not. That's the show's job, not Wikipedia's. NJZombie (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source discussing the appearance of the video within the episode, possibly with a reference to the context as well? If third-party sources aren't talking about the video's appearance in the episode then there may be an argument that the appearance is not in fact significant. Doniago (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe it to be far more notable that the video is the gayest video ever made than the fact that it appeared on some silly cartoon. --Captain Infinity (talk) 17:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

That's why what we should include should be dependent on what the source says rather than our personal beliefs on the matter. Doniago (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

What would qualify as an appropriate citation for the playing of the entire video in the family guy episode? I'm literally watching it on TV right now. -- Avi 68.96.94.208 (talk) 05:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I might start with checking reviews of the episode to see whether any of them note it. Doniago (talk) 16:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

order of versions

Shouldn't the Van Halen version, coming out several years before the Bowie/Jagger version, be listed second? And the line about Bowie/Jagger's being the "second hit version" be amended to third hit version? The way the article is now, seems to give a false impression that Bowie/Jagger's preceded Van Halen's, unless you pay special attention to the dates. 76.226.205.219 (talk) 01:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Bowie/Jagger & Family Guy

I just saw the above discussion after going through an add/revert/add/revert phase over the Bowie/Jagger video and its part in a Family Guy episode. I added the information, with reference, that the video was called "the gayest video ever made". User:NJZombie removed the quote. As I understand NJZombie's point of view, mentioning the Family Guy episode is acceptable, but re-telling "the joke" is not. I do not think of the quote as a "joke"; it was simple commentary. If the video was more integral to the plot, or if it was part of some interaction between characters, I might say it was a "joke", and did not need more detail. However, the video was aired, and a character made a descriptive comment, and as a reflection of our own culture, can be construed as actual critique. The following line, "That happened, and we let it happen", would be the "joke" that would need explanation & discussion of cultural differences between 1985 and 2005, and thus should be excluded. After all, pop culture references are supposed to explain the context, so that it's not just a list. Boneyard90 (talk) 12:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• The whole sequence was part of a long joke. It's irrelevant whether YOU thought of the line as a joke. It's a comedic show known for sophomoric humor, not social commentary. I'm on board for explaining that it was mentioning that it was part of the gag, not telling the joke or explaining what the joke meant. Including the line about it being the gayest video of all time is akin to just telling the joke and nudging each other because we got away with including it, just as the show basically did. NJZombie (talk) 00:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Seems we're at a deadlock over our interpretations on the extent of what should be described in the article, and as it does not seem at all likely that I would be able to convince you, I will not contest the wording for now. However, if other editors wish to discuss the matter, I would also be willing, until such time as there is a real consensus among interested parties. Boneyard90 (talk) 03:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd be curious to see what reliable sources have to say on the matter. If none of them even mention this occurrence of the video I think we should question whether we should discuss it in the article. Doniago (talk) 13:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I included what I thought was a reliable source, The A.V. Club, which reviews items of pop culture interest (music, movies, TV, etc.). Boneyard90 (talk) 14:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

If the mention of anybody's songs being played as part of a movie's soundtrack is significant enough to mention, as many articles do, I'd say the playing of an entire 26-year-old video on a major network's popular television show is significant enough to at least mention. While it's clear that there's some disagreement on whether the joke about it being the "gayest video" should be repeated or explained, I think there's enough of a general consensus to agree on that much. NJZombie (talk) 04:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

David Bowie and Mick Jagger version used in 1988 by TV network for promos.

So, I saw that this song, with the David Bowie and Mick Jagger cover from 1985, was used in 1988 by US TV network, ABC to promote ABC's campaign for 1988-1989, which was the 2nd version of "Something's Happpening". Can you add this with more info on the page?

Jonathan7157 (talk) 23:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Is there a reason why you're unable to add it yourself? I think you'd be fine as long as you could provide a reliable source. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 13:32, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, yes I want to add it, but I need to find a reliable source connecting that ABC sampled in some ways this cover for their campaign. YouTube, I guess. Jonathan7157 (talk) 16:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)