Talk:Why Did I Get Married?

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Janet Jackson Start‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Janet Jackson, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Janet Jackson and associated groups or individuals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Janet JacksonWikipedia:WikiProject Janet JacksonTemplate:WikiProject Janet JacksonJanet Jackson articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Explanation of Tony Sidaway's revert of an edit by Pixelface[edit]

I've reverted this edit because I think it's an attempt to beat about the bush.

The plot section is rena

Header text	Header text	Header text
Example	Example	Example
Example	Example	Example
Example	Example	Example

med "premise" and a substantial proportion is removed as "unsourced" (a bad move, I think, simply because we don't demand rigorous sourcing of the plot of publicly released movies).

The Box Office Performance section doesn't seem unreasonable, but because of the other problems with that edit I've chosen to revert the whole thing. That section can be restored individually I desired. --Tony Sidaway 23:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your edit and re-added new additions to the article by Dreby14. All you had to do was re-insert the text from the Plot section that I removed. Reverting the entire edit was unnecessary. I added information on the box office gross, with a reference. Based on that, I added the {{Box Office Leaders USA}} template. I also removed an improper <ref> tag from the Critical reception section. You think that "doesn't seem very productive"? I removed that text from the Plot section because *I* wrote it (based on another user's edits) and it was unsourced. The policy on verifiability says unsourced material may be removed at any time. I don't see why text that falls under a ==Plot== heading should be exempt from policy. You're assuming unsourced material (headings and the content that falls under them) is accurate. Text is not accurate simply because it has two equal signs put before and after it. Assuming headings are accurate is a faulty assumption, and assuming any text that comes after a Plot heading is accurate is also a faulty assumption (unless the text is sourced). Removing the entire Plot section would follow policy since it's likely original research. The only way an editor can prove they are not performing original research is to provide a source for their edits. If you want to re-insert the text into the Plot section, find a source that has published it. Rotten Tomatoes lists 14 reviews you can look through. Please consider making some productive edits yourself instead of reverting constructive edits. --Pixelface 01:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

10 years and I still have to read a book? EarthWormSpence (talk) 03:05, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]